Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
James R said:
Fortified with animal byproducts
Really that stupid? It is the intestinal flora (and yes it is called that) that live inside most grazing animals that makes the B12. So piss off.
It is only a fallacy if you can prove it is. Yes, just becuase it is natural does not make it right, but it can help support your other reasons. Also just becuase it is natural doesn't mean it is wrong either. The burden is on you James R, becuase you claim eating meat is morally wrong.
Well you had me till the sexist and racist comments. Take those out and you get.
Not so bad huh?
Last edited:
TW Scott:
I have never talked about cutting out by-products. I'm quite happy for people to eat eggs and drink milk, with some qualifications. Eating an egg does not kill an animal.
Another non sequitur.
Bacteria aren't flora. And, by the way, I'm not interested in your fascination with bodily functions. Grow up.
It's an obvious fallacy. I've given you many examples which demonstrate that already. Surely you're not this thick really?
So, you're conceding the point now?
I never said it did. What makes eating meat wrong is all the things I've explained to you several times in excrutiating detail earlier in the thread.
A burden I have more than satisfied.
You're reading selectively. I wonder why...
No, I know why.
I have never talked about cutting out by-products. I'm quite happy for people to eat eggs and drink milk, with some qualifications. Eating an egg does not kill an animal.
Another non sequitur.
Bacteria aren't flora. And, by the way, I'm not interested in your fascination with bodily functions. Grow up.
It's an obvious fallacy. I've given you many examples which demonstrate that already. Surely you're not this thick really?
So, you're conceding the point now?
I never said it did. What makes eating meat wrong is all the things I've explained to you several times in excrutiating detail earlier in the thread.
A burden I have more than satisfied.
You're reading selectively. I wonder why...
No, I know why.
"Morality is not "completely subjective", as you claim." - james R
James R said:
Well, you're only one of a dozen people I am writing about. In your case I am not sure what to label your disfunction. So I am submitting you as the class assignment for diagnosis or possibly lump you together with Darkstar. So far my instructor assumes you are corresponding form a mental institution. I haven't had the heart to tell her that you wander the streets.
Okay, james R, if this is you thread then you will have to prove without a doubt mankind needs no special effort to survive without meat. That means if meat consumption stopped tomorrow would the least educated people out there still be getting all of their nutrients. If we stopped importing annd exporting foods across long distances, would vegetarians get the specific food they need? If trade of foods from country to country dried up wuld there be a negative effect to vegetarians?
Now before you say this is pointless I do have something to point out. All of the things we can do that are immoral take no special effort not to do. There is no special steps you take not to murder, rape, torture, lie, or steal. In those cases you simply don't do them and nothing bad happens to you. Now stop eating meat with careful planning, deep pockets, and education and you are living well enough. Miss any one of those and your health worsens. See the difference here. Obviously there is something about meat we need. When we take it away we have to make do with substandard replacements that may not always be available.
Ultimately when it comes down to it, eating meats is like eating vegetable, grains and fruits. We are killing something so we may maintain our life. Now if you are squeemish and abhor killing other animals that is fine. Knock yourself out. Don't pretend it is becuase you have a higher moral standard, or that your ethics are more advanced. They aren't. You are no better and no worse than the average man.
TW Scott said:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously though, I think Jimmy just makes things up to stir up debate. It is obvious that vegetarianism is just a radical and ideological movement thanks to our very comfortable lifestyles nowadays.
TW Scott:
You're taught that intelligent debate is dysfunctional?
Who is this instructor? Is this at a reputable university, or some buy-a-degree-for-$10 outfit?
You have a lecturer in psychology who can't tell a normal person from somebody with a mental problem? At this stage, I'd be seriously worried about the education you're being sold.
Get her to sign up to sciforums and I'll be happy to talk to her in person and see if I can sort this out for you. I'd hate to think you were wasting your time (and money?). You need a real education.
No, I don't.
If very often takes effort to do the right thing. It is easier to drop litter on the street than to make the effort to put it in a trash can. It is often tempting to lie rather than to tell the truth. When you are confronted with the opportunity for personal gain but it involves hurting somebody else, it can be hard to act morally.
So it is with choosing what you eat.
The fact is, it is not difficult to have a healthy vegetarian diet. But even if it takes a little more effort, if you make that effort you can be comfortable that you're acting ethically. When you eat meat, you know that you are acting unethically.
Your import/export arguments are pie in the sky. Don't worry yourself - it might never happen.
Education isn't too hard. Run a few TV ads. That should be enough.
Also, we could phase vegetarianism in gradually, to let people get used to the idea. We could start with the educated people, and you could join in a little later once you've got an education.
Did you forget our previous discussion about sentience? How convenient and dishonest of you again.
It illustrates my point rather well, though, don't you think? See how it was easier to lie and ignore our previous discussion rather than face the uncomfortable truth that you are immoral?
You're taught that intelligent debate is dysfunctional?
Who is this instructor? Is this at a reputable university, or some buy-a-degree-for-$10 outfit?
You have a lecturer in psychology who can't tell a normal person from somebody with a mental problem? At this stage, I'd be seriously worried about the education you're being sold.
Get her to sign up to sciforums and I'll be happy to talk to her in person and see if I can sort this out for you. I'd hate to think you were wasting your time (and money?). You need a real education.
No, I don't.
If very often takes effort to do the right thing. It is easier to drop litter on the street than to make the effort to put it in a trash can. It is often tempting to lie rather than to tell the truth. When you are confronted with the opportunity for personal gain but it involves hurting somebody else, it can be hard to act morally.
So it is with choosing what you eat.
The fact is, it is not difficult to have a healthy vegetarian diet. But even if it takes a little more effort, if you make that effort you can be comfortable that you're acting ethically. When you eat meat, you know that you are acting unethically.
Your import/export arguments are pie in the sky. Don't worry yourself - it might never happen.
Education isn't too hard. Run a few TV ads. That should be enough.
Also, we could phase vegetarianism in gradually, to let people get used to the idea. We could start with the educated people, and you could join in a little later once you've got an education.
Did you forget our previous discussion about sentience? How convenient and dishonest of you again.
It illustrates my point rather well, though, don't you think? See how it was easier to lie and ignore our previous discussion rather than face the uncomfortable truth that you are immoral?
madanythonywayne:
I've been thinking a little more about your earlier post. It seems to me you are rather inconsistent in your outlook. Let's take another look.
I wonder. Do you equally despise people who smoke? That is surely an "effete affectation"? If vegetarianism is unhealthy, as you say, and an effete affectation to boot, then smoking is by far worse on the same grounds.
Speaking of effete affectations, what do you think of a person who dresses up in a hunter's outfit that he imagines makes him look like Rambo and then goes poncing through the forests waving his big, manly gun?
What about the guy who dons his baseball cap and jumps into his big, manly Farrari with its V12 engine?
What do you think of women who wear high heels? Surely another unhealthy effete affectation?
Guys who go to the gym to flex their muscles in front of the mirror? Effete affectation?
It seems that about half the people in the world must get on your nerves.
Speaking of storming the beaches at Normandy, and fighting to the last man, did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian?
He didn't seem averse to a good old fight now and then.
I don't think Hitler was a member of the far left...
Hey, and what do you think of animal activists who break into animal labs and cause all kinds of damage? You must like them, right? They're violent and forceful, which is what you seem to like.
I've been thinking a little more about your earlier post. It seems to me you are rather inconsistent in your outlook. Let's take another look.
I wonder. Do you equally despise people who smoke? That is surely an "effete affectation"? If vegetarianism is unhealthy, as you say, and an effete affectation to boot, then smoking is by far worse on the same grounds.
Speaking of effete affectations, what do you think of a person who dresses up in a hunter's outfit that he imagines makes him look like Rambo and then goes poncing through the forests waving his big, manly gun?
What about the guy who dons his baseball cap and jumps into his big, manly Farrari with its V12 engine?
What do you think of women who wear high heels? Surely another unhealthy effete affectation?
Guys who go to the gym to flex their muscles in front of the mirror? Effete affectation?
It seems that about half the people in the world must get on your nerves.
Speaking of storming the beaches at Normandy, and fighting to the last man, did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian?
He didn't seem averse to a good old fight now and then.
I don't think Hitler was a member of the far left...
Hey, and what do you think of animal activists who break into animal labs and cause all kinds of damage? You must like them, right? They're violent and forceful, which is what you seem to like.
James R said:
Of course not, which is why I think you are highly dysfunctional
First of all I do not name drop, as that can lead to cyber stalking. It is a reputable university CMU.
There are no normal people without mental problems. It is the very first thing you learn in psyche 101. In fact one of the biggest indicators that a person has mental problems is that they claim they have none.
Actually, I have tried to get her to sign up, but she a practice and classes to teach. She may have a bit of free time, but why should she spend that with people crazier than some of her patients. Oh and thank you for the second time in proving your ignorance by insulting CMU.
First of all the first is of questionable moral standing. Dropping a banna peel in the woods is hardly an evil act. And dropping a wrapper in the street is just laziness. As for lieing, it is tempting to lie yes, but it is also hard work. Make no mistake of that. Telling the truth, even if it is painful is always easier in the long run. Now the personal gain problem is that you are activively doing it in a way to hurt people. It might seem like the easier way at first but in the long run you do much more and gain less.
Man I love how you lie here. What you eat is of no moral or etical importance unless what your eating is stolen from someone else or was someone else. And by that I mean a nother human. Go ahead be a vegetarian, it makes absolutely no difference in your morality. In fact I am beginning to believe that some few vegetarians would be better people if they ate meat. No you of course.
Might never happen? So you are betting your health on a system that gets disrupted constantly. That we are rapidly running out of fuel for and that is polluting our environment
First of all not everyone watches television. Second of all people need real education if they are gonna be vegetarian/vegans. They need all the facts. We don't have them yet. There needs to be more research done. Much more before we are truly ready to understand the risks and limited benefits.
Well I think you find that the people with real educations will be hard to sway from their diet choice. Some people chose to be Vegans, some choose to be Vegetarians, the majorityof us choose to remain ominvores. Which side is right? All? None?
Funny how you think me clinging to the the fact that a plant is just as valuable as cow seems to be dishonest. I'm not lieing at all, just sticking to my guns. Why is it any better to eat an acorn than it is to eat a steak? Sure you prettify it with sentience. You draw an imaginary line in the sand much like I do. The problem is I see any living thing as equal and you view animals as somehow deserving of rights. Well in a way you are right, animals have the same right they give us: The chance to runaway before they are lunch.
I am tired of you avoiding your responsibilities. You have proven nothing except your willingness to ignore any rational argement and cling to you aesthetics. I am weary of you continous ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies, emotional appeals, and general laziness. You have offered no concrete proof that eating meat is immoral, only you view. And while your view is important to you, that opinion and five nickles will get you a quarter.
James R said:
Interesting paralell actually.
Have you seen Rambo? Oh that's right obviously not. A hunter wears camo in order to get into a better postion to take their shot. Unlike what you think, deer, elk, caribou, and moose are dangerous. I woun't even mention bears. And in all my years hunting i have never seen anyone wave their gun.
Okay first it is Ferrari. Second it is hardly big. Third, maybe they are speed junkies. You know they get the same thrill driving fast as you get making ad hominems and logical falacies.
Actually several girls I know wear them to improve their posture. Also they are to make the leg look slimmer and attract more desirable mates.
You got a point there.
No wonder your statistcs suck ass if you think half the world does one of those things.
Actually he was a thundering moron strategically. And he himself never fought. He sent other people to do it for him. He'd ask his generals for plans and then ignore them and when he lost would blame the generals.
Actually he was just a sleazy two bit, cowardly, cry baby lunatic who liked doing his retarded cousin. Yeah great poster boy for vegetarians.
Yeah they break into unguarded labs, break fragile equipment, release animals that might not be fit to live in the wild, and they disrupt legitimate research. That is only the complete opposite of protecting your friends and family.
TW Scott:
What are yours?
Come now, TW Scott. You must have been taught by now that there are a range of behaviours that are regarded as normal, and a range that are regarded as indicative of mental disturbance.
If you'd been taught properly in your psych course, you would know I'm sane and rational. I can only draw one of two conclusions. Either the course itself and/or your instructor are far below standard, or you aren't bright enough or don't make enough effort to understand what you're being taught. I wanted to talk to your instructor to see if it was her or you that had the problem, but I guess I'll never know.
Repeating your assertions doesn't make them any truer.
You have yet to produce any logical rationale for treating humans differently from other animals when it comes to basic rights to life. Maybe one day you'll come up with something. Who knows?
Better in what way? Less argumentative, you mean? Less likely to prick your conscience?
You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?
Yes, if the world economy collapses at some stage, we'll all be in trouble. But not because we're vegetarian.
A lot of research has already been done. Vegetarians seem to be less prone to heart disease and prostate cancer than meat eaters, to mention just a couple of results at random.
As for the facts relevant to the moral decision, they're all in already, so you can decide on that basis alone, quite apart from the health benefits of the vegetarian diet.
Most meat eaters never seriously consider their choice to eat meat, especially from a moral perspective. They just go along with the status quo that they've been brought up with. Every vegetarian and vegan, on the other hand, has considered the question and made a conscious choice.
Who is right? The vegetarian/vegans of course.
Valuable in what way?
Economically, meat is more expensive than vegetables. It also costs much more to produce.
If you say plants and animals are on an equal footing in terms of intrinsic moral value, that is a different matter. The relevant question then becomes, once again, why you consider that humans are more valuable than both plants and all other animals. You're inconsistent in your own stated beliefs. Tell me: on what basis do you rank plants and animals as equal, but put humans on a separate, higher level? What characteristic do you use for your bizarre ranking scheme?
Not an imaginary line.
Ask your psych lecturer.
Animals (take mammals for a start if unsure) are sentient. Plants are not. That is a real difference, not an imagined one. Most people have no trouble appreciating that. (Maybe this is your mental problem. Everybody has one, apparently. Maybe you ought to include yourself in your paper.)
"Somehow"? Come now, I've already explained how to you.
Animals deserve rights by virtue of the Principle of Equal Consideration, which is the basis of every defensible moral system. Read the thread again if you need to refresh your memory.
You don't apply that standard to your children. In fact, I don't think you apply it to any human being. You have a clear double standard, with no valid reason.
You can't "prove" a moral imperative. All you can do is argue it in a logical, persuasive manner. Then, it is up to the person hearing the argument to choose to do what they know is right, or not.
Again with the double standard. What gives you the right to claim that I am mentally disturbed, to make emotional appeals, to be lazy and forgetful, while at the same time you aren't held to the same standards?
You'd look a lot better if you started practising what you preach. Otherwise, you risk looking like a hypocrite.
What are yours?
Come now, TW Scott. You must have been taught by now that there are a range of behaviours that are regarded as normal, and a range that are regarded as indicative of mental disturbance.
If you'd been taught properly in your psych course, you would know I'm sane and rational. I can only draw one of two conclusions. Either the course itself and/or your instructor are far below standard, or you aren't bright enough or don't make enough effort to understand what you're being taught. I wanted to talk to your instructor to see if it was her or you that had the problem, but I guess I'll never know.
Repeating your assertions doesn't make them any truer.
You have yet to produce any logical rationale for treating humans differently from other animals when it comes to basic rights to life. Maybe one day you'll come up with something. Who knows?
Better in what way? Less argumentative, you mean? Less likely to prick your conscience?
You're really grasping at straws, aren't you?
Yes, if the world economy collapses at some stage, we'll all be in trouble. But not because we're vegetarian.
A lot of research has already been done. Vegetarians seem to be less prone to heart disease and prostate cancer than meat eaters, to mention just a couple of results at random.
As for the facts relevant to the moral decision, they're all in already, so you can decide on that basis alone, quite apart from the health benefits of the vegetarian diet.
Most meat eaters never seriously consider their choice to eat meat, especially from a moral perspective. They just go along with the status quo that they've been brought up with. Every vegetarian and vegan, on the other hand, has considered the question and made a conscious choice.
Who is right? The vegetarian/vegans of course.
Valuable in what way?
Economically, meat is more expensive than vegetables. It also costs much more to produce.
If you say plants and animals are on an equal footing in terms of intrinsic moral value, that is a different matter. The relevant question then becomes, once again, why you consider that humans are more valuable than both plants and all other animals. You're inconsistent in your own stated beliefs. Tell me: on what basis do you rank plants and animals as equal, but put humans on a separate, higher level? What characteristic do you use for your bizarre ranking scheme?
Not an imaginary line.
Ask your psych lecturer.
Animals (take mammals for a start if unsure) are sentient. Plants are not. That is a real difference, not an imagined one. Most people have no trouble appreciating that. (Maybe this is your mental problem. Everybody has one, apparently. Maybe you ought to include yourself in your paper.)
"Somehow"? Come now, I've already explained how to you.
Animals deserve rights by virtue of the Principle of Equal Consideration, which is the basis of every defensible moral system. Read the thread again if you need to refresh your memory.
You don't apply that standard to your children. In fact, I don't think you apply it to any human being. You have a clear double standard, with no valid reason.
You can't "prove" a moral imperative. All you can do is argue it in a logical, persuasive manner. Then, it is up to the person hearing the argument to choose to do what they know is right, or not.
Again with the double standard. What gives you the right to claim that I am mentally disturbed, to make emotional appeals, to be lazy and forgetful, while at the same time you aren't held to the same standards?
You'd look a lot better if you started practising what you preach. Otherwise, you risk looking like a hypocrite.
James:
PWNED!
LOL!
PWNED!
James R said:
In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya,
"I don't think you know what that word means"
Effete means weak. People who smoke, drive fast, hunt, fish, lift weights, etc. are not weak. Quite the contrary. They engage in these activities to prove their strength.
Well, now I agree with you.
Now all this time I was resisting bringing up that famous vegetarian, and you went and did it yourself. Regarding Hitler not being a member of the far left, when you're that far to the left or the right; it's all the same. Do you think it's really that different to live under a fascist dictatorship than to live under a communist dictatorship? I've always pictured the whole left/right spectrum as being more of a circle. Rather than being as far apart as is possible, fascism and communism are in fact right next to each other.
I hate animal rights activists. As TW said, breaking into an unguarded lab and letting loose a bunch of rats doesn't demonstrate any great courage. By the way, have you seen that movie, I think it was called thirty days later, where the brave animal rights activists break into a lab and let loose a diseased monkey that proceeds to kill them all? The whole theature laughed out loud when the monkey jumped right onto the face of the idiot who had just freed him.
madanthonywayne:
I know what it means. I was using it in the sense of your definition (2), although come to think of it definitions (3), (4) and (1) apply equally well to my examples (not necessarily in that order).
Not exactly. Read your own definition. Ineffective is not the same as weak.
No. They engage in those activities to endulge themselves and attempt to boost their own egos. Well, some of them do. You attempt to stereotype vegetarians, so I think a little stereotyping of smokers, hunters and weightlifters is probably fair, don't you?
Meh. Whatever. The point was that you thought vegetarians wouldn't fight in the trenches etc. You were wrong.
No? Breaking into a battery hen farm and being confronted by some redneck waving a shotgun doesn't take courage?
Yeah, I saw it. It wasn't a documentary, you know.
I know what it means. I was using it in the sense of your definition (2), although come to think of it definitions (3), (4) and (1) apply equally well to my examples (not necessarily in that order).
Not exactly. Read your own definition. Ineffective is not the same as weak.
No. They engage in those activities to endulge themselves and attempt to boost their own egos. Well, some of them do. You attempt to stereotype vegetarians, so I think a little stereotyping of smokers, hunters and weightlifters is probably fair, don't you?
Meh. Whatever. The point was that you thought vegetarians wouldn't fight in the trenches etc. You were wrong.
No? Breaking into a battery hen farm and being confronted by some redneck waving a shotgun doesn't take courage?
Yeah, I saw it. It wasn't a documentary, you know.