Until you give all animals equal rights to humans,

[Roman]

[

But it's sturdier and is more resistant to tearing, puncturing, distorting, etc. There's good reason for it being the classic motorcycle jacket. Besides, you're exaggerating. I rode motorcycles for twenty years and found leather to be good insulation. It's a perfect outer layer over a sweater if it gets colder.They may be warm and waterproof but they are CLAMMY. They don't breathe. You can wear a leather jacket on a warm day, but if you try that with a synthetic you'll be stewing in your own broth. Like those nasty "microfleece" sweat-suits. Sweat indeed.

I've trekked through wilderness most people have only read about for over 20 years. Polypro is the way to go. There's a reason why everyone uses plastics over leather- they're vastly superior. Leather is good for attachment points on gear because it is more durable, but it is also heavier and takes longer to dry, as well as being plain inefficient at keeping you warm and dry. I can wear a plastic windbreaker that breathes, weighs about an ounce (zipper included), and can be stuffed into a compartment the size of my fist.

The reason why you sweat on a hot day in fleece is because you're over insulating yourself. I could go on for pages about the sorts of clothes to wear, and when and where, for pages, and never once mention leather.

There's an argument for leather boots, especially for mountaineering, but not leather jackets. They're ok for putting around Cali on your bike, but nothing more than that.

This sounds like a case for wool. It's sustainable and doesn't kill the sheep (or other artiodactyl). Everybody's got a job to do and being shaved once a year (if it's done humanely, I'm not familiar with the process) doesn't sound like the world's worst job.

Wool is awesome. There are some really great microblends out there as well as 100% wools with awesome weaves. It's become more popular, as wool technologies caught up with plastics, since it tends not to stink like the plastics do, as well as produce less pollution in its production. Wool is also safe around campfires, since it won't melt if you get an ember on you. I've had all plastic on, have a spruce log pop embers on me, and got a burn hole all the way through to my crotch. I was so frantic to put it out, I got burns all over my hand.

Why would she need a gun?

Because it's easier to use than a bow?

 

[codanblad]

codanblad, perhaps you missed the part of my post reading: '"Hats off" to vegans, etc. that practice a different lifestyle than the one I have elected.'

why are you saying hats off to them? i'm not here to win you over, i don't care what you think of vegans.

As to the other, I do not consider it immoral or unfair to eat animals, but I would certainly ascribe those attributes to 'rape and torture'.

I do not recognize your right to insinuate, by implication or otherwise, that I am unfair and / or immoral because I chose not to be a vegetarian and stop eating meat. I will be quite content to do so when we are able to synthesize meat products. After a period of adjustment, I believe the human race will adopt a completely different position regarding killing animals. That behavior will probably become almost nonexistent and most people will share the viewpoint you apparently have today.

well i'll say it, rather than imply it, i consider you immoral for harming an animal in situations where you just felt like eating meat. its justifiable if there was no other food source. as far as anyone in the thread knows, humans only need very small amounts of specific meat.

i don't have a problem with you eating animals. i doubt the cow cares once its dead. the pain inflicted on animals is what i have issue with, in their living conditions and when they're slaughtered.

However, we are not there yet. So we will have to settle for agreeing to disagree about whether it is right or moral to eat animals. I do not hunt for "sport" nor kill anything for fun. I outgrew the desire for sport hunting long ago, and I believe mankind will similarly outgrow killing animals at all - eventually. That day has not yet arrived...

why will we outgrow killing animals?

if you have the time and are interested, or if you want to criticise me or ask me something, i'm pretty sure i've covered almost everything in previous posts.

 

[codanblad]

Im sorry to break it too yah, but animal rights extremist arguements like yourselfs are based on the fact that animals are equivalent to humans. Which in reality theyre not.

Animals did not discover oil, or fire, or harness electricity, they didnt cure diseases, create penicilin. They just eat, crap, and die, not much more to it than that, if you look at the long term, you mahy throw in evolve.

i don't think animals are equal to humans. i just feel sorry for animals that are being hurt.

why do the achievements of men who don't even know you give you the right to harm animals? what do you do other than eat crap and die that is so special?

 

[codanblad]

codanblad:

You believe that morality is objective, and that anyone who does not follow the one and only moral law is behaving in an immoral way (even though, I think, you would admit that no human being can ever be positively certain that he "knows" what that objectively true moral law is).

that is true, though i've already said i only hold a person accountable to their own subjective morality and their explanation for it. if i think a person gives poor justification for their morality, i'll consider them immoral. my judgement is based upon my own opinions though, its subjective too. i can see the flaw in that but i feel standing up for what i believe in, at the risk of being wrong, is a necessary evil.

I believe that all morality is subjective and what we, as a society, call "immoral" is based on a consensus view of many subjective opinions.

i'm not concerning myself with what society's opinions.

It seems to me, in that event, that we would treat ethics as subjective anway, because even if we feel strongly about a particular rule, we have to have the humility to recognize that our view may be incorrect--that we have no stronger or better understanding of the perfect "form" of ethics than those who disagree with us.

i do acknowledge i may be wrong. we can evaluate an moral assertion with logic though, we can determine the strength of each argument from that perspective. so despite having no understanding of the perfect form of ethics, we have a method of measuring morals.

(The other alternative is that morality flows directly from Reason, which might render it discoverable, but many philosophers have started with that premise, including Kant, and yet no general consensus has every been reached that they were on to anything that could be considered "universal.")

general consensus is a poor way to measure truth. i suppose i'm arguing from this perspective, that morality is logical.

 

[codanblad]

It occurs to me that. If only the pure could judge the rest of us, then there would be no justice for the pure are a minority, and morals and laws are defined by the majority. Wow. I cant believe i wrote all that using an N95.

justice is defined as righteousness, and if the pure are righteous, wouldn't they reach a righteous outcome? it seems unfair that nobody else would have a say, but the impure will further their own goals rather than seek justice. otherwise they'd be pure (at least within the context)

Morality isn't necessarily defined by the majority, only described according to perceptions. Laws are not justice, just what people voted for.

 

[Randwolf]

why are you saying hats off to them? i'm not here to win you over, i don't care what you think of vegans.

I say that because they follow through with action based on their specific concept of morality. I respect that.

As to the other, I don't believe you trying to "win me over", if by "winning" you mean actual conversion from omnivore to herbivore.

I do believe that you're here to convince people that eating meat is immoral. Otherwise, why bother posting at all? Surely, you would get some satisfaction from a person stating "Oh, I honestly see your point now. You're right, eating meat is immoral." So, in this sense I think you are here to "win me over".

well i'll say it, rather than imply it, i consider you immoral for harming an animal in situations where you just felt like eating meat. its justifiable if there was no other food source. as far as anyone in the thread knows, humans only need very small amounts of specific meat.

So your point is that it's a quantitative rather than a qualitative argument? Killing some animals is OK, but killing some + x is immoral? What is that magic number? Actually, I think you are talking more about motivation than anything else. I.e., if you only kill animals to obtain the "very small amounts of specific meat" that humans "need', then it is not immoral. Right?

I share your view that it is immoral to take life purely for the joy of killing, as I stated previously. On the other hand, choosing to eat meat is not immoral, IMO. Meat is part of the natural diet of (most) humans. If choosing to eat meat is immoral, then any omnivorous species that kills to eat is immoral. You already stated humans are the only species that contemplates morality in the first place - I highly doubt that the prey cares whether the predator is acting in a "moral" fashion. It just does not want to be on the dinner menu, period.

i don't have a problem with you eating animals. i doubt the cow cares once its dead. the pain inflicted on animals is what i have issue with, in their living conditions and when they're slaughtered.

We are in agreement again, regarding pain, suffering and torture. I said that straight out in a previous post. I can give any number of examples of inhumane conditions imposed on livestock. Have you ever been to a chicken farm, for example? It ain't purty! Until the profit motive disappears though, this "torture" will continue. For example, people just aren't willing to pay for raising chickens in a less crowded environment, or caging, transporting, and killing them in a more humane fashion. Even if they do object to the morality of these practices, they are not going pay three times the going rate to get meat that was treated "nicely" prior to death! I think your first post in this thread stated something to the effect that even "you are too lazy" to be a strict vegetarian, even though you clearly believe it is immoral to eat meat when alternatives exist.

why will we outgrow killing animals?

I already told you:

I will be quite content to do so [stop eating meat] when we are able to synthesize meat products. After a period of adjustment, I believe the human race will adopt a completely different position regarding killing animals. That behavior will probably become almost nonexistent and most people will share the viewpoint you apparently have today.

However, we are not there yet.

if you have the time and are interested, or if you want to criticise me or ask me something, i'm pretty sure i've covered almost everything in previous posts.

codanblad, you might want to take your own advice here. Most all of my responses have already been covered in my previous posts. Do you not read them, or were they written in such an incomprehensible manner that you couldn't extract the meaning?

It seems that we are in agreement as to "killing for the fun of killing", inhumane conditions that livestock are subject to while being raised and killed, the morality of killing animals for meat when it is a matter of survival or to obtain the "very small amounts of specific meat" that humans need, etc. We simply disagree on the morality of choosing to eat meat when alternatives are available.

In light of your views on morality being subjective rather than objective, I'm not sure we have any real disagreement at all. I respect your right to consider it immoral to eat meat because it tastes good, can't you respect my right to consider the same act to be moral?


If I have any problem with your stance at all, it would involve perceived hypocrisy:

i agree with the OP but i'm too lazy to be a vegetarian all the time.

I can't see how my eating meat because it is tasty is worse than you eating meat because you are lazy...

 

[Pandaemoni]

general consensus is a poor way to measure truth. i suppose i'm arguing from this perspective, that morality is logical.

Morality doesn't always flow from pure logic. There are always underlying premises that flow from subjective factors and not directly from logical imperatives. With the right premises underlying one's reasoning, I can see how one's morality can then be determined as a logical exercise, but another person could always reject one or more of those premises, or introduce new premises that lead to fundamentally different conclusions.

If I buy a few loaves of bread, and then come upon starving man, logic all by itself doesn't *require* that I share my bread with him to save his life (nor does it prohibit it).

What is the logic behind the notion that one should not make animals suffer? That their suffering makes me feel bad is an emotional response that that could be the basis for an otherwise logical conclusion that I should not make animals suffer, but only if one assumes "I should avoid making myself feel bad" as a postulate. Further and more fundamentally, not everyone would feel bad making an animal suffer. Little boys have been pulling the wings off flies since at least the time of Shakespeare. If tormenting animals amuses them, perhaps the logic is that they should torment more animals.

Of course, that cannot be your test, since those would wind up being subjective conclusions based on personal emotional gains (and you have indicated that your morality needs to be objective)...so you tell me: what is the syllogism that ends in the conclusion "Therefore, it is wrong to cause animals to suffer."

It seems to me that that is more of an emotional "truth" rather than one stemming from logic, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

I would point out that Kant is clearly very smart, and he believed that morality was objective and logical, and yet his morality reached conclusions that I find odd (like it being "immoral" to lie from benevolent motives, such as telling a lie to misdirect a murderer away from his intended victim). I certainly do understand how Kant's (usually unstated) premises led him to his conclusions, but once you see his premises, it usually became clear that his views would be incompatable with my own.

 

[codanblad]

I say that because they follow through with action based on their specific concept of morality. I respect that.

I do believe that you're here to convince people that eating meat is immoral.

that cleared that up, cool.

that i am. by win you over i meant earn your respect, rather than convert you.

Killing some animals is OK, but killing some + x is immoral? if you only kill animals to obtain the "very small amounts of specific meat" that humans "need', then it is not immoral. Right?

its the difference between self defense and murder. if you kill them to survive, i think its justifiable.

I share your view that it is immoral to take life purely for the joy of killing, as I stated previously. On the other hand, choosing to eat meat is not immoral, IMO. I highly doubt that the prey cares whether the predator is acting in a "moral" fashion.

i don't thinking eating meat is immoral. i think hurting creatures is immoral.

I can give any number of examples of inhumane conditions imposed on livestock.Until the profit motive disappears though, this "torture" will continue. I think your first post in this thread stated something to the effect that even "you are too lazy" to be a strict vegetarian, even though you clearly believe it is immoral to eat meat when alternatives exist.

if people stop buying meat from such places then they won't make money. i know that will probably never happen though.

you are correct. i'm not telling people to do as i do though. my laziness is a flaw. i accept all criticism, but i'm not being hypocritical, i didn't say i'm a good person.

codanblad, you might want to take your own advice here. Most all of my responses have already been covered in my previous posts. Do you not read them, or were they written in such an incomprehensible manner that you couldn't extract the meaning?

i'm sorry if you found my request for you to read my earlier posts condescending, i'm just struggling to keep up. of course i read them i've replied to a bunch of them, i think i've understood them but who knows.

in regards to the specific question of 'why do you think we'll stop eating meat' i was wondering whether i could evoke a response of 'because eating animals is often wrong', basically. i don't know why you have this faith in man's ability to manufacture a fake meat, even then it could be more expensive than meat and not affect meat sales.

It seems that we are in agreement as to "killing for the fun of killing", inhumane conditions that livestock are subject to while being raised and killed, the morality of killing animals for meat when it is a matter of survival or to obtain the "very small amounts of specific meat" that humans need, etc. We simply disagree on the morality of choosing to eat meat when alternatives are available.

well i have no problem with people eating meat, so long as it was for their survival and the animal was always treated as humanely as possible, or the animal died of natural causes. are we in agreement?

In light of your views on morality being subjective rather than objective, I'm not sure we have any real disagreement at all. I respect your right to consider it immoral to eat meat because it tastes good, can't you respect my right to consider the same act to be moral?

i think morality is based on reason, (which i pretty much found out last night lol) and i disagree with your reasoning. so i don't respect your right to eat it under certain circumstances. a person could think its fair for them to go around throwing shit on people, i won't respect that just because its in their moral code.

If I have any problem with your stance at all, it would involve perceived hypocrisy: I can't see how my eating meat because it is tasty is worse than you eating meat because you are lazy...

i addressed that earlier, i do paint myself with the same brush kinda thing.

 

[glaucon]

...
general consensus is a poor way to measure truth.
...

Slightly off topic here but I couldn't resist: actually, current consensus on 'truth' is that general consensus is the best approach.


And back on topic:

...
i suppose i'm arguing from this perspective, that morality is logical.

Good luck with that.
All attempts so far have disproven this notion.

 

[codanblad]

Of course, that cannot be your test, since those would wind up being subjective conclusions based on personal emotional gains (and you have indicated that your morality needs to be objective)...so you tell me: what is the syllogism that ends in the conclusion "Therefore, it is wrong to cause animals to suffer."

It seems to me that that is more of an emotional "truth" rather than one stemming from logic, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

i didn't say my morality is objective, just that there is a single objective morality in theory. i'm no longer asserting that though, i'm too confused at the moment to be honest.

you're right, if a person enjoyed suffering then inflicting it on creatures would perceivably be benevolent. i hold them accountable to their own reasoning for their morality, if they had good reasons to act/think the way they do, i couldn't condemn them for it. i can't complete the sentence, but its because it depends on the motivation of each person, which i've stated before. i do accept criticism for my argument though, its hardly succinct or well expressed.

different premises and value judgements are going to complicate things, i don't know how to respond to that. some things are worth believing in/fighting for even if they might not be true.

 

[draqon]

Someone kill PETA. they are biggest killers around, they put 95% of all animals they "save" to "put to sleep" or in other words THEY KILL THEM.

 

[codanblad]

Slightly off topic here but I couldn't resist: actually, current consensus on 'truth' is that general consensus is the best approach.

Good luck with that.
All attempts so far have disproven this notion.

but if consensus is a poor measure of truth, that consensus is irrelevant.

yeah i'm having zero luck lol. i've changed my opinion to: we can use logic to evaluate a person's justifications for their morality, but that has its limitations.

 

[swarm]

Kant was also very OCD, the local villagers set their watches to him.

He was also a noted cartagrapher, despite his dislike of travel.

 

[swarm]

Morality is wholly dependent on your notions of right and wrong. If you think right and wrong are objective, absolute and invariant, then you will hold there can be an absolutely objective morality. If you think right and wrong are influenced by cultural values, intent, apprehension of the situation and context, or other factors which are not objective, absolute and invariant; then morality may have objective aspects, but it can never be wholly objective.

Generally people who submit to the absolute authority of a religion accept the moral dogma of their religion as absolute.

Generally people of reason cannot hold an absolute objective morality because any question of right or wrong can be given extenuating circumstances and/or be placed in an extenuating situation. (if you literally had no choice, is it wrong to have killed someone?) (would you kill an evil person to save an innocent child?)

These positions tend to be incommensurate because the first is based on submission to authority (you must obey god's moral laws) and the other is based on reason (you must understand what has happened before you can judge it).

 

[Randwolf]

that cleared that up, cool.
that i am. by win you over i meant earn your respect, rather than convert you.

Makes sense...

its the difference between self defense and murder. if you kill them to survive, i think its justifiable.

Note the "I think" - if we bring this down to personal preference or subjective morals, I totally agree. You definitely have a right to your opinion, but be aware that there are others out there whom would contest your right to "kill to survive", because they don't think that position is justifiable.

i don't thinking eating meat is immoral. i think hurting creatures is immoral.

Well, other than the unavoidable pain involved in, say, killing them, I agree.

if people stop buying meat from such places then they won't make money. i know that will probably never happen though.

No, it probably won't, unless some viable alternative is available. That was my point.

you are correct. i'm not telling people to do as i do though. my laziness is a flaw. i accept all criticism, but i'm not being hypocritical, i didn't say i'm a good person.

Now you are really getting out there. I don't think this is the thread to judge whether you and I are "good" people. As to the hypocritical, yes, you are, at least by implication. Again, that doesn't necessarily make you a "bad" person.

i'm sorry if you found my request for you to read my earlier posts condescending, i'm just struggling to keep up. of course i read them i've replied to a bunch of them, i think i've understood them but who knows.

Same here. It just came across that way, at least to me... It's all cool.

in regards to the specific question of 'why do you think we'll stop eating meat' i was wondering whether i could evoke a response of 'because eating animals is often wrong', basically. i don't know why you have this faith in man's ability to manufacture a fake meat, even then it could be more expensive than meat and not affect meat sales.

Because the technology already exists. You are correct in that it is currently more expensive, but as with any nascent technology, that is likely to change and prices could plummet. Compare the cost of a computer today to 30 years ago, say.

Some reading on the subject for your spare time:

Abstract (scientific paper)

Between people who unabashedly support eating meat and those who adopt moral vegetarianism, lie a number of people who are uncomfortably carnivorous and vaguely wish they could be vegetarians. Opposing animal suffering in principle, they can ignore it in practice, relying on the visual disconnect between supermarket meat and slaughterhouse practices not to trigger their moral emotions. But what if we could have the best of both worlds in reality—eat meat and not harm animals? The nascent biotechnology of tissue culture, originally researched for medical applications, holds out just such a promise. Meat could be grown in vitro without killing animals. In fact, this technology may not just be an intriguing option, but might be our moral obligation to develop.

Food sources (wiki source)

Purines are found in high concentration in meat and meat products, especially internal organs such as liver and kidney. Plant based diet is generally low in purines [1].

Examples of high purine sources include: sweetbreads, anchovies, sardines, liver, beef kidneys, brains, meat extracts (e.g Oxo, Bovril), herring, mackerel, scallops, game meats, and gravy.

A moderate amount of purine is also contained in beef, pork, poultry, fish and seafood, asparagus, cauliflower, spinach, mushrooms, green peas, lentils, dried peas, beans, oatmeal, wheat bran, wheat germ, and hawthorne.[4]

Higher levels of meat and seafood consumption are associated with an increased risk of gout, whereas a higher level of consumption of dairy products is associated with a decreased risk. Moderate intake of purine-rich vegetables or protein is not associated with an increased risk of gout.[5]

Laboratory synthesis

In addition to in vivo synthesis of purines in purine metabolism, purine can also be created artificially.

Even PETA, the most extreme whacko organization supporting animal rights gets in on the act:

PETA offers $1 million for synthesized meat

“Scientists around the world are researching or seeking the funds to research ways to produce meat in the laboratory — without killing any animals,” PETA said in announcing the offer. “In vitro meat production would use animal stem cells that would be placed in a medium to grow and reproduce. The result would mimic flesh and could be cooked and eaten. Some promising steps have been made toward this technology, but we're still several years away from having in vitro meat be available to the general public.”

While advocating that a vegetarian diet might be even better, PETA seems to acknowledge that some carnivores may be difficult to convert. So the animal rights group hopes technology could save the “more than 40 billion chickens, fish, pigs, and cows killed every year for food in the U.S.” In addition, “in vitro meat would dramatically reduce the devastating effects the meat industry has on the environment.”

well i have no problem with people eating meat, so long as it was for their survival and the animal was always treated as humanely as possible, or the animal died of natural causes. are we in agreement?

Close, but not quite. I agree that eating meat for survival is moral. I agree that animals should be treated as humanely as possible while being raised and slaughtered. However, I am not willing to wait for my dinner to "die of natural causes". But I think that is the only point in contention, and I am willing to agree to disagree on that one.

i think morality is based on reason, (which i pretty much found out last night lol) and i disagree with your reasoning. so i don't respect your right to eat it under certain circumstances. a person could think its fair for them to go around throwing shit on people, i won't respect that just because its in their moral code.

This is kind of getting off topic, we are now generalizing to what constitutes acceptable morals and how do we derive them. So I will abstain, except to note that I agree that it is not respectable for humans "to go around throwing shit on people"...

 

[glaucon]

but if consensus is a poor measure of truth, that consensus is irrelevant.

Ah, but your premiss is faulty: it's not a poor 'measure of truth'.
The problem being, you're assuming a 'truth'.

yeah i'm having zero luck lol. i've changed my opinion to: we can use logic to evaluate a person's justifications for their morality, but that has its limitations.

With this, I fully agree.

 

[codanblad]

Ah, but your premiss is faulty: it's not a poor 'measure of truth'.
The problem being, you're assuming a 'truth'.

so how can i better express my opinion that whether people agree on something has no bearing on its merit/integrity whatever (unless you're relativist).

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

There is a pecking order, even in humans. We differentiate and assign value. My niece is more valuable to me than a stranger kid who would be more valuable to me than a wild rat with lice.

Chi, as a westerner, even if you're "vegan," you exploit animals all the time. Step off. Do you use commercial cleaning products? Medicine?

Sorry. Another thing that makes life valuable is comprehension/empathy. I'm going to argue eating eggs or humanly euthanizing coma patients just isn't the same as shooting a sentient person. Chill.

Nope, nope and nope. I don't eat meat unless I kill it myself (without a gun) I wash my hair with fruits and natural oils, I don't use any animal tested products, I grow my own fruit and vegetables on my land, I do not take western medicine or go to the hospital or doctors. I don't even take eastern medicine, I do Qi gong and Taiji if I have a headache not pop a few pills. I smoke natural weed If I have severe extream pain.

I am alot of things but not a hypocrite, I do not exploit animals or people in any way shape or form. For the past 3 months I was living in the peak district, using a waterfall to bathe in and living off of wild deer and local vegetation.


peace.

 

[glaucon]

so how can i better express my opinion that whether people agree on something has no bearing on its merit/integrity whatever (unless you're relativist).

I don't know.
Moral relativism is not consistent with the notion that 'truth' is determined by consensus.

 

[codanblad]

I don't know.
Moral relativism is not consistent with the notion that 'truth' is determined by consensus.

sorry i didn't mean moral relativism, when i said merit/integrity i meant truth. when i said relativism i meant 'truth is according to each individual.'

what is an argument which supports 'consensus is a good indication of truth' or 'consensus is truth'? do you agree with either statement?