Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 164
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: What is the justification for eating meat?

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    February 6th, 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Posts
    65

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?


    *Ads Disappear After 100 Posts*
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphus Raymond View Post
    ennyn: How about if I dominate and kill you because I'm bigger than you?
    Well, big spoiler to you : That's what happens in the animal world (What ??)
    And if you're from a different species, and doing that would make your life better, then go ahead and try, that's how it'd probably work anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphus Raymond View Post
    What if I divided humanity as inferior/superior along racial lines, as others have in the past?
    Dividing into racial, etc. does not apply, i said we should worry more about our own species.
    It's obvious we would care more about ourselves and less about other animals, that's just how the world works, there's nothing wrong with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphus Raymond View Post
    Also, why is it invalid to respond that meat consumption is not necessary?
    I agree we should eat LESS meat, and i understand your point about grobal warming, and even about the "not enough meat to feed everyone", i understand we loose lots of 'energy' feeding animals with stuff we could be eating ourselves directly, thus conserving more energy from the source.

    I would gladly give up meat if there was any other alternative that was as tasty and pratical, with the protein it provides.
    There isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphus Raymond View Post
    In one case, you think "it's unnecessary" makes it wrong, and the other you don't...that's special pleading. It's your burden to defend it.
    HOW CAN U POSSIBLY EVEN TRY TO DEFEND THIS CRAP.
    In one case you're eating one ANIMAL FROM ANOTHER SPECIES, WITCH WAS KILLED FOR THIS PURPOSE (FEEDING).
    and in another, you're MURDERING AND EATING FROM YOUR OWN SPECIES, FOR NO REASON (It's bad for your health, it's immoral, unethic, unnecessary).
    Can't you imagine where would we be if we were cannibals to that level ? Not here today, i assure you.
    special pleading.. Pfft.. seriously !??

    Eating meat from another human being is wrong, simply because it's another human being. Unless you were starving to death trapped in the ice or any other exception like that so, unless it was necessary for your survival.
    i can't believe i'm discussing this.
    Are you trying to defend that cannibalism is the same as eating meat from other animals ? Holy shit that's the dumbest thing i've read so far on this forum.


    • Advertising


  2. #62
    Angel Down is offline
    (Jimmy)
    Member Angel Down's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 21st, 2007
    Age
    23
    Gender
    Posts
    3,665
    My Diary
    ( 1 )

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aelius View Post
    I don't think anyone has raised one of the primary negative externalities of meat eating, that being the environmental implications as it relates to global warming. Because of the huge amount of plant matter that livestock consume, along with some of the environmentally unfriendly practices of industrial farming factories, it's arguable that it's more environmentally friendly to eat a salad in a hummer than a cheeseburger in a Prius.
    Because it's not a legitimate argument. The last time this debate came around I outlined why. Here are the highlights:

    According to UN estimates, animals raised for food are responsible for 18% of all emissions at most. Other estimates argue 10-12% is a more accurate figure.

    Beef cattle are responsible for virtually all of these emissions, regardless of what the exact number is.

    If we were to substitute a similar-tasting food animal for cattle, the kangaroo, these emissions would basically cease to exist.

    The only environmental argument worth having is the one that was being discussed, which is how food animals use up land that could otherwise be used to grow a good deal more crops.

    You sound like a Republican already. Let me guess, you're also opposed to closing down oil rigs because of the jobs that would be lost? The child porn industry employs people, would you be in favour of keeping that industry operational? No, of course not, because the industry is causing harm, right? Exactly. Meat eating is causing harm - not just to the animals, but to humans - just like the oil industry is and just like the child porn industry is.
    You're the most intolerant person on this site. All you do is put words in people's mouths to try to get them to defend points they never made in the first place. I'm not even going to touch this.

    On a side note, your personal vendetta against Republicans is childish, especially when you start bringing it up in a debate where political stance doesn't have anything to do with the topic being discussed.

    Even if we granted such exceptions, that doesn't excuse meat eating for 95+ percent of the population.
    By granting such exceptions we would be creating a situation in which meat-eating is acceptable, though. Which is my point. If there are exceptions to the rule ("meat eating is bad") then it isn't a rule.

    So, if aliens came down, took over our planet, and started forcibly breeding humans for the purposes of eating us, you'd be cool with that? Let me guess, humans are an exception in your mind? Special pleading is so convenient, isn't it?
    There you go again. If you'd respond to what I said instead of making unfounded assumptions I'd actually consider taking the time to write a meaningful response. I'm not going to waste my time with this bullshit, though.

    When has "culture" ever been a good reason to do anything? If burying little children alive is part of a culture, which it is in some primitive tribal regions of the world, would you be cool with that? If slavery was a huge part of a culture, would you be cool with allowing them to keep slaves? If child rape was part of a particular culture, which it arguably is in many parts of the world, is that okay too?

    Culture, like religion, is one of the worst reasons to do anything in this world
    If you want to pretend like there's nothing redeeming about culture, I won't stop you. I won't respond to your ludicrous posts, either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joker View Post
    I use any word any damn way i want, if you take offence well go bugger yourself stupid and stop being so anal
    Quote Originally Posted by cicero17 View Post
    Amen, my nigger.

  3. #63
    Moderator Dolphus Raymond's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 12th, 2006
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    17,831

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by ennyn View Post
    Well, big spoiler to you : That's what happens in the animal world (What ??)
    And if you're from a different species, and doing that would make your life better, then go ahead and try, that's how it'd probably work anyway.
    And you think that should be legal?

    Quote Originally Posted by ennyn View Post
    Dividing into racial, etc. does not apply, i said we should worry more about our own species.
    It's obvious we would care more about ourselves and less about other animals, that's just how the world works, there's nothing wrong with it.
    ...Rewrite what you're saying with "race" instead of "species." What stops someone from making such a division, based on the rationale you're arguing?


    Quote Originally Posted by ennyn View Post
    I agree we should eat LESS meat, and i understand your point about grobal warming, and even about the "not enough meat to feed everyone", i understand we loose lots of 'energy' feeding animals with stuff we could be eating ourselves directly, thus conserving more energy from the source.

    I would gladly give up meat if there was any other alternative that was as tasty and pratical, with the protein it provides.
    There isn't.
    Really, so if I work up a set of vegetarian foods you enjoy that provide you sufficient nutrition at a reasonable price, you're ready to actually change your behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by ennyn View Post
    HOW CAN U POSSIBLY EVEN TRY TO DEFEND THIS CRAP.
    In one case you're eating one ANIMAL FROM ANOTHER SPECIES, WITCH WAS KILLED FOR THIS PURPOSE (FEEDING).
    and in another, you're MURDERING AND EATING FROM YOUR OWN SPECIES, FOR NO REASON (It's bad for your health, it's immoral, unethic, unnecessary).
    Can't you imagine where would we be if we were cannibals to that level ? Not here today, i assure you.
    special pleading.. Pfft.. seriously !??

    Eating meat from another human being is wrong, simply because it's another human being. Unless you were starving to death trapped in the ice or any other exception like that so, unless it was necessary for your survival.
    i can't believe i'm discussing this.
    Are you trying to defend that cannibalism is the same as eating meat from other animals ? Holy shit that's the dumbest thing i've read so far on this forum.
    It's bad for my health to eat another human? Not really. There are a few prion diseases, but I doubt it's substantially more dangerous than other meats.

    It's immoral? Why? You're begging the question. What makes some life valuable and other life not?

    Unethical? Again, you haven't explained why. You can't just say "IT'S TERRIBLE BECAUSE IT'S TERRIBLE." I mean, you can, but then again, what stops me from making the same division along racial lines? You don't have a more specific list of attributes you think give creatures (humans, non-humans) rights, to whatever degree they have them?

    Unnecessary? So is meat eating. Maybe I find humans tasty. Why does it matter? You only apply a necessity standard to consuming humans, for some reason.

    I'm not actually advocating for this -- I'm demonstrating that your own argument leads you to places that offend you. It shows that you're not being consistent with your moral claims. I'm not a remotely stupid person, which should be evident to you by now. If you are going to spend time saying "OMG HOW STUPID CAN U BE!111", you're: 1) Wasting your time when you could be actually rebutting my argument; and, 2) Failing to understand what an reductio ad abusurdum argument is for.
    "There are two things I know about white people: They love Matchbox 20, and they're terrified of curses."

  4. #64
    Angel Down is offline
    (Jimmy)
    Member Angel Down's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 21st, 2007
    Age
    23
    Gender
    Posts
    3,665
    My Diary
    ( 1 )

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dolphus Raymond View Post
    OK...that's cool. Some people prefer foods for taste; others prefer it for weird cultural reasons. I'm not distinguishing those -- I'm just treating them blindly as food preferences. So, how does this challenge my argument in a way "pork is tasty" doesn't?
    You don't see any harm in permanently destroying various traditions and cultural practices that help to define different groups of people? I would think it challenges your argument quite a bit more than mere taste-preferences.

    That, again, eliminates questions about whether animals bear rights, and under what circumstances. I agree that those are the other concerns.
    We got into that last time too, my main argument being animals cannot have the same rights as humans (such as a right to life) because they aren't part of the social contract. They have no grasp of interhuman ethics, therefore they cannot be bound by the same ethics. It's for this reason we don't try and convict a bear for mauling and eating a hiker.

    How would you feel if I killed and consumed a retarded orphan? I promise this is going somewhere. I think "that's just not a rights claim I buy" isn't a good place to end this conversation.
    Haha, last time you said "what if I can kill and dominate your family?"

    Killing and eating the retarded orphan is unacceptable because it is still a human being. Sorting humans by level of intelligence is arbitrary; picking on the mentally challenged ignores a feature of humanity itself- our capacity to voluntarily choose whether or not we want to do something.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joker View Post
    I use any word any damn way i want, if you take offence well go bugger yourself stupid and stop being so anal
    Quote Originally Posted by cicero17 View Post
    Amen, my nigger.

  5. #65
    pheurton is offline
    (Liam)
    Member pheurton's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 18th, 2005
    Location
    Bradford, UK
    Age
    23
    Gender
    Posts
    7,442

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by ennyn View Post
    Are there some there are tasty and easy to do ? Sure, but they are VERY rare, or just too expensive.
    Dude, unless you're content with eating microwavable sausages (in which case you have no right to talk about taste ), then any decent meal is going to take a little time and effort.

    Expensive? I have a 450g bag of quorn mince for £1.50, and vegetables are dirt cheap if you buy the right ones, paying attention to the season (it's not that difficult - just buy the cheapest you find in the store!). Also, 4 quarter pounder vegetarian burgers for £1.50 (and they taste nom), or 8 smaller quorn burgers for the same price. You can do a lot of things that are relatively simple and cheap with vegetarian foods though. My favourites are:

    Butternut squash risotto
    Any pasta dish can be made with a sub for the meat (if there was a meat to begin with)
    Fajitas
    Calzone - as simple to make as pizza, and possibly a little cheaper, since you don't need to cover it with cheese.
    Lentil soup. Butternut squash soup. Carrot soup. (Any vegetable soup really. One of the best things about buying a lot of veg is that just about anything that is about to go off can be made into some kind of soup. I haven't thrown food out in a very long time.)
    Falafel and houmous wraps
    I've just had a curried parsnip shepherd's pie, was nice
    Most curries have vegetarian equivalents
    Bean burgers

    For something particularly proteinous (most of the above have a fair bit of protein in though - lentils and beans are rich in the stuff), cheap and takes 5 minutes - beans on eggy bread. NOM.

    My favourite breakfast: take a couple of slices of bread, spread a thin layer of mayonnaise, top with tomatoes and cheese and toast under a grill. Season with a bit of pepper.

    Remember that if you're buying meat for cheap, then it's not meat. It's more likely to be cartilage and shit pumped with water. There's no such thing as cheap meat: it's a very expensive good to make, so they can't possibly make a profit on it unless they dilute the product. Sure, meat has a fair bit of protein in it, but water sure as hell doesn't. All the while, when you buy a 400g tin of red kidney beans, you get a 400g tin of red kidney beans.

    ---------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel Down View Post
    You don't see any harm in permanently destroying various traditions and cultural practices that help to define different groups of people? I would think it challenges your argument quite a bit more than mere taste-preferences.
    Right, and getting rid of slavery destroyed a bit of culture too? (In fact, I'm sure it did, but I don't feel particularly upset about this.) Would stopping female circumcision be particularly harmful to cultures? Should we have kept the freak circus? (Sorry, that still exists - we have reality television instead.) Should Britain explore it's roots and hang, draw and quarter people? Would a vegetarian society have no culture? If the world were vegetarian, there would still be cultures and dishes for particular regions.

    We got into that last time too, my main argument being animals cannot have the same rights as humans (such as a right to life) because they aren't part of the social contract. They have no grasp of interhuman ethics, therefore they cannot be bound by the same ethics. It's for this reason we don't try and convict a bear for mauling and eating a hiker.
    Following your argument, you must feel content with people who torture animals. If you don't feel content with this, then what you've said cannot be the bigger picture. (Since exactly the same argument you've made for people having the right to kill animals can be used to people having the right to torture animals.) And what of people who have no grasp of interhuman ethics? Say, comatose people or babies? Clearly what you've said isn't the full picture, and I'm not sure if it's even a part of the picture.

    Personally, I prefer to act in a way that won't cause unnecessary harm - whether to people or to animals - viewing that it's more desirable for any organism that harm doesn't befall them.

    Killing and eating the retarded orphan is unacceptable because it is still a human being. Sorting humans by level of intelligence is arbitrary; picking on the mentally challenged ignores a feature of humanity itself- our capacity to voluntarily choose whether or not we want to do something.
    Exactly the same argument can be made for the way we treat other animals, replacing "mentally challenged" with "other animals".

  6. #66
    Aelius is offline
    (Marc)
    Sir Marcus Aelius; Atheist Praefectus of GovTeen Member Aelius's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 24th, 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    23
    Gender
    Posts
    4,547

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel Down View Post
    Because it's not a legitimate argument. The last time this debate came around I outlined why. Here are the highlights:

    According to UN estimates, animals raised for food are responsible for 18% of all emissions at most. Other estimates argue 10-12% is a more accurate figure.

    Beef cattle are responsible for virtually all of these emissions, regardless of what the exact number is.
    "18 percent of all emissions" is a greater factor than the entire greenhouse gas emissions of the #1 greenhouse gas emitting country on the planet - China, which accounts for less than 17% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That's including everything - cars, livestock, manufacturing, electricity. Even using your lower estimate of 10-12% would be comparable to the collective greenhouse gas emissions of all of the 27 countries of the European Union combined.

    If we were to substitute a similar-tasting food animal for cattle, the kangaroo, these emissions would basically cease to exist.
    So your position is that people should stop eating beef, then?


    The only environmental argument worth having is the one that was being discussed, which is how food animals use up land that could otherwise be used to grow a good deal more crops.
    No, the fact that people do eat as much beef as they do makes meat consumption's environmental issues include global warming. You're basically saying "if people stopped eating beef, greenhouse gas emissions as a result of livestock would be negligible, so therefore the only environmental issue associated with meat eating is land use." The only problem is that you're neglecting the first word at the start of that sentence - "if".

    If the Chrysler Building suddenly became a giant banana split, ice cream would pour all over Lexington avenue. Therefore, ice cream clean-up crews are an issue. Except, of course, for the big "if" at the beginning of this paragraph.

    People do eat beef, and that makes global warming a meat-eating related issue.

    You're the most intolerant person on this site. All you do is put words in people's mouths to try to get them to defend points they never made in the first place. I'm not even going to touch this.
    I'm many things, but intolerant? Really? What am I intolerant of but intolerance? Okay, I do admit, I am absolutely intolerant of people who ignore facts and logic... oh and Republicans, though obviously that's redundant.

    On a side note, your personal vendetta against Republicans is childish, especially when you start bringing it up in a debate where political stance doesn't have anything to do with the topic being discussed.
    I have no personal vendetta against Republicans in particular... I have a "personal vendetta", if you'd like to call it that, against any person or group of people who reject facts per se. Add on to that extreme religious conviction, racism, little to no understanding of logic and reasoning, distrust of science, greed at the expense of other peoples' well being, and general narrow-minded bully-like intolerance and shamelessly bigoted and ignorant rage. You know, the GOP on an average day.

    By granting such exceptions we would be creating a situation in which meat-eating is acceptable, though. Which is my point. If there are exceptions to the rule ("meat eating is bad") then it isn't a rule.
    No, all rules have exceptions. Name one rule that cannot theoretically have an exception.

    There you go again. If you'd respond to what I said instead of making unfounded assumptions I'd actually consider taking the time to write a meaningful response. I'm not going to waste my time with this bullshit, though.
    Well, evidently you've felt challenged reasonably enough to respond in the first place.

    You said: "Also, the vast majority of "food" animals only exist in the first place because we eat them."

    My response is, essentially, to ask you whether or not you'd consider it objectionable for humans to exist only for the purpose of consumption by a more powerful organism. What unfounded assumptions did I make? Be specific.

    If you want to pretend like there's nothing redeeming about culture, I won't stop you. I won't respond to your ludicrous posts, either.
    I could say the same thing to you. "If you want to pretend like there's something redeeming about culture, I won't stop you." But does it actually in any way progress the discussion to say such vacuous things?

  7. #67
    iwpoe is offline
    (Matt)
    Moderator iwpoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 16th, 2002
    Location
    America
    Gender
    Posts
    19,119

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Animals are property and can be disposed of more or less as we will. Ergo you may eat them. QED.
    Confused by the ToS rules? Read my summary.
    Yes, I am fully aware that I am difficult to read.

    lol Hemlock

    Mispelling everything since 1999

    Buy me a book for my library

    ---

    Faun’s flesh is not to us,
    Nor the saint’s vision.
    We have the press for wafer;
    Franchise for circumcision.

    All men, in law, are equals.
    Free of Peἰsistratus,
    We choose a knave or an eunuch
    To rule over us.

    O bright Apollo,
    τίν' άνδρα, τίν' ἥρωα, τίνα θεὸν,
    What god, man, or hero
    Shall I place a tin wreath upon!
    ~Ezra Pound, "Hugh Selwyn Mauberly"

    ---

    Oh Mensch! Gieb Acht!
    Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht?
    „Ich schlief, ich schlief —,
    „Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht: —
    „Die Welt ist tief,
    „Und tiefer als der Tag gedacht.
    „Tief ist ihr Weh —,
    „Lust — tiefer noch als Herzeleid:
    „Weh spricht: Vergeh!
    „Doch alle Lust will Ewigkeit —,
    „—will tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit!
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Chapter 59, "The Second Dance-Song"

  8. #68
    Aelius is offline
    (Marc)
    Sir Marcus Aelius; Atheist Praefectus of GovTeen Member Aelius's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 24th, 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    23
    Gender
    Posts
    4,547

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by iwpoe View Post
    Animals are property and can be disposed of more or less as we will. Ergo you may eat them. QED.
    And for most of the 19th century black people were considered property. Do you find it morally acceptable to own another human being as property if that is the law of the land? You seem to essentially be arguing that whatever is legal is moral.

  9. #69
    Jacques Lacan is offline
    (Irreducible Complexity.)
    Quiltbag Founder. Member Jacques Lacan's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 24th, 2009
    Location
    In transit.
    Age
    25
    Gender
    Posts
    13,787

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    What is the alternative? We sell horse manure to two different local organic farmers who only use manure based fertilizers. What fertilizer do you have in mind to use in place of manure and natural gas/petroleum based fertilizers? I read about this a lot and I have never seen a large scale sustainable viable alternative. But I am just a dumb farm kid, so educate me.
    I don't see why I'm not allowed to use plant-based manures and crop rotation. You like to harp on about the traditional, small-scale farm: Well, this is how we've always done it. With compost.

    Quote Originally Posted by ennyn View Post
    I'm a human being, I'm on the top of the food chain, I don't care if I make some animals unhappy, just like they wouldn't care if they would make me unhappy.
    If to save the life of 1 human child I had to wipe out every other animal species without harming other human beings too much, I'd do it without thinking twice.

    I'm in favor of this tough: I think other animals should have 'rights' based on their capability of thinking, so for example a really small animal doesn't have any rights, but a monkey would have a lot more, because i think animals can feel emotions depending on their capacity of thinking .. i'm not sure if brain size has anything to do with it, maybe gray-matter/white-matter.
    BUT all that applies only if this doesn't affect negatively in our way of living.
    If it does, we should do the VIABLE to respect animal 'rights'.

    Well i tought twice before answering this, because i had to decide weather or not it was worth answering. It is not, but i'm answering anyway.. i know.
    (Tell me if i've missed your point ..)
    It's completly different, since you're talking about unnecessary cannibalism/murder, and not about consuming meat, witch some animals do anyway.
    And please don't answer me saying it's unnecessary to consume meat.
    Alcon has already pointed out the unpleasant extension to your argument. However, I will reiterate that any rights system which is based on intelligence means I can easily say, "I'm ignoring your post because "unnecessary murder" is a tautology". We don't dictate rights by intelligence. And it's a total specious point, "We're at the top of the food chain"; and? What's your point? Those on top are normally those most responsible, aren't they?

    So we should give them rights unless it inconveniences us? I tell you what, the heavily disabled kid next door cries quite a lot, at least he tries to. Can I eat him?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    I am not trying to ignore that question. I just think it is silly. If I am babysitting a 5 year old human that child does not have the right to dictate what happens during that time but I do have a responsibility to make sure the kid stays safe and healthy while I am in charge. The same thing applies to a steer or a flock of chickens. They do not have rights but I have a responsibility to keep them safe and laying eggs and growing up strong and healthy so when they are ready to be killed, quickly as possible, they become nourishing food that keeps me strong enough to take care of the next batch.
    This makes me shudder on a number of levels. The only reason you have those responsibilities is because the baby has rights. If the baby has no rights, you have absolutely no requirement to not defenestrate the baby. Does someone with fewer morals get to play Kick Baby Kick? This is an incredibly selfish argument and I think it's unfortunate that you see this question with so many shades of grey, when in reality there are none. If you want the most selfish life: Stop eating meat. Because if people don't, we lose.

    Quote Originally Posted by ennyn View Post
    Comparing porn industry with Meat industry ?
    Dude, humans are never going to stop breeding/eating meat until vegetarian food gets more divulgated and tastier.

    I've tried making plenty of vegetarian recipes, i was on a low-meat diet for a while, and it SUCKED, i looked everywhere for recipes and stuff. Most of them were horrible.
    1 - too hard to do.
    2 - even if you manage to make it, it won't taste that great.
    3 - your kitchen will be a mess afterwards.

    Are there some there are tasty and easy to do ? Sure, but they are VERY rare, or just too expensive.
    This is why some people say it's not a big, or variated menu, because there are not lots of food you can actually do if you're not a cook, and if you do the few easy+tasty ones, you will get tired of eating those in no time.
    Your argument:

    I AM BAD AT COOKING THEREFORE VEGETARIAN FOOD IS BAD.

    Quote Originally Posted by ennyn View Post
    Well, big spoiler to you : That's what happens in the animal world (What ??)
    And if you're from a different species, and doing that would make your life better, then go ahead and try, that's how it'd probably work anyway.

    I would gladly give up meat if there was any other alternative that was as tasty and pratical, with the protein it provides.
    There isn't.

    HOW CAN U POSSIBLY EVEN TRY TO DEFEND THIS CRAP.
    In one case you're eating one ANIMAL FROM ANOTHER SPECIES, WITCH WAS KILLED FOR THIS PURPOSE (FEEDING).
    and in another, you're MURDERING AND EATING FROM YOUR OWN SPECIES, FOR NO REASON (It's bad for your health, it's immoral, unethic, unnecessary).
    Can't you imagine where would we be if we were cannibals to that level ? Not here today, i assure you.
    special pleading.. Pfft.. seriously !??

    Eating meat from another human being is wrong, simply because it's another human being. Unless you were starving to death trapped in the ice or any other exception like that so, unless it was necessary for your survival.
    i can't believe i'm discussing this.
    Are you trying to defend that cannibalism is the same as eating meat from other animals ? Holy shit that's the dumbest thing i've read so far on this forum.
    There are thousands of things that taste as good (if not better) that provide more protein (the majority of things ;D).

    The rest of your arguments have already been rebutted in this thread. However, Alcon is not saying that eating a human being is a good thing. Your argument goes: We can eat animals because they're too stupid to know what's going on. Therefore, the extension of your argument is: Why can't I eat a person who is too stupid to know what's going on? What is there innate in humans different from that of animals? Other than a totally see-through THAT'S MURDER, when in reality it's exactly the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by iwpoe View Post
    Animals are property and can be disposed of more or less as we will. Ergo you may eat them. QED.
    You're kidding, right? Or can I just declare you property and eat you?


    Edit: The question really is: Why does only a certain kind of intelligence set you apart? There are things animals can do better than I can (for instance work in groups AMIRITE).
    My god! Is this pure ideology? That. Is. Bananas​.

  10. #70
    Da Silva is offline
    (da Silva)
    Member
    Join Date
    August 25th, 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Age
    26
    Gender
    Posts
    3,440

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by PU PU PU KABOOM View Post
    I'm vegetarian (slowly attempting veganism) because as far as I can tell there is no legitimate rationale for the continued consumption of meat/meat-based products. I was wondering if anyone had any pro-meat-eating arguments that I hadn't heard yet (i.e. outside spurious claims of biological imperatives/ethical questions which are irreconcilable). I think this is becoming increasing pertinent in the face of obscene population growth, climate change, exploitation of third-world communities and is tied to the growth of new technologies which frankly seem to render the consumption of meat a moot point.

    So, yeah, tl;dr: What are the arguments for eating meat?

    Also, it'd be awesome if everyone could avoid the MEAT IS FUCKING TASTY LOL argument.

    (This comes on the back of the recent scientific proposition to designate whales/dolphins as non-human-persons and thus entitle them to a range of rights historically prohibited to them. I struggle to see how this isn't an extension of the idea that we judge a person's rights concomitant to their intelligence.)
    I read that the Dalai Lama attempted to be a vegetarian. After a number of years, his health began to be badly affected. So, he switched back to eating meat and he's ok now. Gandhi was a vegetarian and became very sickly and weak. Dr. Bernard Jensen, a famous naturapath, suggested Ghandhi eat meat, especially organ meat. He refused because of his religious grounds. So, Dr Jensen suggested he take goats milk. Gandhi's health greatly improved after he started drinking fresh goat's milk regularly. Thereafter, Gandhi always brought a live goat with him wherever he went. According to many naturapaths, goat's milk is very similar in chemical composition to human milk!

    Its probable that most humans do need some meat to be healthy. I read that strict vegetarians, especially young children, usually end up being malnourished after a number of years. Probably, vegetables lack some types of enzymes or other nutrient which humans need for health.

  11. #71
    iwpoe is offline
    (Matt)
    Moderator iwpoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 16th, 2002
    Location
    America
    Gender
    Posts
    19,119

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by PU PU PU KABOOM View Post
    You're kidding, right?
    No, not really. The status of animals is not all that complicated or abstract. They are currently property.
    Quote Originally Posted by PU PU PU KABOOM View Post
    Or can I just declare you property and eat you?
    Obviously not- since law and my own intelligence would make it difficult -but you could eat your pets.
    Quote Originally Posted by PU PU PU KABOOM View Post
    Edit: The question really is: Why does only a certain kind of intelligence set you apart? There are things animals can do better than I can (for instance work in groups AMIRITE).
    This has little to do with intelligence per se. Animals can't petition for grievances or act in society, and they have had no additional protections given to them by us. Thus they are property or appropriable things as the case may be.
    Confused by the ToS rules? Read my summary.
    Yes, I am fully aware that I am difficult to read.

    lol Hemlock

    Mispelling everything since 1999

    Buy me a book for my library

    ---

    Faun’s flesh is not to us,
    Nor the saint’s vision.
    We have the press for wafer;
    Franchise for circumcision.

    All men, in law, are equals.
    Free of Peἰsistratus,
    We choose a knave or an eunuch
    To rule over us.

    O bright Apollo,
    τίν' άνδρα, τίν' ἥρωα, τίνα θεὸν,
    What god, man, or hero
    Shall I place a tin wreath upon!
    ~Ezra Pound, "Hugh Selwyn Mauberly"

    ---

    Oh Mensch! Gieb Acht!
    Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht?
    „Ich schlief, ich schlief —,
    „Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht: —
    „Die Welt ist tief,
    „Und tiefer als der Tag gedacht.
    „Tief ist ihr Weh —,
    „Lust — tiefer noch als Herzeleid:
    „Weh spricht: Vergeh!
    „Doch alle Lust will Ewigkeit —,
    „—will tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit!
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Chapter 59, "The Second Dance-Song"

  12. #72
    iwpoe is offline
    (Matt)
    Moderator iwpoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 16th, 2002
    Location
    America
    Gender
    Posts
    19,119

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aelius View Post
    And for most of the 19th century black people were considered property.
    Indeed, though I don't think you could eat them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aelius View Post
    Do you find it morally acceptable to own another human being as property if that is the law of the land? You seem to essentially be arguing that whatever is legal is moral.
    No, but I don't think ethics can float free of politics. It's only in retrospect- in a post-slave political context -that the morality of slavery has resolved itself so clearly, and in our context the justification for eating animals is quite clear and in no way mysterious.

    I don't know what other external standard you want me to appeal to. There is no moral calculus, and there seem to be no culturally independent moral facts. You can't even generate ethics from contingent biological facts (and even if you could, that wouldn't actually tell you that we should act as we do; it would only explain that we act as we do and give it a biological basis).
    Confused by the ToS rules? Read my summary.
    Yes, I am fully aware that I am difficult to read.

    lol Hemlock

    Mispelling everything since 1999

    Buy me a book for my library

    ---

    Faun’s flesh is not to us,
    Nor the saint’s vision.
    We have the press for wafer;
    Franchise for circumcision.

    All men, in law, are equals.
    Free of Peἰsistratus,
    We choose a knave or an eunuch
    To rule over us.

    O bright Apollo,
    τίν' άνδρα, τίν' ἥρωα, τίνα θεὸν,
    What god, man, or hero
    Shall I place a tin wreath upon!
    ~Ezra Pound, "Hugh Selwyn Mauberly"

    ---

    Oh Mensch! Gieb Acht!
    Was spricht die tiefe Mitternacht?
    „Ich schlief, ich schlief —,
    „Aus tiefem Traum bin ich erwacht: —
    „Die Welt ist tief,
    „Und tiefer als der Tag gedacht.
    „Tief ist ihr Weh —,
    „Lust — tiefer noch als Herzeleid:
    „Weh spricht: Vergeh!
    „Doch alle Lust will Ewigkeit —,
    „—will tiefe, tiefe Ewigkeit!
    ~Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Chapter 59, "The Second Dance-Song"

  13. #73
    Cobrastyle is offline
    (The Smize Master)
    Member Cobrastyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 3rd, 2011
    Location
    Rack City
    Age
    17
    Gender
    Posts
    6,526
    Album
    Member Photo Albums

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Heres a good question: What will we do with the chickens? Put them in schools?

    Visit My Diary: My So Called Life

    I Love Chocolate Peanuts
    I Love Art (Go see my Art Portfolio)
    I Love Music

    Who's to say the darkened clouds must lead to rain?
    Who's to say the problems should just go away?
    Who's to point a finger at what's not understood?







  14. #74
    Jacques Lacan is offline
    (Irreducible Complexity.)
    Quiltbag Founder. Member Jacques Lacan's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 24th, 2009
    Location
    In transit.
    Age
    25
    Gender
    Posts
    13,787

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Da Silva View Post
    Its probable that most humans do need some meat to be healthy. I read that strict vegetarians, especially young children, usually end up being malnourished after a number of years. Probably, vegetables lack some types of enzymes or other nutrient which humans need for health.
    Whilst the nutritional argument does make it slightly harder to be vegetarian, it in no way prohibits it and I like to think that being forced to think about what meals you are preparing might actually make your diet more interesting/varied.

    Quote Originally Posted by iwpoe View Post
    No, not really. The status of animals is not all that complicated or abstract. They are currently property.Obviously not- since law and my own intelligence would make it difficult -but you could eat your pets.This has little to do with intelligence per se. Animals can't petition for grievances or act in society, and they have had no additional protections given to them by us. Thus they are property or appropriable things as the case may be.
    Yes but we're arguing that the status of animals should be more abstract. I was looking for arguments that I haven't come across yet, i.e. ones that don't boil down to, "Currently the law says animals are property therefore animals are property." There are many laws barring homosexuality across the African continent; the legitimacy of the law is not upheld by the law's existence...

    So I can't eat you because you're intelligent, whereas I can eat animals because they aren't and have no recourse to human interaction--much like people in vegetative comas--but it's not about intelligence?

    I understand where you're coming from, but this is no way legitimises the current system. This is merely an explanation of the current system.

    I also think the stance that animals' status is not abstract is complicated by the fact we're discussing rights here--i.e. the right to protection or petition--and those are, by their definition, abstract. I'm all for reifying things but this seems contradictory.

    To put it another way: How does anything you said justify the consumption of meat? You say the context "is clear", but I don't see an argument that actually suggests this.

    And, Javan, your hilarious question has been answered a number of times.

    Edit: Surely their lack of ability to defend themselves through legal recourse (or ethical debate etc.) means we should protect them rather than exploit them?
    My god! Is this pure ideology? That. Is. Bananas​.

  15. #75
    Moderator Dolphus Raymond's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 12th, 2006
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Posts
    17,831

    Default Re: What is the justification for eating meat?

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel Down View Post
    You don't see any harm in permanently destroying various traditions and cultural practices that help to define different groups of people? I would think it challenges your argument quite a bit more than mere taste-preferences.
    Look, I'm totally willing to account for "I just like eating this because it's my culture." Stupid to me, but people are entitled to their preferences. Still, I can't imagine that preference is either more common or stronger than taste preferences.

    Unless, of course, you're arguing that "cultural preferences" deserve special protection beyond the strength and frequency with which people hold them, in which case wtf why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel Down View Post
    We got into that last time too, my main argument being animals cannot have the same rights as humans (such as a right to life) because they aren't part of the social contract. They have no grasp of interhuman ethics, therefore they cannot be bound by the same ethics. It's for this reason we don't try and convict a bear for mauling and eating a hiker.

    Haha, last time you said "what if I can kill and dominate your family?"
    You can link me to this topic if it would be faster to play catch-up that way. I would find it, but I'm on slow airplane internet at the moment. In any case, my general point is that "it's OK because I'm smarter and that's where I'm at on the food chain" is a dangerous argument unless you're the smartest, strongest, and can get by without closing your eyes to sleep.

    I don't think you're making an accurate account of how our social contract works anyway. I would be convicted for killing a mentally ill person, which is where we get to where your argument totally breaks down, and I think broke down before...

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel Down View Post
    Killing and eating the retarded orphan is unacceptable because it is still a human being. Sorting humans by level of intelligence is arbitrary; picking on the mentally challenged ignores a feature of humanity itself- our capacity to voluntarily choose whether or not we want to do something.
    I think there is enough moral ambiguity about the issue of meat-eating that I'm not really judgmental about it. However, arguments like this seem like transparent rationalizations to me. You can't kill another human being because "it's still a human being"? So what? Your criteria for finding it acceptable to slaughter something is their ability to consent and adhere to a social contract. Developmentally disabled people can't do that. They're still human? Yeah -- and? Many of them are about as capable of "voluntarily choosing whether or not we want to do something" as a squirrel. And yet they aren't OK to kill, because they happen to share genetic similarities with us? So there is a "special rule" for entities who share our genetic code, that totally trumps your whole argument about the social contract and so forth. How is this not transparently special pleading to you (and tribalistic special pleading at that)?

    I'm not picking on the developmentally disabled here. I'm picking on your argument.
    "There are two things I know about white people: They love Matchbox 20, and they're terrified of curses."

Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •