Is eating meat morally wrong

[TW Scott]

Eating meat is a luxury that we can do without. It's true that humans can eat meat, and our bodies are proof of this. However we are not designed as carnivores, and a meat rich diet can do more harm than good. There is plenty of evidence that proves vegetarians are just as if not more healthy than meat eaters.

But where in that does it show meat eating to be wrong? Hmmmm, nowhere. However we are designed to have a certain amount of meat in our diet. Sure, i admite a completely carnicvorous diet is in the long run harmful today, but no less harmful than a diet completely devoid of meat and animal by products. The point here is we are omnivores. We are designed to gain our nutrition form both vegetable and animal matter.

 

[TW Scott]

James R

I said

Now if you are done with the attempted ad hominems, please explain why, without drawing on an emotional source or logical falacy why meat eating is so wrong.

Now I have read your "material" the first time. Thus I have asked for a proof that does not try to stand on logical falacies, misinformation, emotional appeal, and outright ignorance. If you can mange to leave out three of the four then perhaps your arguemnt will stand on it's own instead of needing you whining like a baby to support it.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

However we are designed to have a certain amount of meat in our diet.

Your teleological explanations are baseless.

Now I have read your "material" the first time. Thus I have asked for a proof that does not try to stand on logical falacies, misinformation, emotional appeal, and outright ignorance.

I've already tried to educate you. You don't want to learn.

 

[TW Scott]

I've already tried to educate you. You don't want to learn.

No, you lied, whined, cried, emoted, used logical errors, tried to create false empathy, drew fallacious paralells, and failed to be as convincing as: The check is in the mail. You have tried to brainwash, I refuse to submit to that. You cannot prove eating meat is immoral. It is that simple. if you could you wouldn't stoop to these tactics.

 

[madanthonywayne]

madanthonywayne:
Did you miss that? Maybe you need to go back and read my careful and informative explanations again.

Now that's just payback for when I said that to you in the low liberal fertility thread.

But anyway, I believe your basic point is that eating meat is cruel to the animals that are eaten. Is that correct? The cruelty stems from our evil factory farms, crowded conditions, etc. So if one only eats meat from animals raised on traditional farms or meat from animals killed by hunters, would that be kosher with you?

No matter what, the animals are going to die. Every living thing on this planet will eventually die. So if farm animals are well treated until they are killed. What does it matter if their flesh is consumed by us after they are dead? Furthermore, is it more moral for farm animals to be extinct than to live? These animals are domesticated. No one is going to care for them if they can't be sold for meat.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

No, you lied, whined, cried, emoted, used logical errors, tried to create false empathy, drew fallacious paralells, and failed to be as convincing as: The check is in the mail.

That was you.

Go back and read the thread if you've forgotten.

You big baby.

 

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

I get the impression you haven't actually read the entire thread, or else you wouldn't have to ask why I think eating meat is wrong. Why don't you go and actually read it, then get back to me? It will save me having to repeat myself.

I believe your basic point is that eating meat is cruel to the animals that are eaten. Is that correct? The cruelty stems from our evil factory farms, crowded conditions, etc. So if one only eats meat from animals raised on traditional farms or meat from animals killed by hunters, would that be kosher with you?

Improving farming methods and eliminating factory farming is better than doing nothing. However, my argument goes further than that. I have argued in this thread that the very fact of our treating animals as means to our own ends rather than as beings worthy of moral consideration in and of themselves is ethically unsustainable.

No matter what, the animals are going to die. Every living thing on this planet will eventually die. So if farm animals are well treated until they are killed. What does it matter if their flesh is consumed by us after they are dead?

You are ignoring the fact that we are killing them prematurely. You don't wait for a cow to die naturally before you eat it. You raise it specifically in order to kill it at a young age.

Furthermore, is it more moral for farm animals to be extinct than to live? These animals are domesticated. No one is going to care for them if they can't be sold for meat.

Haven't I already been through this with you?

At present, we have entire industries which bring animals into the world for no reason other than to kill and eat them. If we stopped producing animals for food, the numbers which would be alive would be greatly reduced. Saying that they would necessarily become extinct, however, is just silly. There are many animals we do not eat that are nevertheless not extinct, so arguing that we must continue to slaughter animals so that they won't become extinct is a bizarre argument.

The fact is: plenty of people will care for animals without wanting to eat them. For example, many people you know (maybe even yourself) keep pets.

Do you only keep your dog or cat because you plan to eat it at some later date?

 

[TW Scott]

Improving farming methods and eliminating factory farming is better than doing nothing. However, my argument goes further than that. I have argued in this thread that the very fact of our treating animals as means to our own ends rather than as beings worthy of moral consideration in and of themselves is ethically unsustainable.

So, for you the treating of other beings as means to ones own end is morally wrong. So, I take it you do not eat meat, vegetable, or any cultures. You also refrain form having any welath, a home, electricity, a computer, drive a car, using the highways, or anything of the like. To do all of these things we are treating thousands if not millions of beings as a means to an end.

You are ignoring the fact that we are killing them prematurely. You don't wait for a cow to die naturally before you eat it. You raise it specifically in order to kill it at a young age.

Death is never premature, death happens when it happens. If a anchor falls from the sky and smashes your head clear through your ass, death was not premature, violent and messy sure, but not premature. Quit using this logical fallacy now.

Haven't I already been through this with you?

Yeah you've triedt this dirty trick before but it works no better.

At present, we have entire industries which bring animals into the world for no reason other than to kill and eat them. If we stopped producing animals for food, the numbers which would be alive would be greatly reduced. Saying that they would necessarily become extinct, however, is just silly. There are many animals we do not eat that are nevertheless not extinct, so arguing that we must continue to slaughter animals so that they won't become extinct is a bizarre argument.

The fact is: plenty of people will care for animals without wanting to eat them. For example, many people you know (maybe even yourself) keep pets.

Do you only keep your dog or cat because you plan to eat it at some later date?

True people keep pets again for no other purpose than there own ends. I have a yorkshire terrier, a Pekinese, and a Siamese cat. I have them becuase they make me happy and smile. If they didn't they would be gone. I wouldn't bother keeping an animal that did not bring me joy. Don't pretend you would.

As for livestock. Could you assure that after we dismantle the meat industry that enough people would keep cows, pigs, or chickens to keep a good genetic diversity? How many millions of people would need to keep one of each to keep the species alive and healthy. To what ends would they have to stretch their meager budget?

 

[madanthonywayne]

madanthonywayne:
Do you only keep your dog or cat because you plan to eat it at some later date?

I have a dog, a cat, a fish, and a gerbil. I have no plans to eat any of them. But what about a cow? I've never heard of a pet cow or even a pig, except for arnold and that sheepherding pig.

PS I have not recently read the entire twenty-nine pages of the thread. But I have read much of it as I jump into this discussion from time to time

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

So, for you the treating of other beings as means to ones own end is morally wrong.

Actually, I should have been a little more careful, as I was earlier in the thread. A more correct statement is that no sentient being should be treated solely as the means to an end.

You are, of course, correct that people are often treated as means to the ends of others. If you work for another person, they are using your labour to further their own goals, of course. However, at the same time they recognise that they should pay you something for your efforts. Thus, you are not solely a means to an end. Your value as as a human being with needs and wants and rights is recognised.

In light of this clarification, I don't need to respond to your following rant:

So, I take it you do not eat meat, vegetable, or any cultures. You also refrain form having any welath, a home, electricity, a computer, drive a car, using the highways, or anything of the like. To do all of these things we are treating thousands if not millions of beings as a means to an end.

Death is never premature, death happens when it happens.

Are you claiming that murder is not wrong? Or are you just trying to divert the discussion again?

True people keep pets again for no other purpose than there own ends. I have a yorkshire terrier, a Pekinese, and a Siamese cat. I have them becuase they make me happy and smile. If they didn't they would be gone.

So, you're one of those people who buys a new puppy for Christmas, then kills it when they next want to go on holiday, because it has become inconvenient.

Or, at least, you see nothing wrong with that.

That doesn't surprise me.

Could you assure that after we dismantle the meat industry that enough people would keep cows, pigs, or chickens to keep a good genetic diversity?

No, of course I can't. I can't control what people do, any more than you can.

Do you think there is currently enough genetic diversity in tigers, or polar bears, or bilbies, or pandas? Maybe we should eat them in order to improve things. What do you think? Do you advocate factory farms for pandas?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I've never heard of a pet cow or even a pig,

Pigs are rather common pets.

http://www.potbellypigofmyheart.com/right_pet_for_you.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/animals/newsid_1949000/1949272.stm


Buffalo Roam send me this pic:

 

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

I have a dog, a cat, a fish, and a gerbil. I have no plans to eat any of them. But what about a cow? I've never heard of a pet cow or even a pig, except for arnold and that sheepherding pig.

A brief google search for "pet cow" or "pet pig" may enlighten you.

PS I have not recently read the entire twenty-nine pages of the thread. But I have read much of it as I jump into this discussion from time to time

So, why don't you address the specific arguments I have made, rather than repeat points which I have already addressed in detail?

 

[TW Scott]

Actually, I should have been a little more careful, as I was earlier in the thread. A more correct statement is that no sentient being should be treated solely as the means to an end.

Part of existance is that we treat many many things soley as a means to an end. Do you send christmas cards to the people who make your toohtpicks? No. Now that is just one thing.

You are, of course, correct that people are often treated as means to the ends of others. If you work for another person, they are using your labour to further their own goals, of course. However, at the same time they recognise that they should pay you something for your efforts. Thus, you are not solely a means to an end. Your value as as a human being with needs and wants and rights is recognised.

Yeah, uh huh, and if you believe that I have som swamp land 90 miloff the coast of Florida with your name on it. Now there are exceptions to be sure, but to a business owner you are nothing more than the best guy they could get for the pittance they pay you. if they could find someone just as good for even a dollar less a year they'll drop kick you ass in a heartbeat. You are means to an end, the only reason you get money, benefits, and a modicum of respect, is becuase it gets better results than whips chains and the threat of death.

Are you claiming that murder is not wrong? Or are you just trying to divert the discussion again?

No, i never even implied murder is not wrong. That is you trying to divert the discussion. I was just pointing out that Death is never premature by definition. You die when you die. It could be becuase of a heart attack or becuase you got struck by lightning. Deathe comes to everything

So, you're one of those people who buys a new puppy for Christmas, then kills it when they next want to go on holiday, because it has become inconvenient.

No, not at all. Hell, I paid for my 10 year yorkshire terrier to have a cancerous lump removed. Why? Becuase she makes me smile.

Or, at least, you see nothing wrong with that.

That doesn't surprise me.

Actually I do see something wrong with people who get a pet then kill it for a completely inane reason. The dog makes you mad, find him a new home. Otherwise you keep the pet becuase keeping the pet makes you happy. Don't try to lie about it.

No, of course I can't. I can't control what people do, any more than you can.

Well, unlike you I am not trying to. I am personally saying that anybody anywhere should have the free choice to eat meat or not. There is no moral concerns as long as it is not human meat.

Do you think there is currently enough genetic diversity in tigers, or polar bears, or bilbies, or pandas? Maybe we should eat them in order to improve things. What do you think? Do you advocate factory farms for pandas?

I don't advocate factory farms at all. I think there are a very gross practice and I am thankful they a minority in the meat production industry. Boxing veal is on the same level. Now I have no problems with a more traditional ranch that has a meat processing plant as part of the property. To me that is just good thinking. As long as the animals are free to wander around on a good portion of land and not caged their whole lives, I figure we are paying them for their contribution.

As for Tiger, Polar Bears, Bilbies, and Pandas. I fgure they could do with a little exploitation. I mean would it be so bad to have ranches that let these animals roam free and then drive cars through on approved routes?


By the way thank you for proving me completely right that you are relying emotional arguments. You have completely invalidated any credibility you have had on this subject.

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Now there are exceptions to be sure, but to a business owner you are nothing more than the best guy they could get for the pittance they pay you. if they could find someone just as good for even a dollar less a year they'll drop kick you ass in a heartbeat.

Looks like you picked the wrong job if you put up with being treated like that.

No, i never even implied murder is not wrong. That is you trying to divert the discussion. I was just pointing out that Death is never premature by definition. You die when you die. It could be becuase of a heart attack or becuase you got struck by lightning. Deathe comes to everything

Ok. I concede the point. Death comes to everything. No argument there.

That in no way means that in any given situation it is acceptable to kill. To determine whether it is acceptable to kill we must obviously look beyond the basic fact that all living things eventually die.

Therefore, your entire point was a waste of time.

Actually I do see something wrong with people who get a pet then kill it for a completely inane reason. The dog makes you mad, find him a new home. Otherwise you keep the pet becuase keeping the pet makes you happy. Don't try to lie about it.

Responsible pet owners take on ownership of their animals on the understanding that they have a duty to care for their pet, not to kill it arbitrarily, and so on.

Do you really think that applies only as long as your pet makes you smile?

Once again, I must say you are consistent in your moral outlook. Your opinion is that all animals are only valuable insofar as they benefit you in some way. You are consistently selfish, I'll give you that.

I am personally saying that anybody anywhere should have the free choice to eat meat or not.

They obviously already have that choice, so you are arguing a useless point again.

I, on the other hand, have been arguing that people ought not to eat meat, on moral grounds.

There is no moral concerns as long as it is not human meat.

Translation: TW Scott has no moral qualms unless it is human meat.

Why is human meat different from cow meat? Because TW Scott is human. And he is special. And cows only exist for his pleasure anyway.

I don't advocate factory farms at all. I think there are a very gross practice and I am thankful they a minority in the meat production industry.

I have already supplied you with statistics and other information to show that they account for the majority of meat production in the United States. You choose to disbelieve that, because you're too lazy to check it for yourself.

As long as the animals are free to wander around on a good portion of land and not caged their whole lives, I figure we are paying them for their contribution.

By the same argument, I could come and kill you and eat you. After all, you've been free to wander around for over 20 years.

As for Tiger, Polar Bears, Bilbies, and Pandas. I fgure they could do with a little exploitation. I mean would it be so bad to have ranches that let these animals roam free and then drive cars through on approved routes?

You've heard of wildlife parks, I assume...

By the way thank you for proving me completely right that you are relying emotional arguments. You have completely invalidated any credibility you have had on this subject.

This is getting tired.

 

[Oniw17]

JamesR:
You're saying that we just shouldn't farm animals, because no sentient being should be used as a means to an end? So you have no problem with hunting an animal to kill it?

 

[wsionynw]

JamesR:
You're saying that we just shouldn't farm animals, because no sentient being should be used as a means to an end? So you have no problem with hunting an animal to kill it?

Are you hunting the animal for fun, or because you cannot survive without it's meat, skin, etc?

 

[TW Scott]

TW Scott:



Looks like you picked the wrong job if you put up with being treated like that.



Ok. I concede the point. Death comes to everything. No argument there.

That in no way means that in any given situation it is acceptable to kill. To determine whether it is acceptable to kill we must obviously look beyond the basic fact that all living things eventually die.

Therefore, your entire point was a waste of time.



Responsible pet owners take on ownership of their animals on the understanding that they have a duty to care for their pet, not to kill it arbitrarily, and so on.

Do you really think that applies only as long as your pet makes you smile?

Once again, I must say you are consistent in your moral outlook. Your opinion is that all animals are only valuable insofar as they benefit you in some way. You are consistently selfish, I'll give you that.



They obviously already have that choice, so you are arguing a useless point again.

I, on the other hand, have been arguing that people ought not to eat meat, on moral grounds.



Translation: TW Scott has no moral qualms unless it is human meat.

Why is human meat different from cow meat? Because TW Scott is human. And he is special. And cows only exist for his pleasure anyway.



I have already supplied you with statistics and other information to show that they account for the majority of meat production in the United States. You choose to disbelieve that, because you're too lazy to check it for yourself.



By the same argument, I could come and kill you and eat you. After all, you've been free to wander around for over 20 years.



You've heard of wildlife parks, I assume...

Interesting how you avoid any factual content in making your posts. You say you have statistics, but from a biased source, You turn everything into an emotional argument. You have stopped arguing the point and instead taken to a subtle form of ad hominem. You've lost and you know it. There is no recovery, but perhaps in your mind you think that if you make the other side loose too, then you'll be right by default. Sad

This is getting tired.

Well the truth tends to tire people out when they can't face it.

 

[James R]

You're saying that we just shouldn't farm animals, because no sentient being should be used as a means to an end? So you have no problem with hunting an animal to kill it?

No sentient being should be used solely as the means to the ends of a human being.

Be specific about the hunting. What animal is being hunted, and why?

 

[James R]

Interesting how you avoid any factual content in making your posts.

Oh, give it a break. You left factual content behind half the thread ago.

If you want to be a hypocrite, so be it, but don't pretend you can fool me.

You say you have statistics, but from a biased source, You turn everything into an emotional argument. You have stopped arguing the point and instead taken to a subtle form of ad hominem. You've lost and you know it. There is no recovery, but perhaps in your mind you think that if you make the other side loose too, then you'll be right by default.

Is this your idea of "factual content"?

You big baby.

 

[Oniw17]

Yea I remembered the word solely, just forgot to put iit in. Actually, that's the only reason I asked.

What animal is being hunted?
Any wild animal this is used to being hunted by other animal, and knows how to deal with being hunted.

Why?
Because humans are meant to hunt.