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

#151 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,724 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:04 AM

It's not about guit. It is about being rational, and recognizing what the right thing to do is. Whether or not that makes you feel guilty is aside from that.

Unlike other vegans or animal rights activists, I don't claim that using animals in any way is immoral. That in itself seperates me from a majority of people who don't eat meat.


You've lost that right around this post - you want people to be rational, and you have the audacity to embed videos like this and this? That's appealing to emotion, a far cry from any rational-talk you've tried to evoke in this thread.
  • 1

#152 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:48 AM

wtf are you guys talking about lol

Seriously, Silly Goose I can respect what you're trying to do, and hope you can keep a level head with all the heat you're taking. But on the last page you said that people are stupid for eating meat and implied you are smarter. I don't agree with you there, meat eaters may understand the logic and eat meat anyway. In any case, I think the best you can say is that you are benevolent and meat eaters are malevolent hahah


He also implied hes smarter than other veggie munchers.


Aka the Smartest Man in the Universe.
  • 0
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#153 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,283 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:47 PM

Posted Image
  • 3

#154 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,926 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:57 PM

Seriously, Silly Goose I can respect what you're trying to do, and hope you can keep a level head with all the heat you're taking. But on the last page you said that people are stupid for eating meat and implied you are smarter. I don't agree with you there, meat eaters may understand the logic and eat meat anyway. In any case, I think the best you can say is that you are benevolent and meat eaters are malevolent hahah


I'm not trying to toot my own horn here. I'm far from perfect. For instance, I buy lots of sporting equipment that uses leather/etc. I know the leather industry can be just as bad as the food industry in the way animals are treated, and yet I buy these products anyways. I could try and justify it by saying that leather products are far better than synthetic ones (and in a way it is true) but I know it doesn't really justify it. given the option though of quality equipment that is synthetically made- I will opt for that. We all can't be perfect. So you pick and choose your battles. If, for instance, people limited their meat consumption rather than cut it out completely- I think that would be good and I think is better than doing nothing at all.

My main point though is that there is a strong rationale for the vegetarian/vegan position. And it is not about being a "loving or compassionate" person or other hippy BS like that. It is about recognizing the intelligent thing to do. That is how I characterize ethics.

You've lost that right around this post - you want people to be rational, and you have the audacity to embed videos like thisand this? That's appealing to emotion, a far cry from any rational-talk you've tried to evoke in this thread.


It's not an appeal to emotion. The videos display facts. Facts are propositions which can be true or false. And these facts can be good or bad in the same sense. The videos display common states of affairs. Because we are discussing how animals are treated in the livestock industry, it makes sense to take the facts into consideration, and ask ourselves "ought we to do this?" I think the answer is an overwhelmingly "no".

It is true that we shouldn't treat animals like this. That is cognitive in nature. So no appeal to emotion.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 04 November 2012 - 01:59 PM.

  • 1

G4fSut.gif


#155 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,724 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:00 PM

It's not an appeal to emotion. The videos display facts. Facts are propositions which can be true or false. And these facts can be good or bad in the same sense. The videos display common states of affairs. Because we are discussing how animals are treated in the livestock industry, it makes sense to take the facts into consideration, and ask ourselves "ought we to do this?" I think the answer is an overwhelmingly "no".

It is true that we shouldn't treat animals like this. That is cognitive in nature. So no appeal to emotion.


Facts? There's no words uttered in the video or on the screen. All you are doing is evoking emotions of anger and sadness - hardly constructive if you want to remove the emotion and talk facts.

If you want facts, try linking to articles instead of two-bit videos like these which have no place in this thread.
  • 4

#156 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,926 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:05 PM

Facts? There's no words uttered in the video or on the screen. All you are doing is evoking emotions of anger and sadness - hardly constructive if you want to remove the emotion and talk facts.

If you want facts, try linking to articles instead of two-bit videos like these which have no place in this thread.


A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. Source

There doesn't have to be "words uttered" in order for something to be a fact. I really don't think you get it. The "facts" are contained right there in the videos. Cow de horning without anesthetic involves real pain and agony.

This is common sense.
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#157 LostViking

LostViking

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 09

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:59 PM

I'll add my 2 cents,

Life operates in cycles. First you have chemical elements being forged in the cosmos, then if the circumstances are correct, these elements can foster life on a planet. Eventually, under proper conditions, these raw materials for life get cycled around an ecosystem. Perhaps they form a plant, that plant is then ingested by an animal where the raw materials are processed and become a part of that animal, that animal dies and various fungi consume the raw materials, perhaps some bacteria leech some materials for themselves during this process, the materials remaining in the dead animal become soil and feed a new plant, and the cycle starts again.

These raw materials are what gives life. As living entities ourselves, our bodies need to continually process these elements throughout our existence. I think it is rather pointless to argue that it is morally superior to ingest these raw materials at one stage in the life cycle rather than another. We can eat a cow today, knowing that most of the elements we are eating probably spent as much time being grass as they spent being a cow. Or we could wait for that cow to die and decompose, perhaps giving its raw materials to some nearby plant life, and then we could eat the plants. Are we then better, because we waited until later in the life cycle to have a meal?

Now if we ignore industrial farming practices, (which I personally don't care for very much), and focus on simply the ethics of eating meat vs plants, there is no argument to be made. They are, in essence, the same thing. The relationship between a plant and an animal is really just an extremely complicated version of the relationship between a caterpillar and a butterfly, the same thing at a different stage in the cycle of life.

Now we are certainly at liberty to screw around with the natural order of things, but there is no denying that the meat you are eating, probably spent a lot of time as a plant, and vice versa.
  • 0
Posted Image

#158 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:31 PM

I'm not trying to toot my own horn here. I'm far from perfect. For instance, I buy lots of sporting equipment that uses leather/etc. I know the leather industry can be just as bad as the food industry in the way animals are treated, and yet I buy these products anyways. I could try and justify it by saying that leather products are far better than synthetic ones (and in a way it is true) but I know it doesn't really justify it. given the option though of quality equipment that is synthetically made- I will opt for that. We all can't be perfect. So you pick and choose your battles. If, for instance, people limited their meat consumption rather than cut it out completely- I think that would be good and I think is better than doing nothing at all.

My main point though is that there is a strong rationale for the vegetarian/vegan position. And it is not about being a "loving or compassionate" person or other hippy BS like that. It is about recognizing the intelligent thing to do. That is how I characterize ethics.



It's not an appeal to emotion. The videos display facts. Facts are propositions which can be true or false. And these facts can be good or bad in the same sense. The videos display common states of affairs. Because we are discussing how animals are treated in the livestock industry, it makes sense to take the facts into consideration, and ask ourselves "ought we to do this?" I think the answer is an overwhelmingly "no".

It is true that we shouldn't treat animals like this. That is cognitive in nature. So no appeal to emotion.


Ethic does not have anything to do with intelligence. Ethic is all about morals and values.
  • 2

Posted Image


#159 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,724 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:17 AM

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. Source

There doesn't have to be "words uttered" in order for something to be a fact. I really don't think you get it. The "facts" are contained right there in the videos. Cow de horning without anesthetic involves real pain and agony.

This is common sense.


There is no fact presented in the videos, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you try and link. It's a clear appeal to emotion, which has no place if you're trying to talk about animal ethics on an intellectual level. Thus far, you've failed to do that; you've fallen onto fallacies and other "arguments" that have nothing to do with facts, but everything to do with human emotion and subjective thoughts.

I shake my head in disapproval at you, especially when you proclaim to be a philosophy student and you continually fall into the same traps that PHIL101 teaches you to avoid.

Edited by Common sense, 05 November 2012 - 01:18 AM.

  • 3

#160 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,926 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

Ethic does not have anything to do with intelligence. Ethic is all about morals and values.


And moral values are things we can know. We know they are properties which supervene on states of affairs e.g. moral wrongness supervenes on an act of rape. That means they are cognitive in nature. That means they can be true or false. That means if rape is wrong, you ought not to do it. It is the sensible thing to do.

In any event, you only begged the question because you provided no argument showing that moral values are non-cognitive in nature.

There is no fact presented in the videos, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you try and link.


It has become apparent that you are out to lunch. The video displays states of affairs. States of affairs are what is the case. What is the case are facts. Hence, the video displays facts.

It's a clear appeal to emotion, which has no place if you're trying to talk about animal ethics on an intellectual level.



http://youtu.be/GxV35EZ1px4

Now exactly what is an appeal to emotion:

Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument.

The appeal to emotion fallacy uses emotions as the basis of an argument's position without factual evidence that logically supports the major ideas endorsed by the elicitor of the argument.

source

It is common practice to dehorn livestock. source. And the practice can cause significant agony. The videos are evidential support for my arguments because i) they show how cattle dehorning is commonly practiced and ii) cattle dehorning does cause significant agony.

The videos are clearly evidential support fr this claim: given the agony cattle dehorning causes weighed against the reasons for subjecting animals to it, we have sufficient moral reasons not to act this way.


Hence, it is not an appeal to emotion.


Stop arguing about this unless you enjoy thinking like a nincompoop.


Thus far, you've failed to do that; you've fallen onto fallacies and other "arguments" that have nothing to do with facts, but everything to do with human emotion and subjective thoughts.


Given what I have shown above this is a non sequitur on your part. Given how difficult it is for you to understand what facts are, I'm not surprised you don't apply fallacies properly either.

In other words, the moral wrongness of the videos isn't predicated on emotion. The support the arguments I've given because they show what is the case.


I shake my head in disapproval at you, especially when you proclaim to be a philosophy student and you continually fall into the same traps that PHIL101 teaches you to avoid.


Funny that you say this and yet somehow I've managed to complete a masters degree in philosophy on this very topic. In any event, rather than point fingers, you need to think more carefully. And change your name.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 05 November 2012 - 01:12 PM.

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#161 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,204 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:00 PM

In other words, the moral wrongness of the videos isn't predicated on emotion. The support the arguments I've given because they show what is the case


Who makes you the supreme ruler on what is moral and what isn't?
  • 3

#162 TheAntar

TheAntar

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:05 PM

Time and again the ethics if how animals are treated are being brought up as if they are part and parcel with the morality of eating meat.

They are not. Mistreatment of animals during their time being raised, to be eaten, are far more often the result of corporate greed and bottom-line thinking that hasn't got much to do with the morality of actually eating meat.

As for the morality: if we stopped eating meat today, globally, do you honestly think the lives of cows would improve? Do you think the Eco system as it exists today could support NOT slaughtering those cows? I think not.
  • 2

#163 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,724 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:13 PM

It has become apparent that you are out to lunch. The video displays states of affairs. States of affairs are what is the case. What is the case are facts. Hence, the video displays facts.




http://youtu.be/GxV35EZ1px4

Now exactly what is an appeal to emotion:

source

It is common practice to dehorn livestock. source. And the practice can cause significant agony. The videos are evidential support for my arguments because i) they show how cattle dehorning is commonly practiced and ii) cattle dehorning does cause significant agony.

The videos are clearly evidential support fr this claim: given the agony cattle dehorning causes weighed against the reasons for subjecting animals to it, we have sufficient moral reasons not to act this way.


Hence, it is not an appeal to emotion.


Stop arguing about this unless you enjoy thinking like a nincompoop.




Given what I have shown above this is a non sequitur on your part. Given how difficult it is for you to understand what facts are, I'm not surprised you don't apply fallacies properly either.

In other words, the moral wrongness of the videos isn't predicated on emotion. The support the arguments I've given because they show what is the case.




Funny that you say this and yet somehow I've managed to complete a masters degree in philosophy on this very topic. In any event, rather than point fingers, you need to think more carefully. And change your name.


Funny, and sad at the same time. I expect much more from a holder of a Masters in Philosophy. Instead, I get the same rhetoric post after post after post about how your opinions are the only thing that matters, how facts aren't facts unless you make it so, and how a video isn't up for discussion unless you agree with those viewpoints.

This is common sense - because others here don't have it, I bring it.
  • 3

#164 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,480 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:15 PM

*
POPULAR

Cattle dehorning does not cause significant agony - Fact.

Source: I've dehorned a cow before without it even flinching.

Showing a video and saying this it what it's like always or even commonly is like showing this thread and saying this is how stupid vegetarian philosophy students are always.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0o37E9bHGQ

So Silly Goose it has become apparent that you are out to lunch. The video displays states of affairs. States of affairs are what is the case. What is the case are facts. Hence, the video displays facts.

Go away, start another account and try again next year. You're arguments haven't gotten any better or made any more sense.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 05 November 2012 - 02:27 PM.

  • 5
Posted Image
Posted Image

#165 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,724 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:15 PM

By the way...calling me a nincompoop? That's pretty low for a PHIL101 student, let alone a M.Phil holder. Thought your prof would teach you to avoid the ad hom arguments in lecture 1, or were you too busy posting on CDC to have listened?
  • 2

#166 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,926 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:58 PM

Cattle dehorning does not cause significant agony - Fact.

Source: I've dehorned a cow before without it even flinching.

Showing a video and saying this it what it's like always or even commonly is like showing this thread and saying this is how stupid vegetarian philosophy students are always.


The video uses local anesthetics AND it is performed by a veternarian. By contrast, common practices for cattle dehorning do NOT use local anesthetics OR have it performed by veternarians (who have a professional obligation to mitigate animal suffering).

It is a straw man on your part to say that I implied always. I did say that cattle dehorning is commonly practicised. Within this practice I implicitly assumed without local anesthetics or veternarians. It is a standard practice, especially on large industrialized dairy farms. Why? Because local anesthtics and veternarians are expensive. If you want clarification that's fine. I'm not gonig into great detail here because I prefer simplicity over gory amounts of detail. Still, my points all follow.

So Silly Goose it has become apparent that you are out to lunch. The video displays states of affairs. States of affairs are what is the case. What is the case are facts. Hence, the video displays facts.


You've only showed that cattle dehorning can be practicied in a more humane way. I never said that this wasn't or couldn't be the case. I did say that the less humane way of cattle dehorning is a common practice. That fact stands. So you havn't really demonstrated anything, other than trying to cherry pick non standard examples. You easily forget that everything you say is still consistent with what I have been saying all along. Keep trying though.

Oh and as for my arguments, funny that you are now ridicule them and yet you already have rationally accepted them.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 05 November 2012 - 03:20 PM.

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#167 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,926 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:17 PM

Who makes you the supreme ruler on what is moral and what isn't?


I don't. Reason does.


Time and again the ethics if how animals are treated are being brought up as if they are part and parcel with the morality of eating meat.

They are not. Mistreatment of animals during their time being raised, to be eaten, are far more often the result of corporate greed and bottom-line thinking that hasn't got much to do with the morality of actually eating meat.

As for the morality: if we stopped eating meat today, globally, do you honestly think the lives of cows would improve? Do you think the Eco system as it exists today could support NOT slaughtering those cows? I think not.


I agree that animals are treated as mere objects by corporations. I disagree, however, that it hasn't got much to do with the morality of eating meat. I think most people think animals have moral standing. Cruelty to animals is something most people disagree with. I think that many meat eaters whom have animals in their care would never beat these animals, and probably treat them very well. They recognize that their pets have moral standing independent of whether they own them. This same rationale should apply to live stock/animals killed for food. People would never treat animals this way, and yet they pay others to do it for them. Where is the integrity in that?

As for your point about the eco system supporting taking care of animals, you're not making sense. When civil liberties are granted to african americans, women, homosexual persons, there was a obligation to improve these peoples lives. They might still not benefit from equality yet, but the rational basis for it is there. I'd argue that animals have basic interests that need to be improved. Allowing factory farming flies in the face of that. If enviromental concerns bother you, then we should stop factory farming right now because it destroys the enviroment and is inefficient, period. If billions of animals were not raised for slaughter, the enviroment would be significantly better off. If you're worried about taking care of the animals in existence, well you're just simplifying a complex issue. We are not even close to abolishing factory farming. Your hypothetical concerns have no practical importance.

Funny, and sad at the same time. I expect much more from a holder of a Masters in Philosophy. Instead, I get the same rhetoric post after post after post about how your opinions are the only thing that matters, how facts aren't facts unless you make it so, and how a video isn't up for discussion unless you agree with those viewpoints.

This is common sense - because others here don't have it, I bring it.


Edited by hockeyville88, 05 November 2012 - 09:12 PM.
Personal attack removed. Please review the board rules

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#168 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:34 PM

Posted Image


is waiting for the ethics of eating human animal topic...........
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#169 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,204 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:40 PM

I don't. Reason does


It's in my culture and biology to consume some meat as part of my diet.

Your "reasoning" makes about as much sense as arresting the bears for murdering deer.

So unless you hate my culture and don't believe in biology your unilateral deceleration of what is right and wrong is just your own biased hot air, not reason.

Every culture has it's own morals including my own and you are not the master of them.
  • 1

#170 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,204 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:44 PM

The video uses local anesthetics AND it is performed by a veternarian. By contrast, common practices for cattle dehorning do NOT use local anesthetics OR have it performed by veternarians (who have a professional obligation to mitigate animal suffering).

It is a straw man on your part to say that I implied always. I did say that cattle dehorning is commonly practicised. Within this practice I implicitly assumed without local anesthetics or veternarians. It is a standard practice, especially on large industrialized dairy farms. Why? Because local anesthtics and veternarians are expensive. If you want clarification that's fine. I'm not gonig into great detail here because I prefer simplicity over gory amounts of detail. Still, my points all follow.



You've only showed that cattle dehorning can be practicied in a more humane way. I never said that this wasn't or couldn't be the case. I did say that the less humane way of cattle dehorning is a common practice. That fact stands. So you havn't really demonstrated anything, other than trying to cherry pick non standard examples. You easily forget that everything you say is still consistent with what I have been saying all along. Keep trying though.

Oh and as for my arguments, funny that you are now ridicule them and yet you already have rationally accepted them.


Unless your morals state that it's immoral to de-horn the cow. Pretty sure the reason they do that is so they don't injure each other with said horns. It's not done for fun, it's done for a legitimate reason.

Ergo it's moral. Why? Because me and my culture think so.

If you don't like it, too bad.
  • 0

#171 GodzillaDeuce

GodzillaDeuce

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,123 posts
  • Joined: 15-October 08

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:09 PM

Unless your morals state that it's immoral to de-horn the cow. Pretty sure the reason they do that is so they don't injure each other with said horns. It's not done for fun, it's done for a legitimate reason.

Ergo it's moral. Why? Because me and my culture think so.

If you don't like it, too bad.


You are taking a position of moral relativism, which is fine if that is what you believe, but you can't judge silly goose for how he feels about eating meat, since he may not have the same moral code as you. Maybe his culture and heritage deem eating meat to be amoral.

Ergo it's amoral. Why? Because Silly Goose (and his culture) says so.

If you don't like it, you can........(looks at title)......... eat crow. :bigblush:

edit: i meant immoral. sorry

Edited by GodzillaDeuce, 05 November 2012 - 06:40 PM.

  • 0

well I'm sorry that gd is soo perfect


#172 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,926 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:24 PM

It's in my culture and biology to consume some meat as part of my diet.


Who says culture justifies whether it is morally permissable to cause sentient beings unnecessary suffering? That's begging the question. Also, what do you mean by biology? Are you implying that you unless you eat meat you will die? What exactly do you mean? That's being vague.

Your "reasoning" makes about as much sense as arresting the bears for murdering deer.


Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying here. You should elaborate if you can.

So unless you hate my culture and don't believe in biology your unilateral deceleration of what is right and wrong is just your own biased hot air, not reason.


Snap judgements if you ask me. See above.

Every culture has it's own morals including my own and you are not the master of them.


I respect that cultural values vary to some extents. However, regardless of culture I do think there are some things that can be morally agreed upon. Regardless, you havn't specified what cultures nor what cultural values are at hand. Again, you're being vague.

Unless your morals state that it's immoral to de-horn the cow. Pretty sure the reason they do that is so they don't injure each other with said horns. It's not done for fun, it's done for a legitimate reason.


Agreed that one reason why it is done so that they don't injure other cattle or handlers. But that just begs the question whether that justifies the agony it causes for the sake of slaughtering them for food.

Ergo it's moral. Why? Because me and my culture think so.


Well I'd like to see you explain how your culture actually thinks that causing great agony to animals is morally permissable. I think we would all like to hear why.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 05 November 2012 - 04:25 PM.

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#173 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,936 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:37 PM

This goose is cooked.


Posted Image


MMMMMmmmmmm....
  • 4
Posted Image

#174 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,204 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:07 PM

Who says culture justifies whether it is morally permissable to cause sentient beings unnecessary suffering? That's begging the question. Also, what do you mean by biology? Are you implying that you unless you eat meat you will die? What exactly do you mean? That's being vague.



Sorry but I don't understand what you are saying here. You should elaborate if you can.


Snap judgements if you ask me. See above.



I respect that cultural values vary to some extents. However, regardless of culture I do think there are some things that can be morally agreed upon. Regardless, you havn't specified what cultures nor what cultural values are at hand. Again, you're being vague.



Agreed that one reason why it is done so that they don't injure other cattle or handlers. But that just begs the question whether that justifies the agony it causes for the sake of slaughtering them for food.



Well I'd like to see you explain how your culture actually thinks that causing great agony to animals is morally permissable. I think we would all like to hear why.


I mean that biologically humans eat meat. When found in our natural environment (some remote tribes actually do still exist) humans hunt and consume meat. Our digestive systems are made to consume it. A healthy, natural diet includes meat. It is also a part of many cultures.

Obviously suffering to animals should be minimized. That's why people like Temple Grandin are respected.

That it can not be eliminated does not mean that eating meat must be eliminated.
  • 2

#175 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,204 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:12 PM

You are taking a position of moral relativism, which is fine if that is what you believe, but you can't judge silly goose for how he feels about eating meat, since he may not have the same moral code as you. Maybe his culture and heritage deem eating meat to be amoral.

Ergo it's amoral. Why? Because Silly Goose (and his culture) says so.

If you don't like it, you can........(looks at title)......... eat crow. :bigblush:


I don't judge him for how he feels. I judge him for his self declared moral superiority and pushing his views on the rest of us.

I could care less if people don't want to eat meat. It lowers the cost of meat for the rest of us.
  • 0

#176 aeromotacanucks

aeromotacanucks

    Real Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:30 PM

the poin is cultural...

the man is an animal like any other. and our "class" is eat everything, vegetables or meat. in old times (very old times) the man had to hunt animals and grab fruits from the nature to survive. with the time our inteligence "discovered" that itīs much easier farm them, itīs simple math, you create a lot of animals and vegetables, grow them up and them eat them. you donīt have to hunt/grab anymore...

with the time the population increased and the necessity become bigger to obtain more food. the population increased and more and more food become necessary...

this is why we have enourmous farms around the planet. itīs simply impossible to tell everyone on every country "hunt your food and grab fruits from the nature". many people simply donīt know how do this or are too dangerous to hunt...

and of course, in many cultures/countries "eat meat" is the only alternative. you must be addict to "the taste of death" or you are banned from the society. kill an animal imposes that "man who can fight and kill" and many cultures really take this serious...

many people simply donīt like the taste of vegetables and will not accept a barbecue made with toffu. they need a cow/bull/fish/srimp killed on their plates because the flavour is better...


the human body needs protein and the easiest way to get this is from other animal. if you need get protein from vegetables you have to eat large quantities to get the same amount, but if you eat large quantities of vegetables somebody will be without food. and even with the large production of food of these days few people have too many food and many people donīt have enought to survive...


the "dignity" of kill an animal is controversial. the simple act of kill some animal without givving an option to the animal protect himself is a crime. BUT hunt your dinner could be dangerous since the number of weapons on the society will increase very much...


soo the biggest question is. "the man is a killer animal by nature or the modern society made this?"

many people will say yes, many people will say no...


I like meat, the society on my country simply made this standart. Brazilians love all types of meat. cow/bulls/srimp/fish/snakes etc. if some animal walk, fly, swin or jump our culture says "you can and must eat". a vegetarian will face real problems to mantain his/her diet here. because food for vegetarian is expensive and our society see this as "non natural habits".


just respect each side. meat lover or vegetarian...
  • 0
Shup up and fly! you´re not payed to think, you´re payed to fly!

#177 M A K A V E L I 96

M A K A V E L I 96

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 07:10 PM

Now if we ignore industrial farming practices, (which I personally don't care for very much), and focus on simply the ethics of eating meat vs plants, there is no argument to be made. They are, in essence, the same thing.


What? You're talking about apples and oranges cows here. There's a big difference in the ethics of eating meat vs plants. Fruits, vegetables, grains, etc don't have brains or can stand up and walk somewhere.

It's nice that you decided to ignore industrial farming practices in your argument since that's how the majority of animal products make their way onto store shelves.

If animals are just animals, would you be offended if someone wanted to eat dogs or cats? That probably makes your stomach turn in the same way that vegetarians feel about meat eating.

Edited by M A K A V E L I 96, 05 November 2012 - 07:18 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#178 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,926 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:05 PM

I mean that biologically humans eat meat. When found in our natural environment (some remote tribes actually do still exist) humans hunt and consume meat. Our digestive systems are made to consume it. A healthy, natural diet includes meat. It is also a part of many cultures.


You are only partially right in a particular sense. Biologically speaking, an argument can be made that humans evolved eating meat. That led to evolutionary adaptations such as brain size, etc. This is a fact that I don't dispute. However, that fact is quite different from the claim about whether it is biologically necessary to eat meat. Obviously it isn't, and even high performance athletes don't need to. Protein, however, is necessary to sustain a healthy diet. So what you should have said, is that a healthy, natural diet includes protein.

Precision Nutrition has a two part article about plant based diets geared specificlly for high performance athletes/fitness types. If you don't know much about nutrition, you should find it informative.

Obviously suffering to animals should be minimized. That's why people like Temple Grandin are respected.


Yes. So based on this, wouldn't eating meat that comes from factory farms fly in the face of minimizing suffering to animals? Shouldn't you at least try to exclude meat produced by these practices?

That it can not be eliminated does not mean that eating meat must be eliminated.


Not sure I follow you here. I don't think I ever said that eating must be eliminated, all together. Certain practices e.g. factory farming, ought to be.

I don't judge him for how he feels. I judge him for his self declared moral superiority and pushing his views on the rest of us.

I could care less if people don't want to eat meat. It lowers the cost of meat for the rest of us.


It has nothing to do with "moral superiority". It has to do with doing the right thing. If that means recognizing the sensible and intelligent thing to do and acting rationally in accordance with these beliefs, then I guess yeah, some of us are intelligent whereas others are stupid. I used to eat meat before. I didn't really know any better. But once I realized how animals produced for meat are treated, the choice was easy. Sometimes you gotta face the facts.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 05 November 2012 - 08:08 PM.

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#179 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,724 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 09:30 PM

conclusion: you're an idiot. (and that would be an ad hominen if it were irrelvant to the argument at hand, but based on your continuing denial of what facts are, it is relevant.)


By the way...calling me [an idiot]? That's pretty low for a PHIL101 student, let alone a M.Phil holder. Thought your prof would teach you to avoid the ad hom arguments in lecture 1, or were you too busy posting on CDC to have listened?


I stand by what I said.
  • 0

#180 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,629 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 09:37 PM

I eat animals, and my justification is that they are delicious.


  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg





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.