Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

[Enmos]

!!!

Think about it.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Then making paper is wrong; come to think of it, there's plenty of unnecessary stuff that we do that disrupts the environment or harms creatures.

Besides, then eating meat is fine, if the killing is painless.

If the killing is painless? Norse they are not euthanizing the bloody animals. How can slitting some beasts throat be painless?

 

[Norsefire]

If the killing is painless? Norse they are not euthanizing the bloody animals. How can slitting some beasts throat be painless?

Then we can adopt different practices; how about decapitation? That's nearly painless

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Then we can adopt different practices; how about decapitation? That's nearly painless

We cannot assure an animal a painless death, a quick death a healthy animal life perhaps but not a painless death. Have you considered the lobster?

http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/3523457

Many believed that a dunk in boiling water was a painless death and it turns out that it takes over half a minute for it to die and that it feels pain. I say if we do not consider the pain involved in capital punishment its ridiculous to apply this to animals. I mean if we now know that the lobster feels pain and doesn't have a quick death what would you propose? Morphine? Should we stop boiling lobsters alive?

 

[Norsefire]

This is what I think: treat them more humanely if possible, but we still gotta eat.

Anyway if we can execute our own species (JUSTICE) then surely it's ok to eat members of another species

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

This is what I think: treat them more humanely if possible, but we still gotta eat.

Anyway if we can execute our own species (JUSTICE) then surely it's ok to eat members of another species

But that's not the point, the point is that you cannot assure an animal a painless death. How the hell are we to know if its painless?:shrug:

 

[Norsefire]

Then we'll try to do as good a job as possible.

Hey, where's James? He hasn't replied!

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Then we'll try to do as good a job as possible.

Hey, where's James? He hasn't replied!

I know I took the time to write a long post and now he's left the thread.

Bloody convenient if you ask me.

 

[James R]

Hey, where's James? He hasn't replied!

He's busy with his real life. I'll get back to this when I have time. That's not now.

 

[James R]

In particular, herbavors are dependent on their carnivors to keep their populations in check. For domestic animals, that carnivor is us. Destroy that relationship and they will suffer greatly.

That argument ignores the fact that we deliberately breed animals for consumption. If their populations are increasing too rapidly, that just might be because we want to breed lots of domestic animals. In other words, the whole argument is spurious.

If you're bothered by it suffering, why aren't you bothered by needlessly killing it?

It isn't needless. It is necessary.

Another stupid claim, which I note you haven't even tried to justify.

My point is meat is tasty and the preferred source for its nutrition. Forcing people to take such an unnatural approach to life just to appease you seems rediculous.

But it's not just to appease vegetarians. It is because it's the morally right thing to do. Understand now?

 

[swarm]

he didn't see any ethical contradiction in supporting "humane" treatment of animals before they are slaughtered and eaten while still supporting slaughtering and eating them. I was attempting to point out that this seems like a fairly contradictory stance

You are anthropomorphizing the animal. They are not treated humanely for their sake. They are treated humanely for our sake. Note the word human-ely.

Having people who are allowed to be needlessly cruel is bad for a society.

you seemed to be on the eating-meat-is-okay side

Mmm, yummy.

I was assuming that your point was that it's moral to eat meat

You should examine a person's actual arguments instead of going with what you would like them to be. Eating in general is neither moral nor immoral, just like other natural bodily functions. As you tried to say...neither moral nor immoral.

...if that wasn't your point, then I can't imagine what the hell your point actually is.

Meat is a natural and important part of our diet, one which is sufficiently selected for that even vegetarians try to fake meat in their diet and it supplies nutrients which a straight vegetarian diet fails to supply.

The herd animal / predator relationship between us and our domesticated animals is one which we can't lightly abandon.

Eating vegetables is also morally neutral. As peta consistently proves one can be a veggie and very immoral. Also the kind of farming needed to produce the vegetarian food is at least as destructive to the environment and it kills in numeral animals either directly or by displacement and re-purposing of the land.

Trying to play the immorality card while ignoring the actual issues is duplicitous, particularly when you are throwing the argument from nature around.

If you are attempting to use the argument that it's moral

nope

You attempted to argue that we need to eat meat in order to control animal populations, which is stupid, since we can control their population by simply not breeding them as much.

You seem to stupidly think that decimating their populations is preferable to letting them continue in their symbiotic relationship with us while being the dominant herd animal on the planet.

Since most of the developed world routinely ships its food hundreds or thousands of miles before eating it

Which is stupid. Eating local food is much better and luckily our herd animals are almost as versatile as we are.

It doesn't matter if you live in an area with "marginal land" because your food is probably being shipped in from all over the place anyway.

Are you short sighted and self centered or what? It matters a lot to the people who live on marginal land and would rather raise cattle and make a living than not raise anything and starve.

I guess that depends on whether or not you consider killing them to be "harming" them.

No steak has ever complained about how it was being treated.

Everything dies. I know you are in denial about this but every single cow is going to die one way or another. The cows and us have worked out a way where they are protected from other predators and we are feed and have access to leather and other cow products. It works so well for both of us that people an cows are everywhere.

It may not be moral or immoral, but it is extremely successful.

 

[swarm]

Another stupid claim, which I note you haven't even tried to justify.

Boy you veggies sure go to the "stupid" fast. Another stupid ad hominum from a stupid veggie too stupid to eat meat. Weee! What stupid fun!

But it's not just to appease vegetarians. It is because it's the morally right thing to do. Understand now?

Its not a moral issue. Understand yet?

 

[Norsefire]

That argument ignores the fact that we deliberately breed animals for consumption.

Of course we do; we're rational, logical, self-interest beings.

If their populations are increasing too rapidly, that just might be because we want to breed lots of domestic animals. In other words, the whole argument is spurious.

If we don't eat them, something else will. How long do you think a cow will survive in the wild? They'll be easy meat out in the wild, so we might as well eat them

But it's not just to appease vegetarians. It is because it's the morally right thing to do. Understand now?

In my opinion eating has nothing to do with morals.

And the "it's unnecessary" argument is complete nonsense; it's unnecessary to make paper, to build labs, to mine for metal, etc, etc, and all of that disrupts the environment and thus harms animals.

 

[James R]

swarm:

You are anthropomorphizing the animal. They are not treated humanely for their sake. They are treated humanely for our sake. Note the word human-ely.

In other words, you consider animals to have no [enc]intrinsic value[/enc]. They are valuable only as a resource for human exploitation.

Do you support human slavery too? If not, why not? What morally significant distinction do you make between human beings and non-human animals?

you seemed to be on the eating-meat-is-okay side

Mmm, yummy.

Trumpeting your immorality doesn't advance your argument.

Eating in general is neither moral nor immoral, just like other natural bodily functions.

Last time I checked, other bodily functions did not involve the deliberate and immediate killing of another sentient being for your own pleasure.

Meat is a natural and important part of our diet, one which is sufficiently selected for that even vegetarians try to fake meat in their diet and it supplies nutrients which a straight vegetarian diet fails to supply.

There's no ethical problem with "fake meat" (textured vegetable protein or TVP). There's nothing wrong with a vegetarian liking the taste of meat. You still don't seem to get it that the reason they do not eat meat is not that it doesn't taste good, but because it's immoral to do so.

The herd animal / predator relationship between us and our domesticated animals is one which we can't lightly abandon.

Nonsense.

Also the kind of farming needed to produce the vegetarian food is at least as destructive to the environment and it kills in numeral animals either directly or by displacement and re-purposing of the land.

Nonsense.

No steak has ever complained about how it was being treated.

You're not really this stupid, are you? Tell me you're just pretending.

Everything dies. I know you are in denial about this but every single cow is going to die one way or another. The cows and us have worked out a way where they are protected from other predators and we are feed and have access to leather and other cow products. It works so well for both of us that people an cows are everywhere.

I don't think the cows have much of a say in this fantastic and mutually beneficial and fair process of yours, whereby you get to kill them and eat them and use their bodies while they get the joy of being killed by you, kept in atrocious conditions, fattened up for your pleasure, etc. etc.

Boy you veggies sure go to the "stupid" fast.

Only when faced by blatant stupidity.

Its not a moral issue. Understand yet?

No. Explain to me why what you eat is not a moral issue.

 

[James R]

If we don't eat them, something else will.

No. If we didn't eat so many cows, sheep, chickens and so on, they would never exist in the first place. And before you start telling me that their existence is wonderful, as swarm likes to imagine, do a little research on factory farming.

In my opinion eating has nothing to do with morals.

Really, who cares about your uninformed opinion?

And the "it's unnecessary" argument is complete nonsense; it's unnecessary to make paper, to build labs, to mine for metal, etc, etc, and all of that disrupts the environment and thus harms animals.

As far as I am aware, in modern nations you need all kinds of environmental impact statements and so on before you build a mine or chop down a forest. Before you can do research on morally significant things like animals, you need to go through an extensive ethics procedure. These small advances in modern morality, by the way, have been hard won by dedicated and moral individuals campaigning on the behalf of the animals and other life affected.

 

[Nasor]

In other words, you consider animals to have no [enc]intrinsic value[/enc]. They are valuable only as a resource for human exploitation.

Actually he already admitted back in post #4 of this thread that he doesn't think animals should be treated badly (with the exception of killing them).

 

[Norsefire]

No. If we didn't eat so many cows, sheep, chickens and so on, they would never exist in the first place.

Well I never said otherwise, but some will exist, and cows probably can't survive in the wild. They're going to be eaten. We might as well eat them.

And before you start telling me that their existence is wonderful, as swarm likes to imagine, do a little research on factory farming.

I have, I saw the video that MZ3Boy linked to, and I agree that factory farming is something which we could revise. But chickens are not human beings, and your equating chickens with human being is a bunch of shit in my opinion, with all due respect.....we're human, we form packs with each other, we eat meat, there are omnivores and we are omnivores.

Really, who cares about your uninformed opinion?

Typical, write me off. My opinion is not uninformed, and I would redirect the question back at you.

As far as I am aware, in modern nations you need all kinds of environmental impact statements and so on before you build a mine or chop down a forest. Before you can do research on morally significant things like animals, you need to go through an extensive ethics procedure. These small advances in modern morality, by the way, have been hard won by dedicated and moral individuals campaigning on the behalf of the animals and other life affected.

The animals do not matter! Sheesh, do you remember what species you are a part of?

And I never said you didn't need permits and statements (private property would be better for environmentalism by the way because of accountability and incentive, but anyway...)

I said chopping down forests or building mines is morally wrong based on your argument. So we should go live in caves, because otherwise we're doing something unnecessary and that's wrong.

 

[James R]

Actually he already admitted back in post #4 of this thread that he doesn't think animals should be treated badly (with the exception of killing them).

That doesn't mean he thinks they have any intrinsic value. He may want to see them treated well so that their meat tastes better, or because he thinks that they will be more useful to human beings if treated well, rather than out of any concern for the animals themselves.

 

[Norsefire]

It depends on what you mean by "intrinsic value"...

...I'm sure they desire survival and value themselves. But we're not chickens or cows; we value them solely as food.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

cows probably can't survive in the wild. They're going to be eaten. We might as well eat them.

Nonsense. Do you think cows didn't exist before humans domesticated them?

But chickens are not human beings, and your equating chickens with human being is a bunch of shit in my opinion, with all due respect...

That's a straw man claim that I have never made.

The animals do not matter!

I know they don't matter to you, but that totally does not affect the moral argument. The fact that you're immoral doesn't change any relevant fact.

I said chopping down forests or building mines is morally wrong based on your argument.

Please explain to me how you think my argument applies in those cases.