Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
TW Scott:
What do the words "oppressive regime" mean to you, TW Scott? Come on, switch on that brain and think.
Such as?
Why dignify this with a response?
What do you want proof of? What will change your mind? Anything?
The fact is: you simply dodge all the relevant points I make and pretend you haven't read them, then again roll out the same set of tired arguments you came into this thread with in the first place. Your failure to even acknowledge the points I make to you, or to think about and answer the questions I put to you directly, displays a brand of intellectual dishonesty for which I have the lowest opinion. And to think: you started in this thread claiming the moral high ground. And look at you now. Aren't you ashamed of yourself?
Yes. Does that make eating meat right?
Yes. Does that make eating meat right?
How is that relevant?
A consequence of evolution. Does this make eating meat right?
Doesn't it? What is the difference? Please explain, with appropriate references, if you have any.
Agreed. Does this make eating meat right?
Arguable. It depends how you slice the cake. Does this make eating meat right?
This is false. From what source did you obtain this "fact", may I ask?
Take one example: Christianity. Christianity holds that eating shellfish is "an abomination", according to the bible. I hope you don't eat shellfish, TW. Or pork. Or any of those other animals forbidden in Ecclesiastes. Or do you find that part of the bible inconvenient?
Yes. Does this make eating meat right?
See my post to tiassa, above, regarding extreme scenarios. Clutching at straws?
Also, lack of food for animals kills the animals...
Are there no other fertilisers available? Like... er... manure from live animals?
Got any reasons for this moral imperative, that I haven't already refuted previously in the thread? And what about the rights of children, for example? What's the difference? Don't we give them rights, too?
Are there? Does this make eating meat right?
Yes, morals are subjective. But some are more defensible than others. Agree?
Congratulations. According to Godwin's law (look it up) you just lost the argument.
Regarding drinking? Perhaps. Or do you think his ethical standards about drinking are somehow related to his ethical standards regarding the treatment of his fellow human beings? In fact, do you know why he didn't drink? Was it on ethical grounds, or for some other reason? References, please.
Argument from authority is another logical fallacy. For all you know, I might be CEO of PETA, or something, but what does it matter? You decided to claim expertise as an expert botanist at one stage in this thread, I recall, but when pressed on it you ignored the issue.
The reason to convert to my line of thinking, in case you missed it, is that my arguments are cogent and persuasive. Not because I have a piece of paper with my name on it labelled "Vegetarianism expert", or whatever.
Your trust and reliance on authority figures and religious texts is endearing, TW Scott, but irrelevant. Your ought to grow up and start thinking for yourself.
In your case, I have the proof of your own words, in this very thread. What more is needed?
Let's start with one - you. Then we can both convert the remaining 5,999,999,998 together.
Correct. Does this make eating meat right?
And the misdeeds of a large number of people do not negate the truth of the smaller whole.
Are you thinking of something specific?
Then why do you keep doing it?
Agreed. Does this make eating meat right?
Agreed. Does this make eating meat right?
How do you know?
That's possible. So, I guess you'll be stopping now, then?
What do the words "oppressive regime" mean to you, TW Scott? Come on, switch on that brain and think.
Such as?
Why dignify this with a response?
What do you want proof of? What will change your mind? Anything?
The fact is: you simply dodge all the relevant points I make and pretend you haven't read them, then again roll out the same set of tired arguments you came into this thread with in the first place. Your failure to even acknowledge the points I make to you, or to think about and answer the questions I put to you directly, displays a brand of intellectual dishonesty for which I have the lowest opinion. And to think: you started in this thread claiming the moral high ground. And look at you now. Aren't you ashamed of yourself?
Yes. Does that make eating meat right?
Yes. Does that make eating meat right?
How is that relevant?
A consequence of evolution. Does this make eating meat right?
Doesn't it? What is the difference? Please explain, with appropriate references, if you have any.
Agreed. Does this make eating meat right?
Arguable. It depends how you slice the cake. Does this make eating meat right?
This is false. From what source did you obtain this "fact", may I ask?
Take one example: Christianity. Christianity holds that eating shellfish is "an abomination", according to the bible. I hope you don't eat shellfish, TW. Or pork. Or any of those other animals forbidden in Ecclesiastes. Or do you find that part of the bible inconvenient?
Yes. Does this make eating meat right?
See my post to tiassa, above, regarding extreme scenarios. Clutching at straws?
Also, lack of food for animals kills the animals...
Are there no other fertilisers available? Like... er... manure from live animals?
Got any reasons for this moral imperative, that I haven't already refuted previously in the thread? And what about the rights of children, for example? What's the difference? Don't we give them rights, too?
Are there? Does this make eating meat right?
Yes, morals are subjective. But some are more defensible than others. Agree?
Congratulations. According to Godwin's law (look it up) you just lost the argument.
Regarding drinking? Perhaps. Or do you think his ethical standards about drinking are somehow related to his ethical standards regarding the treatment of his fellow human beings? In fact, do you know why he didn't drink? Was it on ethical grounds, or for some other reason? References, please.
Argument from authority is another logical fallacy. For all you know, I might be CEO of PETA, or something, but what does it matter? You decided to claim expertise as an expert botanist at one stage in this thread, I recall, but when pressed on it you ignored the issue.
The reason to convert to my line of thinking, in case you missed it, is that my arguments are cogent and persuasive. Not because I have a piece of paper with my name on it labelled "Vegetarianism expert", or whatever.
Your trust and reliance on authority figures and religious texts is endearing, TW Scott, but irrelevant. Your ought to grow up and start thinking for yourself.
In your case, I have the proof of your own words, in this very thread. What more is needed?
Let's start with one - you. Then we can both convert the remaining 5,999,999,998 together.
Correct. Does this make eating meat right?
And the misdeeds of a large number of people do not negate the truth of the smaller whole.
Are you thinking of something specific?
Then why do you keep doing it?
Agreed. Does this make eating meat right?
Agreed. Does this make eating meat right?
How do you know?
That's possible. So, I guess you'll be stopping now, then?
Last edited:
i have put in some effort and i am asking why it is not acceptable for humans to eat meat when it is acceptable for other animals to?
thedevilsreject said:
A number of reasons, already discussed in the thread. Two of them are:
1. Some animals are not capable of digesting a vegetarian diet, but require meat to survive. Humans do not.
2. Many non-human animals do not have the higher-level reasoning abilities of humans which allows us to evaluate ethical concepts and make responsible moral decisions.
yes james but meat gives a lot of protein which can only be gained by taking protein supplements
thdevilsreject:
Read this:
http://www.womenfitness.net/protien-option.htm
*sigh* That's bullshit. James and myself have debunked that nonsense previously on this thread.
Read this:
http://www.womenfitness.net/protien-option.htm
James R said:
Means get off my dead ass grab a stick and do something about it. If I fail at least I tried. Of from what you are saying you'd just let them walk over you.
Every single argument opposing your twisted view. Oh wait it's called 'reality'.
Yes, why change your tactics now.
I want you to show me you are open to the larger truth. I understand you have your smaller one which is that you are uncomfortable taking you rightful place as a predator. I won't judge you as that is your choice. What I judge is that you, who advocates the murder of unborn children , are squemish about killing a cow for a steak.
No, but it doesn't change the fact that it is.
See above
How is it not, we have had to deviate from nature to grow grain, legumes, and all manner of crops.
Hmmm. Same as above and hardly a consequence.
Huh, so you equate your own craving for soy with an addicts need for crack? I am getting some rather interesting peeks into your psychology. I wonder do you equate the need to breathe with binge drinking.
When your body is craving a particualr food it is becuase it needs some sort of vitamin, mineral, antioxidant, starch, fat, and protein combination found only in that food. When a junkie craves a hit it is to fuel that reward circuit in the brain. Now if that is too hard to understand ask a counselor or doctor.
See above. And what about that makes it wrong either?
Not arguable, solid fact. One that shatters your conception that we shouldn't eat meat.
FFA, FDA, DNR, USDA, National Ranchers Association, my local branch of PETA, and many ranchhands I personally know. So now that you are done lying shut up.
Actually J side with true christians and folow Jesus' words that it does not matter what you consume. Or did you fant that part inconvienent. Not to mention you nitpicked, it never said eating meat was wrong, just certain dangerous ones (at the time)
Clutching at straws? Extreme? Blights have happened numerous times just in this nations history. As for lack of food killing the animals, well we can still eat what's left. LOL
Obvious not very good at reading the first one i mentioned was manure.
No, and I don't need one. Animals have not taken their rights so they do not deserve them
As for children, they are covered under our rights as the Human race has clearly pursued it's rights.
The fact you can't distuinguish human children from animals is another fascinating peek inot you psyche, and a disturbing one.
Yes. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't Of course it is hard to make something right that is already so. Of course i am beginning to see that you will simply ignore any logical argument and parrot your own emotional one.
And some need no defending. if you have to classify it as defensible than it is obviously flawed.
Congratulations on the best cop out I have ever seen.
Actually i know you are not. And if you were it gives you less credntial. As for my knowledge of botany, i said I was knowledgable. not a nearly and expert, but a far site better than you. As for your question you are not my employer and I don't like you why should I do anything nice for you.
Hardly cogent and anti persuasive, my sister was a vegetarian untill she read your arguemtn then she went out and bought a triple whopper just becuase of your comments.
What make you think I trust and rely on them. Couldn't it be I read what they had to say, did the independant research and discovered I agreed? Is it neccisary to disagree with others to be a free thinker? And aren't I free thinker when I look at what you are spouting and disagree?
Show me where I am amoral or immoral and be specific. Explain to me how society would see me as either. Personally i don't care if you do since i see you as amoral.
Let's start with one - you. Then we can both convert the remaining 5,999,999,998 together.
You'll never convert me. I have an allergy of soy and a love of hunting. Maybe i should convert you instead. Or maybe you do this as a lark as you eat your double cheeseburgers.
Explained above.
If you actually believed in the truth I would agree.
Only the ones concerning rising against opressors.
Actually I was erasing your more embarassing arguments and praying that it would help you in some small way improve.
The same way I know that the sun is bright, the grass is green, and air is clear. I'm not you.
Maybe I'm hoping it will be you.
Still going, TW Scott?
This is becoming something like talking to a spoilt child. You're effectively running around with fingers in your ears crying "I don't have to listen to you, whaaaa!" Once again, I can only suggest you grow up and act like the man you presumably are. I seriously doubt you pout in this way to your friends and family. Why does somebody you don't know challenging your long-held assumptions so rattle you?
Clearly, TW, if you were comfortable with your own beliefs, you would not be so indignant about this kind of challenge. If somebody accuses me of hypocrisy, or dishonesty, it is water off a duck's back, unless I know I have actually been hypocritical or dishonest. Similarly, if somebody accuses me of immorality, why would I care, unless I reflect on their words and know that the accusation is justified? Those who bluster and bluff to try to cover their wrongful deeds give themselves away, TW. Children do it all the time - which is why you remind me of a child.
Look at your latest post. It is almost devoid of actual content. Instead you accuse me of various "tactics", and you dig your heels in with the defiance of "you'll never convert me". It seems to me I must really be getting to you, since I have only ever made simple but effective arguments, to which you have failed to give any adequate response. And realising that you have no answers, instead of conceding the point, which would be the response of a mature adult, you choose instead to stand like a child with his hands on your hips, pouting and saying "I don't have to respond to the likes of you. Nyah!"
You're not presenting yourself in the best light, TW. I'm sure you're better than this in the "real world". It is a pity the posters here only get to see the spoilt child in you.
Anyhow, to the details of your last post (few as they are):
Spoken like somebody who has never met anybody with direct knowledge of life under a dictator. It's ok, TW. I won't press this point. You'll have to learn about this for yourself. Or, more likely, you won't.
You're rambling again, but let me guess at what you're trying to say. You're claiming that eating meat has a "larger truth" associated with it than being vegetarian, because eating meat makes the "predator instinct" come out? I wonder how this fits in with your self-confessed Christian faith, too. Jesus never said might is right, and give in to your basest instincts. You are a bundle of contradictions, TW.
Well, I don't see how acting as a brute has a "larger truth" than showing compassion, TW. Maybe you can explain it for me.
On your second point, you are wrong on both counts. Firstly, I do not advocate the murder of unborn children. I am pro-choice regarding the abortion debate, but that is not at all the same thing. My guess is that you take the point of view of many pro-lifers and equate the two characterisations in a simplistic black-and-white manner which requires no thought. But this is a different debate, and one I don't intend to have in this thread. Secondly, I am not "squeamish" about killing a cow. I have had as much experience in the deaths of animals (including cows and calves) as I would ever want to have, and I accept death as an often unfortunate, yet sometimes inevitable outcome.
I must say I am surprised that you would mistake my moral argument against meat eating for mere "squeamishness" over the process of killing. In doing so, you completely miss the point. You may think you are a big man for being willing to point your big, male gun at a deer and shoot it, TW, but having the capacity and desire to kill on a whim at a distance doesn't make you any better than me. On the contrary, it just underlines your immorality. The fact is, I could easily run around shooting animals, just like you do, but I choose for moral reasons not to do so. Understand?
Is this another attempt at the naturalistic argument?
I personally do not crave soy. But, in principle, I do not see why there would be a fundamental difference between craving soy and craving crack. Both cravings would have physical and psychological components, presumably. Breathing, on the other hand, is an absolute requirement. I don't need soy or alcohol to live, but I do need air.
Sounds a bit simplistic to me. I think a desire for a particular food may have a physical component (some of the time), but there's also a pychological element, and also social elements bearing on the kinds of foods or drugs we are brought up to desire. You (and tiassa, incidentally) are trying to assert that everything you eat is only a response to some kind of biochemical requirement of your body. I doubt that is true, and what's more, I think you are basing this "theory" on what you wish to be true, rather than on any actual fact. But you already know that, don't you?
Oh, come on, TW Scott! You really are exasperating, and I don't believe you really are this dumb. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we have specific taste receptors for the taste of meat. For the purposes of your argument, that is just another variation on the fact that we have canine teeth, or the capacity to digest meat. I have already responded to this argument, many times, though you seem to have a limited capacity to keep multiple memories going at once - a somewhat disingenuous one, too, if I may say so. For your benefit, I will repeat the argument yet again:
"Natural" does not equate to "morally acceptable".
Got it yet? Yes, we can eat meat. I accept that. Then, the question is: should we eat meat. Are you at first base yet?
I note you provide no actual references - just a list of "authorities". Try harder. Come on. You should be able to win on this point, TW, if what you say is actually true. Press your advantage home! Show the readers how misguided I am, with solid fact.
Ok, bible man. You know the source. Quote the relevant passages from your bible. (You can win on this point, too! Maybe.)
Haven't we already done this one, too?
Human children are animals. And so are you.
Again with this accusation? I have responded to all your arguments, TW, in detail. You're the one who claims he doesn't have to answer questions or respond to points raised. Remember?
I don't know where to start with this. You seem to have tossed logic out the window. Are you saying you only believe in undefensible ethical principles? Surely not, but it seems like you are. Or are you simply confused?
Did you look up Godwin's law (try Google)? Are you aware of the concept of comedy, TW Scott? Don't you know when I'm playing with you? Lighten up. Get a sense of humour.
How do you know? You sure claim to know a lot about me. And yet, you previously mistook me for somebody who lived near you. (You never did explain or apologise for your mistake. How uncharitable of you.)
Funny, that, since I have expressed no opinions on any aspect of botany, in this thread at least. Maybe we ought to organise a quick "botany quiz", and see who triumphs? On second thoughts, let's not. I'll concede this one. I bow to your superior botanical expertise, and will defer to you if it ever becomes relevant. Happy?
This is getting more and more amusing. Are you saying that you only answer questions asked by your employer? I don't think you are; I think this is just part of your childish petulance.
I'll tell you why you should answer my questions, TW Scott. Intellectual integrity, that's why. You are choosing to freely participate in this discussion. Being an intellectual discussion, if you make an argument, the general expectation is that you ought to be equipped and willing to defend it. And mere repetition is not a defence or an answer to objections. You would do poorly indeed in a formal debate, based on your current performance.
Here's how it is supposed to work. I put a case. You ask questions to clarify my position, and I answer them. You put your case. I ask questions, and you answer them. We both raise objections to the other's position. Further rebuttals and questioning follows. In the end, we agree to disagree, or one of us changes his mind. And we all stay nice during the process, respecting the rules of the debate, and the other debater. In future discussions, you might find following this structure helpful.
On the issue of not liking me, that's a shame. I'm really quite a friendly, fun person, with a lot of tolerance and an understanding of differing perspectives. But never mind. I understand why you feel defensive, and I bear you no grudge.
Can I talk to her? If what you say is true, I would find a discussion with her to be much more interesting than the one I'm having with you. Please encourage her to sign on to sciforums and join the discussion. Hey, it will even be two against one, then, which might help you.
Here are a few questions I would like to ask her. You can pass them on for me if she is nervous about talking to me directly.
1. Why did you decide to become vegetarian, in the first place?
2. How long have you been a vegetarian?
3. Did you find being a vegetarian difficult, either in terms of eating a balanced diet, or in terms of pressure from family or friends, especially living where you live?
4. TW tells me you decided to return to eating meat based on my comments. Which comments in particular swung your views? What made you rethink your decision (assuming your vegetarian decision was a moral choice in the first place)?
5. Presumably, you are now in a good position to give moral reasons for eating meat. Please explain why you think eating meat is moral, now.
I'm serious about this, TW. I really would be most interested to talk to your sister. Please tell her I'm not the devil incarnate. I will try to be nice to her, I promise.
There are always at least two sides to every important debate, and you can't agree with everybody, so yes, it is always necessary to disagree with some people in order to be a free thinker.
Does disagreeing with me make you a free thinker? Not in itself. It depends more on how you arrived at your disagreement. Did you consider the issue at hand, from all sides, dispassionately, and make an informed decision? Or did you rely mainly on your prejudices and the words of a few trusted authority figures or texts?
You're contradicting yourself. Either you're interested in why I see you as immoral, or you are not. Which is it?
And that's all that matters? After all this discussion, can't you can start addressing more important issues than your own selfish desires?
Who knows? You'd be more successful in coverting me, perhaps, if you gave some positive reasons to eat meat. (i.e. moral reasons, since my argument is an ethical one, as you know).
This is becoming something like talking to a spoilt child. You're effectively running around with fingers in your ears crying "I don't have to listen to you, whaaaa!" Once again, I can only suggest you grow up and act like the man you presumably are. I seriously doubt you pout in this way to your friends and family. Why does somebody you don't know challenging your long-held assumptions so rattle you?
Clearly, TW, if you were comfortable with your own beliefs, you would not be so indignant about this kind of challenge. If somebody accuses me of hypocrisy, or dishonesty, it is water off a duck's back, unless I know I have actually been hypocritical or dishonest. Similarly, if somebody accuses me of immorality, why would I care, unless I reflect on their words and know that the accusation is justified? Those who bluster and bluff to try to cover their wrongful deeds give themselves away, TW. Children do it all the time - which is why you remind me of a child.
Look at your latest post. It is almost devoid of actual content. Instead you accuse me of various "tactics", and you dig your heels in with the defiance of "you'll never convert me". It seems to me I must really be getting to you, since I have only ever made simple but effective arguments, to which you have failed to give any adequate response. And realising that you have no answers, instead of conceding the point, which would be the response of a mature adult, you choose instead to stand like a child with his hands on your hips, pouting and saying "I don't have to respond to the likes of you. Nyah!"
You're not presenting yourself in the best light, TW. I'm sure you're better than this in the "real world". It is a pity the posters here only get to see the spoilt child in you.
Anyhow, to the details of your last post (few as they are):
Spoken like somebody who has never met anybody with direct knowledge of life under a dictator. It's ok, TW. I won't press this point. You'll have to learn about this for yourself. Or, more likely, you won't.
You're rambling again, but let me guess at what you're trying to say. You're claiming that eating meat has a "larger truth" associated with it than being vegetarian, because eating meat makes the "predator instinct" come out? I wonder how this fits in with your self-confessed Christian faith, too. Jesus never said might is right, and give in to your basest instincts. You are a bundle of contradictions, TW.
Well, I don't see how acting as a brute has a "larger truth" than showing compassion, TW. Maybe you can explain it for me.
On your second point, you are wrong on both counts. Firstly, I do not advocate the murder of unborn children. I am pro-choice regarding the abortion debate, but that is not at all the same thing. My guess is that you take the point of view of many pro-lifers and equate the two characterisations in a simplistic black-and-white manner which requires no thought. But this is a different debate, and one I don't intend to have in this thread. Secondly, I am not "squeamish" about killing a cow. I have had as much experience in the deaths of animals (including cows and calves) as I would ever want to have, and I accept death as an often unfortunate, yet sometimes inevitable outcome.
I must say I am surprised that you would mistake my moral argument against meat eating for mere "squeamishness" over the process of killing. In doing so, you completely miss the point. You may think you are a big man for being willing to point your big, male gun at a deer and shoot it, TW, but having the capacity and desire to kill on a whim at a distance doesn't make you any better than me. On the contrary, it just underlines your immorality. The fact is, I could easily run around shooting animals, just like you do, but I choose for moral reasons not to do so. Understand?
Is this another attempt at the naturalistic argument?
I personally do not crave soy. But, in principle, I do not see why there would be a fundamental difference between craving soy and craving crack. Both cravings would have physical and psychological components, presumably. Breathing, on the other hand, is an absolute requirement. I don't need soy or alcohol to live, but I do need air.
Sounds a bit simplistic to me. I think a desire for a particular food may have a physical component (some of the time), but there's also a pychological element, and also social elements bearing on the kinds of foods or drugs we are brought up to desire. You (and tiassa, incidentally) are trying to assert that everything you eat is only a response to some kind of biochemical requirement of your body. I doubt that is true, and what's more, I think you are basing this "theory" on what you wish to be true, rather than on any actual fact. But you already know that, don't you?
Oh, come on, TW Scott! You really are exasperating, and I don't believe you really are this dumb. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we have specific taste receptors for the taste of meat. For the purposes of your argument, that is just another variation on the fact that we have canine teeth, or the capacity to digest meat. I have already responded to this argument, many times, though you seem to have a limited capacity to keep multiple memories going at once - a somewhat disingenuous one, too, if I may say so. For your benefit, I will repeat the argument yet again:
"Natural" does not equate to "morally acceptable".
Got it yet? Yes, we can eat meat. I accept that. Then, the question is: should we eat meat. Are you at first base yet?
I note you provide no actual references - just a list of "authorities". Try harder. Come on. You should be able to win on this point, TW, if what you say is actually true. Press your advantage home! Show the readers how misguided I am, with solid fact.
Ok, bible man. You know the source. Quote the relevant passages from your bible. (You can win on this point, too! Maybe.)
Haven't we already done this one, too?
Human children are animals. And so are you.
Again with this accusation? I have responded to all your arguments, TW, in detail. You're the one who claims he doesn't have to answer questions or respond to points raised. Remember?
I don't know where to start with this. You seem to have tossed logic out the window. Are you saying you only believe in undefensible ethical principles? Surely not, but it seems like you are. Or are you simply confused?
Did you look up Godwin's law (try Google)? Are you aware of the concept of comedy, TW Scott? Don't you know when I'm playing with you? Lighten up. Get a sense of humour.
How do you know? You sure claim to know a lot about me. And yet, you previously mistook me for somebody who lived near you. (You never did explain or apologise for your mistake. How uncharitable of you.)
Funny, that, since I have expressed no opinions on any aspect of botany, in this thread at least. Maybe we ought to organise a quick "botany quiz", and see who triumphs? On second thoughts, let's not. I'll concede this one. I bow to your superior botanical expertise, and will defer to you if it ever becomes relevant. Happy?
This is getting more and more amusing. Are you saying that you only answer questions asked by your employer? I don't think you are; I think this is just part of your childish petulance.
I'll tell you why you should answer my questions, TW Scott. Intellectual integrity, that's why. You are choosing to freely participate in this discussion. Being an intellectual discussion, if you make an argument, the general expectation is that you ought to be equipped and willing to defend it. And mere repetition is not a defence or an answer to objections. You would do poorly indeed in a formal debate, based on your current performance.
Here's how it is supposed to work. I put a case. You ask questions to clarify my position, and I answer them. You put your case. I ask questions, and you answer them. We both raise objections to the other's position. Further rebuttals and questioning follows. In the end, we agree to disagree, or one of us changes his mind. And we all stay nice during the process, respecting the rules of the debate, and the other debater. In future discussions, you might find following this structure helpful.
On the issue of not liking me, that's a shame. I'm really quite a friendly, fun person, with a lot of tolerance and an understanding of differing perspectives. But never mind. I understand why you feel defensive, and I bear you no grudge.
Can I talk to her? If what you say is true, I would find a discussion with her to be much more interesting than the one I'm having with you. Please encourage her to sign on to sciforums and join the discussion. Hey, it will even be two against one, then, which might help you.
Here are a few questions I would like to ask her. You can pass them on for me if she is nervous about talking to me directly.
1. Why did you decide to become vegetarian, in the first place?
2. How long have you been a vegetarian?
3. Did you find being a vegetarian difficult, either in terms of eating a balanced diet, or in terms of pressure from family or friends, especially living where you live?
4. TW tells me you decided to return to eating meat based on my comments. Which comments in particular swung your views? What made you rethink your decision (assuming your vegetarian decision was a moral choice in the first place)?
5. Presumably, you are now in a good position to give moral reasons for eating meat. Please explain why you think eating meat is moral, now.
I'm serious about this, TW. I really would be most interested to talk to your sister. Please tell her I'm not the devil incarnate. I will try to be nice to her, I promise.
There are always at least two sides to every important debate, and you can't agree with everybody, so yes, it is always necessary to disagree with some people in order to be a free thinker.
Does disagreeing with me make you a free thinker? Not in itself. It depends more on how you arrived at your disagreement. Did you consider the issue at hand, from all sides, dispassionately, and make an informed decision? Or did you rely mainly on your prejudices and the words of a few trusted authority figures or texts?
You're contradicting yourself. Either you're interested in why I see you as immoral, or you are not. Which is it?
And that's all that matters? After all this discussion, can't you can start addressing more important issues than your own selfish desires?
Who knows? You'd be more successful in coverting me, perhaps, if you gave some positive reasons to eat meat. (i.e. moral reasons, since my argument is an ethical one, as you know).
James said:
I don't think it is a coincidence that fish is so good for us. We are geared to eat fish - it's very healthy. We may have eaten it in many steps in our evolution. I hope the oceans can support our incredible insatiable appetite for sea food, because I don't want species in the sea to die, and I want a sustainable source of nutrition for my own species. What is wrong with that? If people were starving to death, would you want them to eschew fish because you think it is morally wrong? I don't think you would. I have not made up my mind about cows ect. yet.
Oh, BTW do you guys know how long your posts are becoming? I did linear regression analysis on the lengths and by my calculations, by next tuesday at 4:56am they will each be 10^78 characters long - or to the moon and back 46.3 times if each letter was end to end! Take a look at your last posts:
[long cut-and-paste deleted]
I don't think it is a coincidence that fish is so good for us. We are geared to eat fish - it's very healthy. We may have eaten it in many steps in our evolution. I hope the oceans can support our incredible insatiable appetite for sea food, because I don't want species in the sea to die, and I want a sustainable source of nutrition for my own species. What is wrong with that? If people were starving to death, would you want them to eschew fish because you think it is morally wrong? I don't think you would. I have not made up my mind about cows ect. yet.
Oh, BTW do you guys know how long your posts are becoming? I did linear regression analysis on the lengths and by my calculations, by next tuesday at 4:56am they will each be 10^78 characters long - or to the moon and back 46.3 times if each letter was end to end! Take a look at your last posts:
[long cut-and-paste deleted]
Last edited by a moderator:
This is becoming something like talking to a spoilt child. You're effectively running around with fingers in your ears crying "I don't have to listen to you, whaaaa!"
but couldnt TW percieve that as you james, as you are doing the same thing to him?
but couldnt TW percieve that as you james, as you are doing the same thing to him?
Theoryofrelativity said:
You make it sound as if the animals only use is to be slaughtered and eaten.
You can eat the animal once it is dead, there is no need to falsely mass-produce them, to slaughter for pleasure, it is uncivilised.
Jan.
True there is the leather industry.
In all actuallity cattle are not slaughtered for pleasure, they are slaughtered for sustenance. Which is not wrong even if we could possibly survive on a vgan diet. That we enjoy the taste is not wrong either. Merely a side condition. It has little to do with the sustenance issue. That people harp on the issue that the only reason cows are killed is becuase steak gives us pleasure is stupid. That is like saying sex is only about the pleasure. The pleasure is just a fringe benefit. A sort of bonus from the cosmos for doing something good for us.
In all actuallity cattle are not slaughtered for pleasure, they are slaughtered for sustenance. Which is not wrong even if we could possibly survive on a vgan diet. That we enjoy the taste is not wrong either. Merely a side condition. It has little to do with the sustenance issue. That people harp on the issue that the only reason cows are killed is becuase steak gives us pleasure is stupid. That is like saying sex is only about the pleasure. The pleasure is just a fringe benefit. A sort of bonus from the cosmos for doing something good for us.
Could the audience please have a summary of the debate so far?
James R said:
Till the day you die of malnutrition
(jk)Actually, I am beginning to agree. Talking to you is like talking to a spoilt child. You will not accept facts, reality, or even the rights of others. I am listening to you however, and much like watching television, it lowers my IQ. As for your suggestion to grow up, how dare you ask me to do something you haven't. (lol jk) What rattles me about you is your assumptions. Your assumptions that anying you say, do or think should be embraced by others. You don't see me saying that everyone must eat meat, but you say the opposite.
Of course I haven't lived under a distator, at least as country. You are speaking to man who was once an abused child. Protective Service did not end it. Me picking up a two by four and teach my father a lesson when I was fifteen did it. He quit hitting an bullying me and started being a real father at least for a while. Now my dad was a form heavyweight boxer in highschool and college as well as a wrestler and he could have easily beat me to death, but I stood up to him. So I am not asking them to do anything more than I did. If they can't then they starve simple as that.
Actually I am Pro-choice thus my outrage at your hypocracy. I do believe a unborn child is a person, but I also believe it is not my decision to make a mother act one way or the other. In fact I have help two friends get abortions and then helped them through the emotional train wreck that follows. But that is the end of that subject.
Oh so you prefer to let them starve to death. Sadistic.
But who said you had to live, that is just a physical and psychological mandate.
Really? It makes more sense then the psychological, becuase I hate brussle sprouts with a passion. They taste awful to me and are just a disgusting texture in my moth. I'd rather eat a bar of soap. Then why do a i get a craving once in a while and no matter what I eat it doesn't go away until i choke down some brussel sprouts. That certainly doesn't dsound psychological to me.
I had already finished nine innings, unfortunately your agument makes no sense. You are saying discard what we seem to perfectly capable of doing and in fact are geared to enjoy physically and psychologically on the basis that it does not prove the argument all by itself. You see I'm of the belief that make a good argument you need major structural supports and minor ones as well. This is a minor one but still important.
Well hard to get page references from phone calls, and considering that these are the people who actually know, versus reporter with a slant, and organization in need of a bad spin, I think it is good enough as do people whose opinions actually matter.
Don't remember the exact passages but it is when agent of the Pharises were acusing Jesus and disciples of breaking the Sabbath becuase they harvested a bit of wild wheat on the seventh day. Jesus said sothing to the effect of "I am the master of Sabbath..." and one for a short while before "And I tell you it is not what you take inot your body that decides if you come to the father, but what you take into your heart. Take me into your heart and worry not about the fesh."
Okay I will clarify since you seem to wrap your self in willful stupidity. (I know you're not this dumb or dense, but damn you keep acting like it when you want). Human have set them selves apart from animals and with good reason. By definition that covers human children.
Now I was pointing out that you keep claiming the high ground. If your argument was so good you wouldn't need defense. As for my own belief they NEED NO DEFENSE, They are impeachable.
Well actually since this is a discussion of morals and not dry facts I may have invoked the Goodwins Law, but the unspoken agreement that I lost the discussion does not apply as we are discussing morals and his mention was entirely appropiate.
Becuase I know who the CEO of PETA is. As fro the local, well i am sure you are not him any more. Just another sad vegetarian member of PETA who finally got cuaght videotaping his love of animals. I'm actually glad you are not him to tell the truth I would the sterilize my computer.
I'm not that good, just learned a lot when I took the course. Plants can and do suffer. So taking the ground that they don't feel anything is not viable, of course they are still nonsentient so you got that going for you. Just hoping this helps your arguments.
No, it just means that you can't berate me for not doing your work for you. If you are curious if I am right look it up yourself. It could be you learn something more by going to a sie I don't know about.
Well I would like to like you. And perhaps if we could see the middle ground of calling it not right or wrong then perhaps we would be closer to an answer than mankind has ever come to this problem. I do see your points about the cruelty that a few institutions perpetuate. Doesn't mean I am gonna give up meat, just changes who i buy it from.
I doubt it, while my sister does not believe in guns she does believe in frying pans and those damn things hurt. Plus in all honesty you'd get nowhere faster. She believe eating meat is okay, she just didn't do it for gastronomical reasons. Thanks to her medication most meat gives her horrible cramps.
There are a minimum of three side to any debate. Side A, Side B, and the truth which almost never agrees fully with both sides.
Hey passion is life, anyone who removes passion from thought might as well come with Windows installed. As for making an informed decision I did. I decided that the few evils entiled in a smally part of a meat industry need to be culled. Best way is to boycott factory farmed meat.
Actually interesting and care are two different things. I have a morbid curiousity about infections and pus, but when it comes to getting rid of it if it works I don't care how you do it.
Actually i don't want you to eat meat. More for me. (jk)
Really i don't actually want to convert you, just a bit of my bipolar peaking out. What i want id for you to see that it is not immoral. You can still decide not to do it becuase you'd rather not, but making it a moral argument paves the way to things to arguments like this.
So after all this I offer this. Eating meat is not morally right or wrong. It just is. There are times when is wrong, like human flesh and factory farmed meats. There are times when it is morally right hunting deer so that the herds can be supported by the land in winter. But overall it is like drinking water not ethical or unethical.
This allows you to convince others not to eat it on logical grounds, which is more likely to work.
Facial
Valued Senior Member
TW Scott said:
Breathing air - no significant harm
Drinking water - no significant harm
Consuming water - harm on the industrial scale
Eating vegetables & fruit - harm to many plants, but plants are not sentient
Eating meat - harm to many animals, and all animals are sentient
Is there anything wrong with this?
99% of the time in the US, this does not happen. I presume you live in the US. You have to realize that the meat you do in fact eat comes from factory farming - where animal lives very similar to humans' lives are born and lost as if they were nothing. They are sped up to die and abused in many ways, and their reproductive rights are completely surrendered to humans. It is probably comparable, if I would dare say, to the Nazi concentration camps - except that they would force you to spill out kids - which they would later kill after beefing up several months later - ad infinitum.
It is imperative to extirpate the childhood "Old Macdonald" image out of one's mind, because it is not reality. Up until early high school I defended my actions of eating meat just as you are doing here, but now I realize that I am wrong, and regard myself quite fortunate to step beyond the realm of childhood subconscious influence.
Facial said:
Actually saying every animal is sentient is stretching it completely. Besides it doesn't matter if they are sentient, just if they are important to society. What is cattles contribution to society? Leather and Steak. Who am I to refuse this valuable contribution.
Uh, stupidity does run rampant in your mind. No my meat does not come form factory farms. in fact I daresay none of the local meat does why becuase I have been to the ranches as an adult so shut up and stop lying.
TW Scott:
The truth is, the vast majority of cattle which are slaughtered would not be killed if people did not eat meat. In fact, they would not exist at all, since they are bred solely to be eaten.
Eating meat is unnecessary, and results in untold cruelty to cattle in many forms.
Of course, we can't help it if we enjoy the taste of meat. We can't help it if having a lot of sex is pleasurable. We can't help it if we find pointing a gun at an animal and shooting it to be fun (or can we?). But we can choose not to put our pleasures above the more significant interests of other people or animals.
99% of the time, sex is only about pleasure. What percentage of sexual encounters result in children, do you think? A tiny, tiny proportion. The main reason people have sex is that they enjoy it - no other reason. Similarly, the overwhelming reason people eat meat is that they enjoy it, and they have never considered the moral implications of their actions. Like you, they see nothing wrong with it.
Your accusations are far too broad. You say I assume that everything I do ought to be embaced by others. But in fact, I am only talking about eating or not eating meat in this thread. Your extrapolation to all other actions is invalid. For example, I enjoy playing tennis, but that doesn't mean I think everybody should play tennis. Why? Because whether or not you play tennis doesn't create net harm. But eating meat causes untold harm. Therefore, whether you eat meat is morally significant, whereas whether you play tennis doesn't really matter.
In fact, I am quite libertarian. If your actions don't harm others (people or animals), then chances are that I won't want to stop you from engaging in them. It is only where there is harm that I start to worry.
I am truly sorry to hear that you were abused, TW Scott. Nobody should have to go through that. But wouldn't you have preferred it if you had not had to take matters into your own hands to deal with that situation? Wouldn't it have been good if somebody had protected you?
Surely you don't believe that every abused child is better off having to fight for themselves, with no help?
Here's another guess, for what it's worth. I'm guessing that you were pro-life before you had these personal experiences of abortion. Many pro-lifers assume that women who have abortions kill more or less on a whim, or were not careful enough about getting pregnant in the first place, etc. etc. Sometimes, they discover the real facts and change their minds.
In the same way, you are pro-meat, and you live in the comfortable delusion that most meat production is not from factory farming. You imagine the Old MacDonald type of farm mentioned by Facial, where animals are well treated and live long and happy lives until they are eventually killed. The reality is very different.
Another disingenuous response from you. Instead of responding with integrity to the point I raised, you attempt once again to caricature my position with a straw man. Why can't you face the actual issues head-on?
True, but one I am rather unwilling to give up, understandably. Therefore, assuming that I am not going to lay down my life to save the environment, I try to minimise the harmful impacts I have as far as is practical. Giving up eating meat can be difficult, but I think the benefits are worth it.
When I was young, there were a number of foods I did not eat, purely by choice, because I didn't like the taste or texture (e.g. pumpkin, mushrooms). Over time, my tastes have changed, so I now eat both of those foods. Is that because my body has changed so I now require mushrooms when I did not require them before? Or are there other factors at work?
The point is very very simple: what we enjoy is not always the right thing to do. Do you accept that, or not?
In other words, you can provide no solid evidence that factory farms are a minority in terms of meat production in the USA. I assert once again that your claim is false, and invite you to provide evidence to the contrary, if it indeed exists.
What good reason? So they can exploit animals for their own purposes and feel like it is justified? Slave owners did the same thing with their slaves.
For beliefs which need no defence, you sure are spending a lot of time and effort defending them.
As I said before, if plants truly feel and suffer in the same way animals feel and suffer, then you have made a good argument for not eating plants. That still doesn't help you to justify eating meat. And, in fact, you still get the moral low ground compared to vegetarians, since you eat plants and meat, whereas they only eat plants, which makes your actions more reprehensible.
That's a start. Small steps are better than nothing. However, you are wildly incorrect that it is only "a few institutions" which perpetuate cruelty in the meat industry. I really urge you to do a little research on this, rather than just repeating your assumptions.
We will not be able to agree that the issue of meat eating is not a moral question, as you would like to have it. There are conscious, feeling beings involved, and they are worthy of moral consideration. Your attempt to put your actions in this regard outside the scope of moral condemnation is just another rationalisation and an attempt to provide yourself with a convenient escape clause.
But you said she decided to return to eating meat based on my comments. I am still most interested in what led her to that decision, if what you say is true.
Ok. Would you change your mind further if I took the time and effort to show you that factory farming is not a "small part of the meat industry", but in fact is the major part of it?
On this subject, I still wonder why you care how your meat is produced? If killing animals for food is acceptable, then why do you care about how it is done? What makes factory farming worse than traditional farming, for you? Whose interests are affected by the particular methods of raising and killing meat animals which are employed?
It must be clear to you that my position is that it is immoral to eat meat. I have given you reasons, and I have asked you many times why it is moral (i.e. why I am wrong.) So far, your only substantive responses have been that what is natural is right (a logical fallacy), or that meat eating is outside the circle of moral consideration at all (which it isn't).
So, are you asserting that animals have no interests in and of themselves? They are merely vehicles for human exploitation as we see fit? And if it doesn't matter whether they are sentient, then I come back to my previous question: what is wrong with factory farming? If factory farming is efficient and produces cheap meat of high quality, does anything else matter? The (human) consumers are happy. And, according to you, the suffering of the animals is irrelevant. I can't understand your position on this, then.
As I said before, it may be (and I don't know) that you live in an unusual area, in which factory farming does not occur. But I doubt it. I think that if you go to your local McDonald's or Burger King, the meat you will be served there has more than likely come from a mass-production factory farm. It may not even be produced from locally-farmed beef, but might be shipped from across the nation.
The truth is, the vast majority of cattle which are slaughtered would not be killed if people did not eat meat. In fact, they would not exist at all, since they are bred solely to be eaten.
Eating meat is unnecessary, and results in untold cruelty to cattle in many forms.
Of course, we can't help it if we enjoy the taste of meat. We can't help it if having a lot of sex is pleasurable. We can't help it if we find pointing a gun at an animal and shooting it to be fun (or can we?). But we can choose not to put our pleasures above the more significant interests of other people or animals.
99% of the time, sex is only about pleasure. What percentage of sexual encounters result in children, do you think? A tiny, tiny proportion. The main reason people have sex is that they enjoy it - no other reason. Similarly, the overwhelming reason people eat meat is that they enjoy it, and they have never considered the moral implications of their actions. Like you, they see nothing wrong with it.
Your accusations are far too broad. You say I assume that everything I do ought to be embaced by others. But in fact, I am only talking about eating or not eating meat in this thread. Your extrapolation to all other actions is invalid. For example, I enjoy playing tennis, but that doesn't mean I think everybody should play tennis. Why? Because whether or not you play tennis doesn't create net harm. But eating meat causes untold harm. Therefore, whether you eat meat is morally significant, whereas whether you play tennis doesn't really matter.
In fact, I am quite libertarian. If your actions don't harm others (people or animals), then chances are that I won't want to stop you from engaging in them. It is only where there is harm that I start to worry.
I am truly sorry to hear that you were abused, TW Scott. Nobody should have to go through that. But wouldn't you have preferred it if you had not had to take matters into your own hands to deal with that situation? Wouldn't it have been good if somebody had protected you?
Surely you don't believe that every abused child is better off having to fight for themselves, with no help?
Here's another guess, for what it's worth. I'm guessing that you were pro-life before you had these personal experiences of abortion. Many pro-lifers assume that women who have abortions kill more or less on a whim, or were not careful enough about getting pregnant in the first place, etc. etc. Sometimes, they discover the real facts and change their minds.
In the same way, you are pro-meat, and you live in the comfortable delusion that most meat production is not from factory farming. You imagine the Old MacDonald type of farm mentioned by Facial, where animals are well treated and live long and happy lives until they are eventually killed. The reality is very different.
TW Scott said:
Another disingenuous response from you. Instead of responding with integrity to the point I raised, you attempt once again to caricature my position with a straw man. Why can't you face the actual issues head-on?
True, but one I am rather unwilling to give up, understandably. Therefore, assuming that I am not going to lay down my life to save the environment, I try to minimise the harmful impacts I have as far as is practical. Giving up eating meat can be difficult, but I think the benefits are worth it.
When I was young, there were a number of foods I did not eat, purely by choice, because I didn't like the taste or texture (e.g. pumpkin, mushrooms). Over time, my tastes have changed, so I now eat both of those foods. Is that because my body has changed so I now require mushrooms when I did not require them before? Or are there other factors at work?
The point is very very simple: what we enjoy is not always the right thing to do. Do you accept that, or not?
In other words, you can provide no solid evidence that factory farms are a minority in terms of meat production in the USA. I assert once again that your claim is false, and invite you to provide evidence to the contrary, if it indeed exists.
What good reason? So they can exploit animals for their own purposes and feel like it is justified? Slave owners did the same thing with their slaves.
For beliefs which need no defence, you sure are spending a lot of time and effort defending them.
As I said before, if plants truly feel and suffer in the same way animals feel and suffer, then you have made a good argument for not eating plants. That still doesn't help you to justify eating meat. And, in fact, you still get the moral low ground compared to vegetarians, since you eat plants and meat, whereas they only eat plants, which makes your actions more reprehensible.
That's a start. Small steps are better than nothing. However, you are wildly incorrect that it is only "a few institutions" which perpetuate cruelty in the meat industry. I really urge you to do a little research on this, rather than just repeating your assumptions.
We will not be able to agree that the issue of meat eating is not a moral question, as you would like to have it. There are conscious, feeling beings involved, and they are worthy of moral consideration. Your attempt to put your actions in this regard outside the scope of moral condemnation is just another rationalisation and an attempt to provide yourself with a convenient escape clause.
But you said she decided to return to eating meat based on my comments. I am still most interested in what led her to that decision, if what you say is true.
Ok. Would you change your mind further if I took the time and effort to show you that factory farming is not a "small part of the meat industry", but in fact is the major part of it?
On this subject, I still wonder why you care how your meat is produced? If killing animals for food is acceptable, then why do you care about how it is done? What makes factory farming worse than traditional farming, for you? Whose interests are affected by the particular methods of raising and killing meat animals which are employed?
It must be clear to you that my position is that it is immoral to eat meat. I have given you reasons, and I have asked you many times why it is moral (i.e. why I am wrong.) So far, your only substantive responses have been that what is natural is right (a logical fallacy), or that meat eating is outside the circle of moral consideration at all (which it isn't).
So, are you asserting that animals have no interests in and of themselves? They are merely vehicles for human exploitation as we see fit? And if it doesn't matter whether they are sentient, then I come back to my previous question: what is wrong with factory farming? If factory farming is efficient and produces cheap meat of high quality, does anything else matter? The (human) consumers are happy. And, according to you, the suffering of the animals is irrelevant. I can't understand your position on this, then.
As I said before, it may be (and I don't know) that you live in an unusual area, in which factory farming does not occur. But I doubt it. I think that if you go to your local McDonald's or Burger King, the meat you will be served there has more than likely come from a mass-production factory farm. It may not even be produced from locally-farmed beef, but might be shipped from across the nation.