unknown33429 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Dogs taste like crap (as does horse btw) but Rabbit done properly is delicious. I've never knowingly ate Dolphin so I don't know how it tastes. What you're saying is true to a point but there are plenty of ugly animals we don't generally eat because they don't taste good other than dog. For some/many I'm sure there is a part of them that couldn't eat a cow if they went out and saw the cow that was going to be butchered. And I'm sorry but you're wrong. Eating meat is absolutely sustainable in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 No it's not. Not with the rate of increase of the human population. Also, people don't avoid eating dogs because they taste bad but because they are "man's best friend" which is what avelanch suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Painless killing is a different case which requires different justification. I never made the sweeping generalization that you are implying. You failed to understand that. Surprise suprise someone commits another straw man (look it up). That's a question for science, not me. In any event, cases like these where we arn't sure doesn't negate cases that we are sure about. What can you say about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Oh, and changing your OP to erase your original argument is disingenuous. That speaks volumes more about your ability to openly debate based on the merit of your argument than it does on the argument itself. Incredibly poor form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Man Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Oh, and changing your OP to erase your original argument is disingenuous. That speaks volumes more about your ability to openly debate based on the merit of your argument than it does on the argument itself. Incredibly poor form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Oh, and changing your OP to erase your original argument is disingenuous. That speaks volumes more about your ability to openly debate based on the merit of your argument than it does on the argument itself. Incredibly poor form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastaj Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 The whole point of this thread is pointless. If someone is a vegetarian, they will argue until they're blue in the face about ethics and morals, but will not convince a single meat eater. If someone eats meat, they will argue until they're blue in the face about biology and what is natural as a human being, and will not convince a single vegetarian. Being a vegetarian is a choice, and while I don't practice that myself, I don't hate on others for choosing that life. By the same note, do not try to gult me into following your practice; in any case, it won't work on me, since I do not feel guilty for eating meat. This whole thing reminds me of religious debates.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 It is your point, from your OP, that killing and esting animals is immoral. If you are now saying it is simply the manner in which we kill them, so as to be humane, then I don't think you'll have any argument from anyone. That's a different discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 The whole point of this thread is pointless. If someone is a vegetarian, they will argue until they're blue in the face about ethics and morals, but will not convince a single meat eater. If someone eats meat, they will argue until they're blue in the face about biology and what is natural as a human being, and will not convince a single vegetarian. Being a vegetarian is a choice, and while I don't practice that myself, I don't hate on others for choosing that life. By the same note, do not try to gult me into following your practice; in any case, it won't work on me, since I do not feel guilty for eating meat. This whole thing reminds me of religious debates.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 The whole point of this thread is pointless. If someone is a vegetarian, they will argue until they're blue in the face about ethics and morals, but will not convince a single meat eater. If someone eats meat, they will argue until they're blue in the face about biology and what is natural as a human being, and will not convince a single vegetarian. Being a vegetarian is a choice, and while I don't practice that myself, I don't hate on others for choosing that life. By the same note, do not try to gult me into following your practice; in any case, it won't work on me, since I do not feel guilty for eating meat. This whole thing reminds me of religious debates.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
لني Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuckin_futz Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostViking Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 Ethic does not have anything to do with intelligence. Ethic is all about morals and values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.