Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

The Ethics of Eating Non-Human Animals


  • Please log in to reply
354 replies to this topic

#271 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,011 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:01 AM

This exactly, If you live in society you also take blame for all things such as this. Only self righteous bigots see themselves in some holy light. If you really want to make an actual diffrence you must attack the root of the problem, which is big business.
Good Luck !!!

Lots of us actually do care but are not vain enough to think that just because we try hard and bother others that it in anyway accomplishes anything. Some things in life are tough and the answers are not obvious, this is one of them.


No it's you. If people don't buy things they stop selling it. Every person counts.

Ergo why I don't mind the vegan maniacs at all. They do their part for the environment by reducing demand. This in turn keeps costs for the rest of us lower. Everybody wins!
  • 0

#272 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,473 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:10 AM

No it's you. If people don't buy things they stop selling it. Every person counts.

Ergo why I don't mind the vegan maniacs at all. They do their part for the environment by reducing demand. This in turn keeps costs for the rest of us lower. Everybody wins!


Yeah, but do you really think that if a select few out of the people stop buying that the whole industry will crumble? This is accomplishing nothing besides putting a small dent in the problem. Touching that some care enough to do it but it is not acheiving anything. I hate to be pessimistic but gathering the whole world for a cause seems pretty far fetched. We can't even stop killing each other, why would we start with animals?

I guess there are some that figure at least an effort is better than nothing and a life saved is a life saved. That's nice and all but we've proven as humans that life (other life) doesn't mean a heck of a lot to us.

Edited by Dogbyte, 20 November 2012 - 11:19 AM.

  • 0
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#273 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,561 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:08 PM

Eloi? As in a Morlocks supper?


http://www.simplyrec..._roast_a_goose/
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#274 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,011 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:19 PM

Yeah, but do you really think that if a select few out of the people stop buying that the whole industry will crumble? This is accomplishing nothing besides putting a small dent in the problem. Touching that some care enough to do it but it is not acheiving anything. I hate to be pessimistic but gathering the whole world for a cause seems pretty far fetched. We can't even stop killing each other, why would we start with animals?

I guess there are some that figure at least an effort is better than nothing and a life saved is a life saved. That's nice and all but we've proven as humans that life (other life) doesn't mean a heck of a lot to us.


I think that the market responds to what people want not the other way around.

I bet twenty years ago you wouldn't be able to convince anyone that if enough people stopped going to McDonald's unless they started serving salads you would be laughed off the stage. But lo and behold a portion of the population has taken health seriously enough that McDonald's did change. (Of course more than enough didn't and are still fat and happy as ever).

So of course changing your own choices makes a difference. Though should one want to win others to the cause over the top belittling of others for not sharing those choices might not do you any more good than simply labeled as another silly goose.
  • 0

#275 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 20 November 2012 - 03:53 PM

I bet twenty years ago you wouldn't be able to convince anyone that if enough people stopped going to McDonald's unless they started serving salads you would be laughed off the stage. But lo and behold a portion of the population has taken health seriously enough that McDonald's did change. (Of course more than enough didn't and are still fat and happy as ever).


Man, time flies. I worked at McDonalds 25 years ago and I was there when they introduced salads.
  • 0
Posted Image

#276 Newsflash

Newsflash

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,223 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 08

Posted 20 November 2012 - 10:20 PM

I think Silly Goose spends more time talking about stuff you learn in first year English (ad hominem, straw man, etc.) than he does actually debating.

Real debates don't work like they do in first year English. You don't wait for someone to give an argument, than write down what fallacies they used, and hand it into the professor.
  • 4

Buddy I called this EXACT situtation on here two years ago and was flamed, so I guess I have a bit of hockey knowledge, not to mention the 4 years I played in the OHL idiot.


The conspiracy theories that used to be against Lateralus:
Puberty, life, movie theaters, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out during a children's movie, Toy Story 3, Pixar, who ever decided to make Woody so damn attractive, a job, his mothers basement, being 40, being 40 five years ago, dogs who can out run him, all dogs, the Olympic committee, Truth, Fact, Honesty, Logic, Newsflash, a father figure who was there to see him learn to ride his first bike, bikes,

#277 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,003 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:35 PM

perhaps the point is:

what about everyone decide by themselves what they should (or not) eat?

if you like meat good for you, if you don´t that´s fine. but this "war" to show your point of view with not argument or no logic does not go anywhere. is like a woman making a man angry without any logical reason...

if you eat meat you´re killing a life...

if you eat vegetables you are also killing a like, in fact you are killing a life and an unborn life...
  • 0
Shup up and fly! you´re not payed to think, you´re payed to fly!

#278 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:22 PM

Only you, silly goose, could take what he said and molest it into whatever the hell you're talking about... the holocoust? Really!?

You sir should think your statements through before babbling off whacked retorts.


Really? Here's what was said:

There's no logic in the ethics of eating animals. It's just everyone's particular view of how or if we should change from what we evolved to eat over time should you prefer science or what God happens to think if your religious.

You shouldn't be surprised that you get empty rhetoric in exchange for your own.


What he seems to be saying here is that it is a matter of subjectivity "it's just everyone's particular view". Most people would agree that treating animals cruelly is not a matter of subjective opinion, just like the moral wrongness of rape is not a subjective matter of opinion. To say that is rediculous.

If animals fall within the dormain of moral judgement, and surely they do, then it becomes a matter of whether those judgements are obectively binding on all, or only subjective to the individual. If moral judgements are subjective in nature, then there is no objective standard for saying any act (including the holocaust) is wrong regardless of what your opinion of it is.

This all follows. SO maybe you should think things through more carefully before eagerly posting some half assed rebuttal.

Good day.

It's also important to remember that you are not the cat, or an all powerful diety.


I'm neither, but what does that have to do with anything?

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 21 November 2012 - 01:25 PM.

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#279 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

How do I know you've gone off the deep end? When you think punching guys in the head is better than a game of no-contact shinny.


That's an unqualified value judgement if I've every heard one.

Nope.


How so? care to elaborate?

Nope by my logic eating a cow or playing a game of hockey are just fine. I accept that some harm is part of how life works instead of crusading against it.


Sure harm is a part of life, but isn't life better without certain types of harm e.g. years of mental and physical agony? Wouldn't your life be intrinsiclly better if that were the case? Isn't that exactly why individuals "crusaded" against slavery? Nor am I even crusading. I am only presenting arguments for you to rationally consider. You just don't like being told you are being unintelligent about the matter.

You might win me over if all you were against was factory farming instead of just eating animals period but you go so overboard with it you would need to be in the no harm to anything ever camp to be consistent morally. I am simply pointing out that you are all over the map with your ethics.


Now THIS is definitely a straw man. Go back and re read my posts because I have said many times that I am not absolutely against eating animals. There are some cases where it can be ethically justified. However, I have said that there are cases where purposing animals into food are ethically unjustified e.g. factory farming. I have also said that I am on the fence or less troubled by painless killing. Given these considerations, I've never made the claim that we ought to never eat animals, ever. That isn't being all over the map. That is being ratinoally consistent. Take note this time.

It is possible to have rational thoughts where some harm is done but we try to reduce it where possible.


It is possible to reduce the eat you meat. It's easy. There's some vegtables or tofu right there. And you have the power to do it. You're not a slave to your passions.

That is what makes us rational creatures.


I think Silly Goose spends more time talking about stuff you learn in first year English (ad hominem, straw man, etc.) than he does actually debating.

Real debates don't work like they do in first year English. You don't wait for someone to give an argument, than write down what fallacies they used, and hand it into the professor.


This is gibberish because you've said nothing substantive at all. That's how debates work. I've posted a couple of formal arguments in this thread- they shouldn't be hard to find. If you disagree with any of the premises then by all means let's hear it. Untill then, you're all talk.

Further, if simple errors of reasoning are comitted e.g. fallaces, those have to be pointed out because those don't entail valid arguments. It's much easier to attack a distorted argument, but I'm not going to be persuaded by it.
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#280 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

perhaps the point is:

what about everyone decide by themselves what they should (or not) eat?

if you like meat good for you, if you don´t that´s fine. but this "war" to show your point of view with not argument or no logic does not go anywhere. is like a woman making a man angry without any logical reason...


I've posted formal arguments in this thread. Before posting you ought to read the thread so you have a grasp of the discussion.

if you eat meat you´re killing a life...

if you eat vegetables you are also killing a like, in fact you are killing a life and an unborn life...


What do you mean by "life"? Being extremely vague doesn't help your argument at all.
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#281 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,011 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:28 PM

It is possible to reduce the eat you meat. It's easy. There's some vegtables or tofu right there. And you have the power to do it. You're not a slave to your passions


Oh yes I am!
  • 0

#282 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,011 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:33 PM

Sure harm is a part of life, but isn't life better without certain types of harm e.g. years of mental and physical agony? Wouldn't your life be intrinsiclly better if that were the case? Isn't that exactly why individuals "crusaded" against slavery? Nor am I even crusading. I am only presenting arguments for you to rationally consider. You just don't like being told you are being unintelligent about the matter.


I know enough to know that you catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar.

Make no mistake winning the favour or approval of a silly goose is not exactly high on my priority list.
  • 1

#283 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,003 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:19 PM

I've posted formal arguments in this thread.  Before posting you ought to read the thread so you have a grasp of the discussion.



What do you mean by "life"?  Being extremely vague doesn't help your argument at all.


life: anything that lives, reproduce and interact with the enviroment. like you, me and the amazonic rainforest...if you go to the jungle and eat a plant you are eating a living creature, smart or not is a living creature, if you don´t kill the plant the plant will reproduce...dude. I flew in the jungle, a plant is a living being, leave a single plant there and in 1 year you will have another forest...I´m not here to impose something. if you like vegetables good for you! but don´t force anybody to follow your opinion. some people simply like meat and that´s all. and it´s not in Canada, in USA, in Russia, in Mexico or in Brazil. is in every single country on this planet! you cannot force a humble guy in the middle of the jungle to stop fishing just because you think that they´re killing fishes. it´s their culture, cruel or not it´s their culture!my sister is a semi-vegetarian (she only eats fish apart from vegetables) but I´m a meat lover, I simply don´t eat vegetables. we respect each other and everyone is happy...you wanna change a culture? go ahead and try...
  • 0
Shup up and fly! you´re not payed to think, you´re payed to fly!

#284 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,679 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:18 PM

This is gibberish because you've said nothing substantive at all. That's how debates work. I've posted a couple of formal arguments in this thread- they shouldn't be hard to find. If you disagree with any of the premises then by all means let's hear it. Untill then, you're all talk.

Further, if simple errors of reasoning are comitted e.g. fallaces, those have to be pointed out because those don't entail valid arguments. It's much easier to attack a distorted argument, but I'm not going to be persuaded by it.


I'm looking, but all I see is empty rhetoric spewed by some Masters degree holder in Philosophy who (let's face it) doesn't understand the realities of an argument.

Oh...and ad hom arguments as well. Calling people "idiots" twice in one thread is simply stupefying, considering this comes from someone who alleges to know how to debate.
  • 2

#285 vavoom

vavoom

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:28 PM

This whole debate is flawed.

As we are not photosynthesizing plants or extreme organasims that feed off volcanic heat/sulphur; our survival simply requires that we consume other forms of life. That life is either plant or animal. I choose to look at this as a continuum. To draw a line at fuzzy cute (subjective) animals and then make a judgement of morality is simply rediculous.

Where you draw your line on this continuum is up to you. There is nothing overtly moral about where you draw this line. Given the right circumstances, even canabalism can be moral depending on the line of moral philosophy that you follow.

Painless slaughtering while ideal is probably unrealistic.
  • 0

#286 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,696 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:58 PM

The real ethics debate starts when food shortage equates to us having to resort to cannibalism.

Apparently it makes us insane, (according to various stories about cannibalism, but usually those eating human flesh are usually insane before eating it, so it's moot), but being insane is probably better than starving to death.

Hopefully we develop more effective methods of feeding ourselves before the cannibalism debate is based on the reality of global starvation.
  • 0
Posted Image

#287 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,791 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:31 AM

Hmmm...will there be another thread like this (minus the "Non-")???
  • 0
Posted Image

#288 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:18 PM

I know enough to know that you catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar.

Make no mistake winning the favour or approval of a silly goose is not exactly high on my priority list.


And you should talk. Making fun of arguments isn't argumentative at all. And now your feelings are hurt because you think you are being ridiculed? Talk about a double standard.

I suspect that your intelligent enough to understand the logic here(especially since you've presented zero counter arguments that are persuasive), but pride and ego gets in the way so you just don't want to admit it. I'm used to that.
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#289 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:19 PM

This whole debate is flawed.

As we are not photosynthesizing plants or extreme organasims that feed off volcanic heat/sulphur; our survival simply requires that we consume other forms of life. That life is either plant or animal. I choose to look at this as a continuum. To draw a line at fuzzy cute (subjective) animals and then make a judgement of morality is simply rediculous.


Well, ethically speaking, many people don't think plants are morally considerable, and if they are, the moral value plants have is not equivalent with say an adult human or sentient being. If you do believe in a continum, what exactly constitues that range? Because if the range is equivocal in value, there is no continum because there is no difference of degree. Logically speaking, there is only a category.

Who said anything about drawing a line at "cute" and "fuzzy" animals?

Plus this gets you into a mess when we consider other ethically justified practices like abortion. How do you account for that?

Where you draw your line on this continuum is up to you. There is nothing overtly moral about where you draw this line. Given the right circumstances, even canabalism can be moral depending on the line of moral philosophy that you follow.


Pure subjectivism is crazy. It's like not believing gravity exists (which is crazy). Perhaps you should do some research.

Painless slaughtering while ideal is probably unrealistic.


It's at the very least worth caring about.

The real ethics debate starts when food shortage equates to us having to resort to cannibalism.

Apparently it makes us insane, (according to various stories about cannibalism, but usually those eating human flesh are usually insane before eating it, so it's moot), but being insane is probably better than starving to death.

Hopefully we develop more effective methods of feeding ourselves before the cannibalism debate is based on the reality of global starvation.

Let's hope not. To borrow Hobbes words, living in a world like 'The Road' would be nasty, brutish, and short.
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#290 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:25 PM

Oh, and this gets the point across rather well. So don't complain about it.

Posted Image
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#291 goalie13

goalie13

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,076 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:32 PM

Oh, and this gets the point across rather well. So don't complain about it.

Posted Image


Like this? http://forum.canucks...-human-animals/
  • 2
Posted Image

#292 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,401 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:37 PM

Oh, and this gets the point across rather well. So don't complain about it.

Posted Image


Are you just f'ing with us at this point?
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#293 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,011 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:14 PM

And you should talk. Making fun of arguments isn't argumentative at all. And now your feelings are hurt because you think you are being ridiculed? Talk about a double standard.

I suspect that your intelligent enough to understand the logic here(especially since you've presented zero counter arguments that are persuasive), but pride and ego gets in the way so you just don't want to admit it. I'm used to that.


I do talk. And I make fun of the arguments because they are silly. My feelings are not hurt since the opinion of a silly goose is irrelevant to me. It is not a double standard since I really don't care if you (or anyone) agrees with my way of thinking. Heck, I support people becoming vegans - it lowers the price of meat for me. So it doesn't matter if I win anyone over to my way of thinking or not so it really doesn't matter if I use vinegar or honey to catch flies (especially when I can use the honey to sweeten up the bbq sauce on my hunk of cow.)

I just don't argue your logic because I don't really care about whether something is a logical fallacy or not. For example you say that people are animals (true) but then imply that somehow that animals are the same as people (untrue) and seem to try to pull out some sort of pitty move as though they are second hand citizens.

My view is like that of a bear or my ancestors. Animals are food.

If you don't like that, fine. Don't eat animals. All the more for me.
  • 2

#294 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,011 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:21 PM

Pure subjectivism is crazy. It's like not believing gravity exists (which is crazy)


That's a false analogy. Gravity is a law of science.

It wouldn't even be unscientific to kill and eat you. No natural laws conflict with it after all. Just our own personal subjective ethical ones (plenty of people historically would have no problem doing just that).

What's ok to eat and what's not is completely subjective based on one's personal morality. Many people here eat pigs. Many would find that terrible. Almost no one eats dogs and find the idea to be terrible. Yes millions of people in this world do. All involved have all kinds of "logic" to back that up but really it's just their own feelings on the matter.
  • 0

#295 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,679 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 22 November 2012 - 02:25 PM

Personal attacks are irrelevant to arguments if they have nothing to do with the arguments at hand. I've called some people idiots (like you for starters) because clearly such a description is relevant. The fact that you havn't offered any substantive responses or counter objections and yet keep on with your babble just goes to show what I'm saying- your an idiot.


Again, you do this.

Also, you're.

Posted Image
  • 2

#296 vavoom

vavoom

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:28 PM

Well, ethically speaking, many people don't think plants are morally considerable, and if they are, the moral value plants have is not equivalent with say an adult human or sentient being.  If you do believe in a continum, what exactly constitues that range?  Because if the range is equivocal in value, there is no continum because there is no difference of degree. Logically speaking, there is only a category.

Who said anything about drawing  a line at "cute" and "fuzzy" animals?

Plus this gets you into a mess when we consider other ethically justified practices like abortion.  How do you account for that?



Pure subjectivism is crazy.  It's like not believing gravity exists (which is crazy).   Perhaps you should do some research.


It's at the very least worth caring about.


Let's hope not.  To borrow Hobbes words, living in a world like 'The Road' would be nasty, brutish, and short.


That is precisely my point.  Just as you don't consider plants to be morally considerable, I don't consider a chicken to be morally considerable.  Which life forms are morally considerable is a debate on its own.  As far as continuums go, if you are ok with plants, then how about bacteria? if bacteria is ok, how about small multicell animals like zooplankton? if thats ok, how about invertibrates like worms,snails? insects? fish? lizards?...  I agree that there is no difference in degree amongst morally considerable beings as far as judging whether an action is moral or not.  My point is, where an animal falls on the continuum determines whether it is morally considerable or not
  • 0

#297 Dral

Dral

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:41 PM

Oh, and this gets the point across rather well. So don't complain about it.

Posted Image


That's mean. I'm hungry now and there are no McDonalds near by.

Edited by Dral, 22 November 2012 - 09:42 PM.

  • 0

#298 ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

ThaBestPlaceOnEarth

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,074 posts
  • Joined: 13-June 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:59 PM

Eating some farmer sausages right now, coming from Winkler Manitoba, that is some good stuff. Say what you want, I bet the mammoths our ancestors ate felt a lot more pain and suffering as they died slowly from dozens of spears and arrows than any factory-raised animals do today. We've evolved to eat a wider range of food items than just about any other species and it's adaptive, I see no reason we should stop eating meat. It's gotten us this far. If y'all don't want to eat meat that's your business but it's human nature, it takes a real focused commitment not to.
  • 0

Ceterum censeo Chicaginem delendam esse


#299 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 23 November 2012 - 01:26 PM

Heck, I support people becoming vegans - it lowers the price of meat for me.


Not necessarily. You might get "sale" meat in the short term, but over time the cost could go up as production costs have to keep up with less demand.

I just don't argue your logic because I don't really care about whether something is a logical fallacy or not. For example you say that people are animals (true) but then imply that somehow that animals are the same as people (untrue) and seem to try to pull out some sort of pitty move as though they are second hand citizens.


Many non human animals share the same characteristics as humans do. We are sentient beings that can experience pain or pleasure, experience complex emotions, are intelligent, etc. These are morally relevant characteristics. And they are based on FACT not pity.

It's obvious that you don't care about fallacious reasoning because your arguments tend to depend on it. You just said that it is untrue that animals are the same as humans which begs the question: in what respect? Second, calling my arguments "pity moves" is clearly an appeal to emotion. Hate to break it to you but your reasoning sucks REGARDLESS of whether you care or not.

That's a false analogy. Gravity is a law of science.


Only if I assumed ethics was a thouroughly naturalistic like the empirical sciences. That would be a false analogy. My claim is that ethics and the empirical sciences are similarly truth apt. It is true that gravity exists and it is true that the holocaust is wrong.

It wouldn't even be unscientific to kill and eat you. No natural laws conflict with it after all. Just our own personal subjective ethical ones (plenty of people historically would have no problem doing just that).

What's ok to eat and what's not is completely subjective based on one's personal morality. Many people here eat pigs. Many would find that terrible. Almost no one eats dogs and find the idea to be terrible. Yes millions of people in this world do. All involved have all kinds of "logic" to back that up but really it's just their own feelings on the matter.


And this is why your view of ethics is utterly unpersuasive. First, you keep on begging the question about the nature of ethical reasoning and obviously havn't carefully considered the literature, at all. Ethical subjectivism is stupid. Period.

Second, There IS disagreement about the ethics of eating animals throughout the world. Taking a head count doesn't justify what position is correct. Only reasons do. And so far you havn't offered any worthy of that.

That is precisely my point. Just as you don't consider plants to be morally considerable, I don't consider a chicken to be morally considerable. Which life forms are morally considerable is a debate on its own.


Well for starters I never said anything about what MY position is about the moral considerability of plants. That is a straw man on your part. I will say, however, that I DO have a criterion for moral consideration:

For all X, A is morally considerable if and only if A has an interest.

How one defines "interests" though is a debate, so I agree with you there. But you havn't defined "interests"

As far as continuums go, if you are ok with plants, then how about bacteria? if bacteria is ok, how about small multicell animals like zooplankton? if thats ok, how about invertibrates like worms,snails? insects? fish? lizards?... I agree that there is no difference in degree amongst morally considerable beings as far as judging whether an action is moral or not. My point is, where an animal falls on the continuum determines whether it is morally considerable or not


I do think there is a difference in degree. For starters, I think harm to an adult human being in some cases can be worse than harm to some non human animals, babies, infants, the severely cognitively impaired, etc. The harder cases that you mention (if those cases are morally considerable) don't logically entail we don't know anything about the cases we do have good ideas about e.g. lighting a cat on fire is agonizing for the cat.

And you're not making sense in terms of how you use "continum". Either something is morally considerable or it's not- that's a category. Within the category of moral consideration though there might be a difference in terms of significance. Hence, a continum.



Eating some farmer sausages right now, coming from Winkler Manitoba, that is some good stuff. Say what you want, I bet the mammoths our ancestors ate felt a lot more pain and suffering as they died slowly from dozens of spears and arrows than any factory-raised animals do today. We've evolved to eat a wider range of food items than just about any other species and it's adaptive, I see no reason we should stop eating meat. It's gotten us this far. If y'all don't want to eat meat that's your business but it's human nature, it takes a real focused commitment not to.


The Manitoba Pig Livestock Industry is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

http://youtu.be/f8LOF1YgGLE
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#300 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,011 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 23 November 2012 - 02:20 PM

Not necessarily. You might get "sale" meat in the short term, but over time the cost could go up as production costs have to keep up with less demand.


Your way of thinking will never win over enough people to make the meat industry shrink enough to not benefit from economies of scale.

Many non human animals share the same characteristics as humans do. We are sentient beings that can experience pain or pleasure, experience complex emotions, are intelligent, etc. These are morally relevant characteristics. And they are based on FACT not pity.

It's obvious that you don't care about fallacious reasoning because your arguments tend to depend on it. You just said that it is untrue that animals are the same as humans which begs the question: in what respect? Second, calling my arguments "pity moves" is clearly an appeal to emotion. Hate to break it to you but your reasoning sucks REGARDLESS of whether you care or not.


In what respect? The non human aspect. My cat might even show affection but that's because I feed it. If I died and the food stopped the cat would have no problem eating my face. You see, animals don't have any morals whatsoever. Since you see humans as animals you should be happy I have any moral period.

Only if I assumed ethics was a thouroughly naturalistic like the empirical sciences. That would be a false analogy. My claim is that ethics and the empirical sciences are similarly truth apt. It is true that gravity exists and it is true that the holocaust is wrong.


I doubt animals or nature in general missed any of the 50 million or so people that died in and around WW2. It could be argument that a massive depopulation of people would be a good thing. Ethical arguments are relevant only in the perspective of those that frame them and are entirely different than natural laws. To compare and ethical argument to an natural law is a false analogy.

And this is why your view of ethics is utterly unpersuasive. First, you keep on begging the question about the nature of ethical reasoning and obviously havn't carefully considered the literature, at all. Ethical subjectivism is stupid. Period.

Second, There IS disagreement about the ethics of eating animals throughout the world. Taking a head count doesn't justify what position is correct. Only reasons do. And so far you havn't offered any worthy of that.


Your right. It doesn't matter how many people subscribe to what is ethical regarding the treatment of animals. It depends on the person and the society. Given that some societies would have no problem eating you and me while others would feel it's wrong to kill the rats eating the grain and all would have plenty of reasons for their position.

As such, I already gave my reason. I eat meat because I like to eat meat and I can. That's all the reason I need thanks.

It matters no if I beg the question or persuade you in the least because your opinion is irrelevant.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.