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

#211 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 10 November 2012 - 05:16 PM

It was meant as a joke to anyone who didn't know the word "beget" and wanted to look it up. We might be going in different directions in other threads, but in this one, it looks like smooth sailing for you and me :)

good good. I better beget'n my meds.

ba dum bump MEAT RULES
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#212 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 07:05 PM

90% of the women I've met are 'meat' eaters. ;)
  • 1

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#213 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 10 November 2012 - 07:10 PM

90% of the women I've met are 'meat' eaters. ;)


Lucky son of a ...
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#214 Mountain Man

Mountain Man

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 386 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 12

Posted 10 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

Posted Image
  • 0
virtus junxit mors non separabit.

Hockey season must be back on, the crazies are coming out again....


#215 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

Lucky son of a ...


I must say I'm a bit of a sea food connoisseur myself.
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#216 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 10 November 2012 - 07:30 PM

How does one double post ten minutes apart!?

Edited by Gumballthechewy, 10 November 2012 - 07:43 PM.

  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#217 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,348 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 10 November 2012 - 09:28 PM

How does one double post ten minutes apart!?

skillfully
  • 0

#218 TheAntar

TheAntar

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:28 PM

"If non-human animals are morally considerable, and being in agony always gives us a reason to avoid it, then it rationally follows that causing non-human animals to be in agony gives us normative reason to alleviate it."

This right here sums up the whole thing. You can be against aspects of how food is handled but you're going way past that.

Some animals raised for food suffer.

Therefore all animals should not be raised for food???

What's your fancy name for the logical mistake you made here?
  • 0

#219 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,085 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 11 November 2012 - 12:50 AM

What's your fancy name for the logical mistake you made here?


The Silly Goose Fallacy
  • 1

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 


#220 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,705 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:01 AM

90% of the women I've met are 'meat' eaters. ;)


Beaver also counts as meat ;)
  • 0

#221 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:56 AM

"If non-human animals are morally considerable, and being in agony always gives us a reason to avoid it, then it rationally follows that causing non-human animals to be in agony gives us normative reason to alleviate it."

This right here sums up the whole thing. You can be against aspects of how food is handled but you're going way past that.

Some animals raised for food suffer.

Therefore all animals should not be raised for food???

What's your fancy name for the logical mistake you made here?


The thing is this thread is pretty clearly not about the argument but rather the style of arguing. At least I hope so because the argument sucks.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#222 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 11 November 2012 - 11:58 AM

skillfully


Well I am special.

Beaver also counts as meat ;)


When I was in Australia I was chatting with this one girl and we ended up talking about Australia's national animal (kangaroo and emu) and how Australia is the only country in the world that eats their national animals, but I countered with "that's not true, Canadians eat beaver." I even proved it to her! ;)
  • 0

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#223 Mr.Habitat

Mr.Habitat

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,621 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 03

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:46 AM

Biologically speaking, I believe this is not true. We are closer to specialized frugivores like chimps, who also consume some meat and insects. We are not omnivores like bears are.


Chimps also eat each other..
  • 1

#224 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,886 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:21 PM

So if I would eat a dog it's ok for me to eat a turkey?

Well where is the line?

Do you use plastic bags? Well then you might as well eat meat because plastic bags utilize animal fat. Hope you don't take your bike anywhere because several bike tires (and car tires) use stearic acid. Don't get me started on if you've ever enjoyed fireworks or don't research shampoo, toothpaste, sugar, fabric softener, beer, wine, glue, biofuel, marshmallows. And let me add that if your residence catches fire don't you dare use a fire extinguisher because if you do you might as well be eating meat.

Stupid arguments beget stupid arguments.


Wow. Committing straw man arguments is clearly a favorite past time of yours.

  • Person A has position X.
  • Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
  • Person B attacks position Y.
  • Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


1.All the ad claims is that whatever normative reasons apply for not eating your dog as food (and the ad assumes correctly that the vast majority of dog owners would never eat their dogs) it is highly likely that those same reasons also apply to other animals purposed for food.


2. The ad says nothing about anything being derived from animals in some form or another is morally wrong. You are clearly taking things out of context.

3. Everything else you say is a mischaracterization of the ad's original intent. Attacking that mischaracterization is not valid. Hence, straw man.

Edited by SN -Admin, 22 November 2012 - 03:11 PM.
personal attack removed

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#225 Gumballthechewy

Gumballthechewy

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,905 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:24 PM

Posted Image
  • 1

Don't take anything I say seriously! EVER!


#226 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:03 PM

Wow. Committing straw man arguments is clearly a favorite past time of yours.

No it's not a straw man argument at all actually. It's a really simple concept actually. If this thread is about ethics and if the idea is brought up that if one wouldn't eat their own dog they shouldn't eat any other animal what I said is completely valid and I have no intention of burning anything down. The argument is flawed right from the start but if we're looking at it ethically then we shouldn't just be talking about nutrition should we?

1.All the ad claims is that whatever normative reasons apply for not eating your dog as food (and the ad assumes correctly that the vast majority of dog owners would never eat their dogs) it is highly likely that those same reasons also apply to other animals purposed for food.

Which is why I asked then if I eat my dog would it be ok for me to eat turkey. As I said earlier...the add is flawed in it's logic. It's basis is on an assumption which whether right or wrong is a pretty horrible foundation.

2. The ad says nothing about anything being derived from animals in some form or another is morally wrong. You are clearly taking things out of context.

Am I taking the thread out of context? I believe this thread is about ethics right. You are clearly not liking where the argument went so you're trying to make it out as if this ad is the only thing that matters. This is a thread you created about ethics. Ethically every product I listed you shouldn't be using if you are against the consumption of animals. If you use any of them you're a lazy hypocrite. That's not a straw man it's a pretty clear cause and effect. I'm sorry if you don't like that my friend but if you can explain how it's incorrect I would love to hear it. You haven't seemed very keen for actual discussion much though.

3. Everything else you say is a mischaracterization of the ad's original intent. Attacking that mischaracterization is not valid. Hence, straw man.

The only thing really directed at the ad were the questions I asked. I'm sorry that you weren't able to grasp that. Obviously I asked where the line is and surprise surprise there is no actual response. The ad isn't about ethics it's about a flawed point; the thread however... ;)

Oh, and your glorious stupidity has been added to the OP. Good day.

You should probably change the title of the thread as well seeings as how you no longer want it being brought up. Tell me I'm wrong though. Explain to me; since now I've laid out the argument in a manner that you can understand, how you can ethically be against the consumption of meat (please no more semantics here; I know it's been the basis for your arguments but grow a set and stop arguing about the argument) and then tell me that the argument I made was wrong. Personally I use all of those products and eat meat. I try to be careful of what I buy no matter what it is but I don't have an ethical problem with the use of animals in products or as food. Will you answer the questions? Allow me to set you free from any trap you think I'm setting. There is no problem (in my eyes) if you use those products and still choose not to consume animals or animal byproducts.

Hope it's cleared up for you; now you won't be mischaracterizing my argument any further. I bet you keep it in the OP (which is just fine) and present it incorrectly (not as fine) but maybe I'm wrong about how ethical you really are. Honestly my take is blow hard but I'd love to be wrong. Doesn't really matter...thread's dying anyways.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 12 November 2012 - 08:14 PM.

  • 3
Posted Image
Posted Image

#227 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:34 PM

Researcher: Vegetarian Diet Kills Animals Too



Posted Image[font=arial, sans-serif !important]






[font=arial, sans-serif]


By Lee Dye
May 1



Steven Davis says he didn't set out to start a fight, but found one when he began attacking one of the most sacred beliefs of the vegetarian community.
One of the reasons most commonly cited by vegetarians for giving up meat is the conviction that other animals have a right to life as well as humans. But when Davis began setting up a course on animal ethics for the animal science department at Oregon State University four years ago, he reached a rather surprising conclusion.
Nobody's hands are free from the blood of other animals, not even vegetarians, he concluded. Millions of animals are killed every year, Davis says, to prepare land for growing crops, "like corn, soybean, wheat and barley, the staples of a vegan diet."
Smaller Victims
The animals in this case are mice and moles and rabbits and other creatures that are run over by tractors, or lose their habitat to make way for farming, so they are not as "visible" as cattle, he says.
And that, Davis says, gives rise to a fundamental question: "What is it that makes it OK to kill animals of the field so that we can eat [vegetables or fruits] but not pigs or chickens or cows?"
Any disruption of the land, whether it be to farm or to build subdivisions, reduces the amount of land left for other animals, resulting in the deaths of many. And Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State who grew up on a farm, says as a child he saw animals killed by the routine operation of farm machinery, so there's no way to have a bloodless farm.
"If they say they don't want to kill an animal so they can eat, I think their conclusion is misguided because they are killing animals so that they can eat that vegetarian diet," Davis says. "Those animals happen to be a little bit invisible. They are not as obvious to the man on the street as killing a steer in the slaughterhouse. But nonetheless, it's still going on."
Ever since he revealed his conclusions, Davis' e-mail box has been jammed with responses, much of it from vegetarians, and not all of it friendly. Most of it, though, has been "quite decent," he says, because vegetarians tend to be well-educated, sensitive and thoughtful folks.
One-Time Kill vs. Continuous Slaughter
"This is something we've been aware of for a long time," admits Jack Norris, president of Vegan Outreach in Davis, Calif., an organization that is dedicated to spreading the gospel of vegetarianism. (Norris is a vegan, by the way, which is even more restrictive then vegetarianism in that it rejects all animal products, including milk and other dairy products.)
It's obvious that some animals die when their land is taken away for farming, Norris says, "but you take it away only once." It doesn't lead to the continuous slaughter of animals for human consumption, he contends, because once the land is turned into a farm, there aren't that many animals around to kill.
Davis admits he doesn't really know how many animals are lost each year to agriculture, but he suspects it runs in the millions. Not many farmers do a before-and-after survey, so the best data are really just estimates.
But it's clear that many are killed to put meat and dairy products on our tables, and Norris and others are just as concerned over the suffering of those animals prior to slaughter as they are over the deaths themselves.

Citing numerous studies by federal agencies, as well as news organizations, Norris says in most cases it's tough being a farm animal. That's especially true for pigs and chickens.
Female breeding pigs are restricted to pens so small they can't even turn around, he says. Five to 10 chickens often are housed in cages "about the size of your typical microwave oven," he says.
And federal government statistics reveal that cows have been fed so much growth hormone that they boosted their milk production from an average 2.3 tons of milk per year for each cow in 1940 to 8.4 tons by 1997.
Norris says that has led to all kinds of diseases and sicknesses among cows.
Lay Off Chickens and Pigs?
Davis and Norris agree on one point. No system is perfect, and what's needed here is far more dialogue among growers, consumers and vegetarians.
Davis believes the death toll among all animals could be reduced if ranchers concentrated on raising cattle instead of pigs and chickens and let those cattle revert to foraging in open fields that could be shared with other animals.
Citing U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics, Davis says of the 8.4 billion animals killed each year for food in the United States, 8 billion are poultry and only 41 million are cows, calves, sheep and lambs. So he figures you could double the number of cattle killed each year, and lay off the chickens, and consequently save about 7.5 billion animals.
But just letting cattle roam freely doesn't solve the problem either, Norris says, because other animals like coyotes and wolves would still likely be killed (just as they are today) to protect the cattle. And he still can't stand the thought of all those hamburgers.
It's not a perfect world, Davis counters, but perhaps with a lot more thought and cooperation, a better alternative might be found. But unless someone comes up with a brilliant idea, whether you eat meat or just fruit and vegetables, you're going to have to share somewhat in the bloodletting.
It might do more good, of course, if all of us just ate a little less of everything.
Lee Dye’s column appears weekly on ABCNEWS.com. A former science writer for the Los Angeles Times, he now lives in Juneau, Alaska.



Interesting read. Perhaps ethics isn't such a big issue after all; or maybe this just makes it worse. I admit trying to buy chicken while keeping in mind how it's treated is a pain in the arse. I have local sources but it can be hard to get enough from local small farms.[/font]

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 12 November 2012 - 08:37 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#228 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,707 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:56 PM

Wow. Committing straw man arguments is clearly a favorite past time of yours.



1.All the ad claims is that whatever normative reasons apply for not eating your dog as food (and the ad assumes correctly that the vast majority of dog owners would never eat their dogs) it is highly likely that those same reasons also apply to other animals purposed for food.


2. The ad says nothing about anything being derived from animals in some form or another is morally wrong. You are clearly taking things out of context.

3. Everything else you say is a mischaracterization of the ad's original intent. Attacking that mischaracterization is not valid. Hence, straw man.

Oh, and your glorious stupidity has been added to the OP. Good day.


Oh, goodness gracious .. you are SUCH a Silly Goose .. :P
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#229 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:16 AM

"If non-human animals are morally considerable, and being in agony always gives us a reason to avoid it, then it rationally follows that causing non-human animals to be in agony gives us normative reason to alleviate it."

This right here sums up the whole thing. You can be against aspects of how food is handled but you're going way past that.

Some animals raised for food suffer.

Therefore all animals should not be raised for food???

What's your fancy name for the logical mistake you made here?

Might be a straw man. He really really likes to throw that one around.

Or it might just be nonsensical bull****.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#230 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,886 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:11 PM

If this thread is about ethics and if the idea is brought up that if one wouldn't eat their own dog they shouldn't eat any other animal what I said is completely valid and I have no intention of burning anything down.


The argument claims that if on the face it would be wrong to eat your dog, those same reasons most likely apply to other animals purposed for food. You then went on a rant about other animal by products. That is already beyond the scope of the argument. Am I sayng there is no relation at all? No. But animal by-products isn't the (present) point at issue. When you widen the scope, you mischaracterize the argument because that is not necessarily what the arguer (PETA) is claiming.

Which is why I asked then if I eat my dog would it be ok for me to eat turkey. As I said earlier...the add is flawed in it's logic. It's basis is on an assumption which whether right or wrong is a pretty horrible foundation.


The assumption is based on a considered moral belief most people have. You simply eating your dog doesn't show the assumption is false. If the assumption is false, you have to show why or at least give good reasons why people shouldn't assume that it would be wrong to eat their dogs. You havn't done that. So you're begging the question. That's flawed logic.

Am I taking the thread out of context? I believe this thread is about ethics right. You are clearly not liking where the argument went so you're trying to make it out as if this ad is the only thing that matters. This is a thread you created about ethics. Ethically every product I listed you shouldn't be using if you are against the consumption of animals. If you use any of them you're a lazy hypocrite. That's not a straw man it's a pretty clear cause and effect. I'm sorry if you don't like that my friend but if you can explain how it's incorrect I would love to hear it. You haven't seemed very keen for actual discussion much though.


You're taking the ad out of context, but not the thread. That's what I said right? I never said anything about taking the thread out of context. If you want to talk about animal products in general that's fine. But don't conflate arguments.

I don't think using animal by products are that far off from why it's wrong to use animals for food. That's why I try to stay away from animal by products in general. Am I perfect in this task? No, but then again I don't think anyone has to be. So if I use a plastic bag from time to time is that equivocal with eating meat on a daily basis and using animal by products indiscriminatly? Clearly it isn't. So the comparative judgement you make isn't as strong as you seem to think it is.

The only thing really directed at the ad were the questions I asked. I'm sorry that you weren't able to grasp that. Obviously I asked where the line is and surprise surprise there is no actual response. The ad isn't about ethics it's about a flawed point; the thread however... ;)
You should probably change the title of the thread as well seeings as how you no longer want it being brought up. Tell me I'm wrong though. Explain to me; since now I've laid out the argument in a manner that you can understand, how you can ethically be against the consumption of meat (please no more semantics here; I know it's been the basis for your arguments but grow a set and stop arguing about the argument) and then tell me that the argument I made was wrong. Personally I use all of those products and eat meat. I try to be careful of what I buy no matter what it is but I don't have an ethical problem with the use of animals in products or as food. Will you answer the questions? Allow me to set you free from any trap you think I'm setting. There is no problem (in my eyes) if you use those products and still choose not to consume animals or animal byproducts.


See the OP

Argument from Agony

  • Experience tells us that being in agony is morally bad
  • Anything morally bad always gives us a reason to want to avoid it
  • Therefore, being in agony always gives us a reason to want to avoid it
Argument from Moral Consideration
  • Anything that has an interest (e.g. avoiding agony) is morally considerable
  • Sentient beings have interests
  • Non-human animals and humans are sentient beings
  • Therefore, non-human animals and humans are morally considerable
Deduction from Both arguments:

If non-human animals are morally considerable, and being in agony always gives us a reason to avoid it, then it rationally follows that causing non-human animals to be in agony gives us normative reason to alleviate it. If being in agony is worth avoiding, this reason must apply to non-human animals as well because they are morally considerable. To discount their interests requires arguing why animals are not morally considerable, or why their interests ought to be overridden. Taste doesn't cut it. Nutrition doesn't cut it either.


  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#231 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:26 PM

/\
That penguin in your sig seems pretty happy with his mouth full of flesh.

The main argument of this thread - questioning the morality of it because you wouldn't want to eat your dog - is pretty weak. People become overly attached to their pets, and try to humanize them.

So on the one have we have common dietary practice, based on the observable natural order and proven over milleniums of human history. And on the other, criticism of the former based on nothing but a concept of pure sentimentality.

On top of that, one tastes like rib-eye steak, and the other like tofu.
  • 2
Posted Image

#232 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,437 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:02 PM

The argument claims that if on the face it would be wrong to eat your dog, those same reasons most likely apply to other animals purposed for food. You then went on a rant about other animal by products. That is already beyond the scope of the argument. Am I sayng there is no relation at all? No. But animal by-products isn't the (present) point at issue. When you widen the scope, you mischaracterize the argument because that is not necessarily what the arguer (PETA) is claiming.

But it's not wrong to eat your dog...it's just culturally not appropriate. There is a difference. So that argument sucks because there are places where eating dog is just fine...there is no stigma attached.

The argument is about morality...I know you admitted earlier to having a leather belt or some other thing so now you're saying it can't be a part of the discussion at all is rather nonsensical.The argument is not mischaracterized because...and you should read this slower this time...I was asking a question based on the argument. The question was quite simple...where does the line get drawn. If you wouldn't eat your dog then you shouldn't eat your dog but you're fine having animal byproducts are you still ok? I'd say one would be a hypocrite.



The assumption is based on a considered moral belief most people have. You simply eating your dog doesn't show the assumption is false. If the assumption is false, you have to show why or at least give good reasons why people shouldn't assume that it would be wrong to eat their dogs. You havn't done that. So you're begging the question. That's flawed logic.

No the argument is flawed logic. I asked the question...if I eat my dog then is it ok for me to eat meat? Simple question that is directly related to the argument. Just because it shows how ridiculously stupid the argument is doesn't make it any less valid no matter how much you want it to be. The topic is morality of eating non human animals....well I'm sorry but part of that topic (the morality part) goes outside of the narrow scope of just consumption of flesh. I know this byproduct discussion is what killed your last thread which is why you're trying to argue that it's not valid rather than actually have the discussion.


You're taking the ad out of context, but not the thread. That's what I said right? I never said anything about taking the thread out of context. If you want to talk about animal products in general that's fine. But don't conflate arguments.

Again I'm sorry that you don't like that the two things are intertwined but your dislike for something that is so obviously true and simple to undertand is not something I care about. I've already explained why the add wasn't taken out of context. Again if you're so afraid of where this leads the discussion then perhaps you should have thought about that before opening this can of tasty tasty worms...again.

I don't think using animal by products are that far off from why it's wrong to use animals for food. That's why I try to stay away from animal by products in general. Am I perfect in this task? No, but then again I don't think anyone has to be. So if I use a plastic bag from time to time is that equivocal with eating meat on a daily basis and using animal by products indiscriminatly? Clearly it isn't. So the comparative judgement you make isn't as strong as you seem to think it is.

Yes it is absolutely just as bad when we are discussin morality. In the high and mighty world of talking about morality you are either moral or immoral. Simply saying "hey guys I'm not perfect but you guys stop what you're doing" is hypocritical and disingenuous. If you are going to say that it is immoral to cause animals agony and then go on to dismiss animal byproducts by saying "I'm not perfect" you've blown your entire argument out of the water.

Hence the question...where is the line?


See the OP

That's unfortunate...I hate being right sometimes. I'm sorry but all you've shown here is hypocrisy and either a refusal or inability to answer very simple questions.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 14 November 2012 - 07:07 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#233 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,705 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:59 PM

This thread, like my chicken tonight, is rather quite dry. It needs more anti-omnivore trolls and PETA lovers.
  • 0

#234 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,110 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:55 PM

This thread, like my chicken tonight, is rather quite dry. It needs more anti-omnivore trolls and PETA lovers.


I think it's getting a little too cold and wet to put the PETA lovers on the BBQ to feed the pro-omnivore trolls. Maybe just "fatten" (I know not gonna happen unless we feed them lots of candy) them up with tofu turkeys over the winter and then flay their grain fed butts off and put them in the smoker in the spring?

Not much to do until then.
  • 0

#235 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,886 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:48 PM

But it's not wrong to eat your dog...it's just culturally not appropriate. There is a difference. So that argument sucks because there are places where eating dog is just fine...there is no stigma attached.


You're only partly right. It's true that in some parts of the world, eating dogs is more acceptable than in other parts of the world. So descriptively speaking, that is true. However, normatively speaking, arguments can be made that regardless of what culture one is from, in most cases eating dogs is not ethically permissible.

I've included a video below that I thought describes the dog eating situation in China quite well. As you can see, there is a growing group of non-conformists who think eating dogs should be halted or at least regulated, and many people in China actually don't eat dogs at all. Only a small portion do. Either way, there is an ethical debate going on even within these cultures.

Please watch this video. I think the treatment of these animals (shown within the video) is illustrative of why I take the position I do. The well being of animals is morally important.

http://youtu.be/DKVWfQrut-k

The argument is about morality...I know you admitted earlier to having a leather belt or some other thing so now you're saying it can't be a part of the discussion at all is rather nonsensical.The argument is not mischaracterized because...and you should read this slower this time...I was asking a question based on the argument. The question was quite simple...where does the line get drawn. If you wouldn't eat your dog then you shouldn't eat your dog but you're fine having animal byproducts are you still ok? I'd say one would be a hypocrite.


OK moving on.

First, I'm not absolutely against eating animals i.e in northern climes where eating animals is necessary for survival. However, even in these contexts, I think individuals still have a moral responsibility to give the animals as quick and painless death as possible.

Second, animal by products is also more complex issue than it seems because difficult ethical issues can be involved e.g. animal experimentation is a difficult issue whereas some cases are less troublesome, ethically speaking e.g. sheering sheep wool (assuming no cruelty is involved).

Given those considerations, I can't give you an absolute line. That is partly because I am a consequentialistin terms of ethical theory-all ethical judgements depend on the outcomes. So I don't believe in absolutes anyways. The easy answer is to say that it is generally better if products aren't derived from animals at all, but I'm not saying that is necessarily morally obligatory (so no moral absolute). Yes, I am a competitive boxer so I have a few things that are made of leather, and even though I wish I could get products that didn't have leather, those products are usually very cheap and poorly made. You do what you can, and I certainly don't expect anyone to be perfect.


No the argument is flawed logic. I asked the question...if I eat my dog then is it ok for me to eat meat? Simple question that is directly related to the argument. Just because it shows how ridiculously stupid the argument is doesn't make it any less valid no matter how much you want it to be. The topic is morality of eating non human animals....well I'm sorry but part of that topic (the morality part) goes outside of the narrow scope of just consumption of flesh. I know this byproduct discussion is what killed your last thread which is why you're trying to argue that it's not valid rather than actually have the discussion.


This is getting silly. The point I was trying to make was that the ad wasn't directed towards animal by-products. It specifically said "you wouldn't eat your dog". You can make as much as a huff as you want, but there is a logical difference in scope as far as what the ad was trying to say and what this thread is interested in. I'm fine with talking about animal by-products. If you want to talk about that (and I think we are), that's fine. But even you should be able to recognize that by products widens the scope of the issue more so than what the ad is directed towards (eating).

You have to be charitable to the arguments presented. Given that, I fully agree with you that talking about animal by-products is ethically relevant to the issue of whether we should be eating animals.

Yes it is absolutely just as bad when we are discussin morality. In the high and mighty world of talking about morality you are either moral or immoral. Simply saying "hey guys I'm not perfect but you guys stop what you're doing" is hypocritical and disingenuous. If you are going to say that it is immoral to cause animals agony and then go on to dismiss animal byproducts by saying "I'm not perfect" you've blown your entire argument out of the water.


For starters, this is an ad hominen argument.

  • Person A makes claim X.
  • Person B makes an attack on person A.
  • Therefore A's claim is false.



Your first sentence constitutes the ad hominen. All the stuff about hypocrisy is fine, but that doesn't weaken the validity, nor the soundness of the arguments-they are independent conditions.

Even so, I never said anyone has to be perfect. I rationally accept that it is wrong to cause animals to suffer, and by all means I avoid that as much as possible. My boxing products aren't great, ethically speaking. I accept that my actions are wrong in some sense. But given all my other actions (not eating animal products-at least that I am aware of), staying away from animal by products in general are good actions. I've said a number of times on this thread that even if people lessened their meat consumption and bought it from places that presumably treat their animals well, I think that would be better than doing nothing at all. Ideally, if people changed their diets to vegetarian or even vegan that would be best. You do what you can. That's what I've been saying all along.

However, I think the moral obligation to not eat meat from factory farms e.g. cheap meat is quite strong just as the moral obligation to not rape or cause battery or assault to someone is quite strong.

Hence the question...where is the line?

I think what I've posted might answer some questions, whereas others I might need more specific information from you. Given that this is an online forum, I'm not going to write a treatise on here. If some specific issue interests you, by all means mention it.

That's unfortunate...I hate being right sometimes. I'm sorry but all you've shown here is hypocrisy and either a refusal or inability to answer very simple questions.


I haven't shown that I am a hypocrite. I've been quite consistent all along. Your eagerness to attack and desire to be right is clouding your logical judgement. As far as questions go, I haven't dodged anything. All I'm asking for is clarification and letting you know some of my presumptions about ethical theorizing.

Edited by SILLY GOOSE, 15 November 2012 - 12:55 PM.

  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#236 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,110 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:19 PM

So making animals suffer is wrong but it's ok to let your opponent in the ring suffer? Tsk tsk. While it might seem ok in your instance being all rich and western many poor people get into it as it's one of the few ways out of poverty and as a result many end up getting serious brain damage in a desperate plea to make it through the world of human chicken fighting.

Tsk tsk such depravity! And here you are judging others!

I suggest you run off and donate your computer and internet money to feed some people in the third world as penance.
  • 0

#237 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,871 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 15 November 2012 - 02:46 PM

I wouldn't eat my ficus, but I still have salad from time to time.

Edited by D-Money, 15 November 2012 - 03:20 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image

#238 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,348 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 15 November 2012 - 03:06 PM

I wouldn't eat my ficus, but I still eat salad from time to time.

i'm sure that's a straw man... or an ad hominem... or something of the sort.

Fatuous Foie Gras should sort it out for us shortly.

Edited by avelanch, 15 November 2012 - 03:11 PM.

  • 2

#239 Pistachios

Pistachios

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,886 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 12

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:52 AM

So making animals suffer is wrong but it's ok to let your opponent in the ring suffer? Tsk tsk. While it might seem ok in your instance being all rich and western many poor people get into it as it's one of the few ways out of poverty and as a result many end up getting serious brain damage in a desperate plea to make it through the world of human chicken fighting.

Tsk tsk such depravity! And here you are judging others!

I suggest you run off and donate your computer and internet money to feed some people in the third world as penance.


This is dumb.

Good day.
  • 0

G4fSut.gif


#240 Dral

Dral

    Puts the Dr in Drunk

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,085 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 12

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:58 PM

Why do so many of Silly Goose' posts have "stop using straw man on me" then end with "you're an idiot" ?
  • 4

Fruits?

Lord Peaches' gut is telling him that the drunken fool, aka Dral, is 100% mafia.

 MVP?

Dral is 100% mafia or I will masteb_ _ _ _ a cow and like it

GOATis?

Vig kill dral he never talks like this when he's not mafia.

 





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.