Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Thoreau, Jul 14, 2009.

  1. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Nope. We can get by if we have access to in depth scientific knowledge or if we don't exclude all sources of animal protien by eating eggs and dairy.

    Purely vegitarian diets will eventually kill you without suppliments.

    No he was clearly saying "it's still morally permissable to eat them." Enjoying it is just icing on the cake and a sign from our bodies about how important meat is to our diet and has been for a very long time.

    Oh, the irony.


    but the vast majority of us are not in that situation.

    All things die. But making their lives hell while they live is wrong. In particular, herbavors are dependent on their carnivors to keep their populations in check. For domestic animals, that carnivor is us. Destroy that relationship and they will suffer greatly.

    So I take it you avocate giving animals the vote?

    It isn't needless. It is necessary.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,786
    Isnt it because it pleases you that you abide by the morals you chose to have about animals.???
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    And since we have the requisite scientific knowledge, and you can eat animals protein sources like eggs and dairy while still being a vegetarian, and such supplements are widely available in our society, I don't know WTF your point is supposed to be.
    It is not necessary to eat them. In our society the only reason to eat them is because we enjoy it.
    As I said, this sounds just like a hitman who doesn't mind killing innocent people so long as he gets to kill them cleanly. After all, they're going to die anyway, right? So what does it matter if they die in 40 years from a stroke or right now from a bullet to the head?
    Since we are entirely in control of when domestic animals breed, it is not necessary to kill them in order to control their population.
    When an animal is able to fill out the voter registration paperwork and correctly follow the instructions in the voting booth so as to properly cast a ballot, I will support its right to vote.
    You have already admitted that with modern technology and nutritional knowledge it is not necessary for us to eat meat to be healthy.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Barbie Banned Banned

    Messages:
    26
    Of course. Do you realize how redundant it would be if animals apologized for killing other animals? It would be embarrassing and awkward. Picture a lioness pursuing a zebra and shouting "hey man, slow down, I wanna show you something cool", the zebra reponding "fuck that, you got my two sisters with that line, but ... maybe you're telling the truth?" at which point the lioness pounces on the zebra's neck and whispers in its ear, "sorry man, just business, nothing personal", the zebra uttering "spare me and I'll lead you to a den full of hyena cubs", the lioness contemplating and deciding "hmm ... I do like killing hyena cubs ... you know what, I'll spare you just this once, scram", and the zebra bounces gleefully away only to die of severe neck injuries two hours later. If animals apologized for killing and had to verbally rationalize their behaviours, all predators would be extinct. They would feel so guilty for killing helpless victims that they would resort to chewing on hot grass with their enormous fangs and feeding their muscular bodies only twenty calories a day.

    I think humans eating meat is perfectly fine, lots of humans don't have access to the information or supplements needed for a vegetarian/vegan diet. It's also suspicious how some animals objectively taste good (cows, chickens, etc) and other animals taste like baboon testicles, it seems certain some animals are intended to be eaten.
     
  8. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    Are you a poor tribesman living in the jungles of South America? A peasant farmer in China? No? Then what is your point? I'm guessing that every single person here at sciforums has easy access to all the relevant information and supplements needed for a healthy vegetarian diet.

    If you are in a situation where you genuinely need to eat meat in order to stay healthy/alive, then in my opinion you have nothing to feel bad about. But don't pretend that justifies eating meat when it's not at all necessary.
     
  9. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    I don't.

    I can't eat meat, my body physically rejects it. Worst types I ever tried when younger was Turkey because of it's overkill taste (I can't even eat the vegetarian versions of it, since they mimick the taste too damn well.) I never got on with other meats either which left things like sausages and burgers. I stopped eating them because what was the point of only eating shit the processed parts of animals that people don't usually want to eat because of what parts they are.
     
  10. Barbie Banned Banned

    Messages:
    26
    You're overlooking the fact that I consciously seek to consume animals, you fascist. Nobody needs to justify eating meat, just read my post above on how silly that scenario would be if it happened to play out in reality. You'd have skinny lions resting under trees, begging passerby zebras, "spare a meaty limb? c'mon ...". You're also overlooking the fact that humans are obviously omnivores, as dental and intestinal evidence shows. Besides, it's silly to be against eating animal meat but supportive of hooking up clueless animals to machines and vacuuming the milk out of them, or sticking needles up farm animals' asses with sperm to make them breed, or greedily stealing the eggs hens constantly lay only because they're too stupid to realize that every time they lay an egg, some hillbilly promptly takes it away, so they decide "fuck it, maybe he won't take tomorrow's egg?", etcetera.
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    No. I abide by the morals I have because it is the right thing to do. It's not always easy to be moral.
     
  12. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,786
    Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
    Isnt it because it pleases you that you abide by the morals you chose to have about animals.???

    Woudnt you be less pleased wit you'rself if you gave in to you'r moral struggle an started eatin animals.???
     
  13. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    LOL.

    Agreed.

    I grew up on a small-ish farm. I have no compunction about killing animals for food. I want it to be done as painlessly as possible. I want them to live rather pleasant lives. I am becoming better at eating only organic / free-range meats. It's getting easier to find them. More importantly, I love meat. I dislike vegetarian foods immensely (and, yeah, I lived in Vegetarian hotbed Phoenix for long enough to try enough meatless dishes to know that I love meat too much to give it up).

    ~String
     
  14. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,380
    Agree'd!
     
  15. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Yes



    None, although you still miss the point:

    We are human beings. Chickens are chickens. They are not intelligent; they do not think as you or I do. We have no obligation to them. They are not sacred. They have no souls (and neither do human beings). They are nothing more than a chemical reaction.

    Things die. Sometimes animals kill other animals in order to eat those other animals. Whether it's "necessary" is irrelevant; it happens. Human beings kill other animals in order to eat them. There is nothing wrong with this.

    As human beings, we look out for our interests first and foremost; we cannot put chickens before humans. The survival of chickens means absolutely nothing to us, apart from their value as a food source. Food is necessary; in order to eat, something must die. The discrimination on your part between chickens and brocolli seems arbitrary to me; perhaps brocolli does not feel pain, but it is alive and life wants to keep living.

    As Human beings, our lives matter most to us. As nature is a competition, we human beings compete among the other animals for resources; and we happen to be better than them. Therefore, we are able to not only gather enough food, but also a variety of eat, from meats to vegetables, to satisfy our nutritional needs and tastes.




    It's not immoral to me; the way I see it, there are predators and there are prey.


    Obviously, although that wasn't my point.

    Of course I'm selfish; a certain extent of selfishness is natural in all human beings. Wolves are also, then, selfish because they don't even have to live. They can die and spare the rabbits, but instead they choose to eat them. Those selfish wolves.

    Again, things eat other things; call me selfish, but that's the way it works, and I'm going to eat meat. We're not the only creatures that do it. We're not the only creatures that are omnivores, either.


    Chickens certainly aren't my obligation.


    However, as living things, they do "desire" to continue living and reproduce - eating them, then, is morally wrong because you are preventing them from doing this.



    Nope. They're pests......hold on, don't tell me it's wrong to kill pests too?


    Not all meat comes from factory farming, and not buying the meat is not the best way to put an end to factory farming.


    Again with the arrogant attitude; my morality is not your morality. What is immoral is denying yourself on a nonsensical premise, in fact, a very religious premise which is that somehow, chickens are sacred and can't be eaten.

    Why? You sound very religious in saying this; life is not sacred. Life has no meaning, purpose, or value beyond the value we attribute to it.

    The survival of sheep is not our concern.



    An argument based on nothing more than an appeal to my emotion.

    Children lacking a brain are not children at all; they are hunks of flesh and chemical reactions. It might be crude, but it's the reality.

    And I'm sure such a technique could be possible; there are braindead people. If we are able to figure out what causes this, we could then induce it in all livestock. Or, we could simply tranquilize them from birth and sustain an unconscious state; since they never know "life", they can not know death.


    Perhaps, but people want meat. And vegetarians, and especially vegans, often have a difficult time getting an adequate source of protein.



    You miss the point: we don't owe them anything.

    Also, if eating meat is wrong, why isn't drinking milk or eating eggs? Sure, it doesn't "harm" anything.........but that milk isn't intended for us, and we're milking them as machines. The same for eggs, we're stealing their eggs and milk and isn't that morally wrong?

    And what about lab mice? Lab mice die all the time in experimentation. Those egotistical scientists.......after all it isn't necessary to run their experiments. It's unnecessary killing; those unthinking morons.

    And some do think, and don't see anything wrong with it. At any rate, I don't eat that slop called McD's, I'm just saying.


    Then change your moral code; take mine. And enjoy meat!
     
  16. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    We don't owe anything to those animals, however. They are not sacred or holy. Also, bears are omnivores.
     
  17. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Interesting. Only first world people would think in this manner. You couldn't convince the majority of the worlds population that they shouldn't keep, feed and then kill their chickens for food...but then in the West we have such an abundance of food that we can pick and choose our meals. I think its fine that some choose to deny themselves meat, fish what have you, or choose not to wear leather. Its fine, we have choices, but for most of the world meat is a bonus in a meal, its a necessary protein. James some eat bugs, in Cambodia big hairy black tarantula's are a delicacy

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/22204412@N02/2232573518/


    Even I have had grasshopper (tasted crunchy like bbq potato chips). I think it is a privilege to sit around and say 'I have so much food choices that I can be magnanimous enough not to eat another living thing. I have seen a homeless man in Phnom Penh place a cat on an open flame as a quick meal. Most in the word, yes even in Buddhist countries eat practically everything edible off of an animal including the brain but I guess you would call them 'immoral' based on western standards right? There are people in developing countries who do not eat meat and fish not because they don't want to but because its too expensive.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/flydime/449759816/
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2009
  18. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Who needs to justify it? Humans eat meat, its accepted in every society on Earth, has been for all of written history. While one could say the same thing about slavery and sexism, the fact is we aren't talking about mistreatment of humans, we're talking about eating animals. Vegetarianism is a fringe movement that has come in and out of vogue for the past 150 years.

    I don't dispute the necessity of raising and killing farm animals in as humane a manner as possible, but vegetarians are insane if they think that there is a reasonable case to be made that humans who eat meat are immoral. Morality is, as it always has been, subjective. That which is illegal in one society, may be morally required in another. Every society, in this case, is okay with eating meat.

    ~String
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    Norsefire:

    We have previously established that you're immoral. Nothing has changed.

    What's the best way, then?

    That's right, because I have a morality.

    You missed my repeated explanation of why eating chickens is wrong. Go back and read it again.

    My argument is not that all life is sacred. My argument is based on [enc]intrinsic value[/enc], on [enc]person[/enc]hood and on [enc]equal consideration[/enc].

    Why don't you approve of cannibalism? (I assume you do not.)

    It's very much my concern. Your only concern is yourself.

    I take it your answer is "no", but you can't bring yourself to say it. So, why wouldn't you eat braindead children, Norsefire?

    So, no problem with eating them, eh?

    There's no reason not to do the same with human beings, then. Agree?

    People want a lot of immoral things. So what? That's not the argument here.

    No they don't.

    In the case of milk, the product does not involve harming an animal (although vegans may have a thing or two to say about that). As for eggs, unfertilised eggs are similarly a renewable resource and do not involve harm to animals (again, with the vegan caveat, but let's discuss the basics first). To make it very simple for you, consuming milk and eggs does not involve the death of an animal. Understand?

    Arguably, yes. But we're very very far from discussing that particular issue with you. You aren't even equipped yet to see that killing a sentient creature for its meat is wrong. So you'll be completely incapable of appreciating any of the subtle arguments vegans make.

    Correct. Some animal experimentation is morally wrong, too. But that's not the subject of this thread.


    Lucysnow:

    So, in essence, where people have the luxury of choice, as in first-world countries, they also have the luxury of taking the most moral course of action. Fine. I have no problem with that. Necessity can always lead to restricted choice. True moral decisions require freedom of choice.

    I know. The sentience of bugs and so on is something we could debate, but we're very far from that when people can't even accept that a sheep or cow is sentient. There's no point discussing borderline cases and hypotheticals while ignoring the most obvious and biggest issues in a debate. Westerners don't eat bugs as a matter of course. They do eat cows and sheep. So, let's sort that problem first.
     
  20. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    Sorry, I didn't bother responding to this stupid attempt at an argument again because it has already been addressed earlier in the thread. Since apparently you missed it the first time: You're also not likely to find animals apologizing for killing, raping, or stealing from each other, or any number of other activities that are widely considered immoral by modern society. I fail to see how the actions of other animals are relevant to human morality. If the (non-human) animal kingdom is what you want to base your morality on, you must want to live in a very wild, brutal world.
    As has already been pointed out repeatedly, you do not need to eat meat to be healthy.
    There is an obvious difference between killing an animal vs. harvesting eggs/dairy/etc from them in ways that do not harm them in any perceivable way.
     
  21. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,230
    If you don't owe them anything, then why should you feel bad about them suffering before they are killed? It would be one thing if you simply said "there is nothing morally wrong with harming animals so we can do anything and everything we want to them." But by admitting that it's wrong to treat them inhumanely before they are killed, you have already admitted that it can be wrong to harm animals.
     
  22. Barbie Banned Banned

    Messages:
    26
    What?! Killing, raping, and stealing from other groups of people are standard human instincts, we are obviously tribal animals ourselves and hate other tribes with a deep passion, and no amount of liberal education can never change that. Our hatred and contempt for people who look different than us is hardwired into our brains, it's a heritable characteristic we harbour. Our subconscious operates from behind our eyes thinking to itself as we walk down a crowded street "look at that dirty spic, wonder how many scars he has from hopping fences", sure it sounds racist, but that's exactly what our subconscious is - deeply, deeply racist. You could look at a trashy sociopath of your own ethnicity and your subconscious would think "better him marrying my daughter than a shifty arab" and the funny thing is, it doesn't matter how rich and handsome the arab in question is, your subconscious only considers one fact, and that is, he's arab.

    This has been the norm for thousands and thousands of years. Not too long ago, about four thousand years ago, similar tribes began to unite to form civilizations. They all looked the same and differed only by geography which is why the transition was relatively smooth. As time progressed most tribes caught onto this trend and they began forming nations with people who were all similar and fought on large scales against horrid foreigners. Most generals and warriors in the past never really had any reason to plunder villages and rape its women except for that they were different people, so morality didn't mean shit. It was like "hey shareef, come here *points* look at those europeans" "what about them, ahmed?" "look at their chests, they're so hairy ... they must have to rape their women to have babies, oh god, look at *laughter* look at their fuckin' chests man, they look like chewbacca" "yeah, but what are you gonna do about it" "I'm going to use this ball and chain to solve our differences ... i'm going to spare the white women though, they're beautiful, I can't wait to lick their armpits, ughhhh" "okay ..."

    Haha, are you serious? You dirty cheese cake eating monster, nice excuse to absolve yourself of moral responsibility. I know exactly what type of vegetarian you are, you're the "i love cheese and butter and milk - especially milk - and big wet cheese cakes, i love frying eggs over my wife's ass, i eat chicken and fish because they're not real animals, but fuck no I don't eat meat, that's cruel, you don't need meat to be healthy *clutches heart in agony*". Do you think cows like being contained in camps and hooked on foreign machines until their udders are bleeding, I bet if we could translate their language to english, "mooo moo moooooo ... m-moo ..." would become "geett meeee offf this faaahhhcking machine, my udders, *squeezes lip* ugghhh, the pain, THHEEE PAAIIIN, fuck man ... just kill me and distribute my meat, oh god, please ..."

    But your argument "as long as it doesn't harm the animals in any way, it's moral" is quite amusing. Could I put dog biscuits up my anus and lay back whilst my dog tongued it out? That hardly harms my dog, he probably wanted to sniff my ass anyway, and now he's being rewarded for it. Similarly, could I "ride" my cow and spin a cowboy hat in the air whilst slapping its ass with those ninja stars cowboys usually tape on their shoes and kick horses with?
     
  23. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,786
    You dont mean to imply that Norsfire dont have a morality... you mean that you'r morality is diferent than Norsfires... yes.???
     

Share This Page