On November 25 2012 09:53 tMomiji wrote:
Wait, what does that have to do with ANYTHING?
Wait, what does that have to do with ANYTHING?
Well it certainly has nothing to do with YOU!
Forum Index > General Forum |
Mstring
Australia510 Posts
On November 25 2012 09:53 tMomiji wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? Wait, what does that have to do with ANYTHING? Well it certainly has nothing to do with YOU! | ||
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. Show nested quote + I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. Show nested quote + I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Show nested quote + Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. Show nested quote + From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Show nested quote + Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? Yes, but I would kill them first. | ||
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? What the fuck? Killing animals for meat is a lot different than killing humans for meat. It is ethical to kill animals for meat, while it is unethical to kill humans for meat. Is anyone seriously advocating killing humans for meat? | ||
Mstring
Australia510 Posts
On November 25 2012 10:02 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? Yes, but I would kill them first. Hehe I like you. On November 25 2012 10:03 Zealotdriver wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? What the fuck? Killing animals for meat is a lot different than killing humans for meat. It is ethical to kill animals for meat, while it is unethical to kill humans for meat. Is anyone seriously advocating killing humans for meat? It was just a side curiosity. | ||
Hydro033
United States136 Posts
| ||
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On November 24 2012 14:45 Danglars wrote: The following would be my choice for winner if I was given to decide among the actual winner and runner ups as a judge. Looked into the energy to create vegetables, the need for both if you're a meat eater to be healthy, and the ethical practices farmers adopt. + Show Spoiler + My family has been farming a little over a decade now. I am a new, young woman farmer. At 27, I left an accounting career and stepped into this one to build a better life for my children, and so I am careful about the choices we make. We grow and learn each season. On this path, my shovel has overturned a few truths about raising and eating animals. Here is what I know. Production of vegetables without the use of animals requires much larger amounts of energy. In small-scale farming, we use animals to clear fields of vegetation instead of relying only on industrial systems like tractors and herbicides. On our farm, we grow rows of vegetables while green cover crops and weeds fill the spaces in between those rows. After the harvest, dairy goats are grazed to get the land back under control, followed by the chickens that eat most of the remaining vegetation, and then finally with one pass of my tractor, I incorporate what is left back into the soil and plant the next crop. The animals clear vegetation and leave free fertilizer. They build biology in the soil rather than destroy it. Working in the natural order reduces our dependence on outside sources of energy, allowing us to harness the energy that is on-farm. The method leads to a better product, one that is more balanced for my customer, my community, my land, and me. Because I started from scratch, I had my own misconceptions, and I learned quickly that animal husbandry teaches you more than anything else about the natural order, about life and death. When you care for large amounts of living creatures, inevitably some die, either by the talons of a hawk or the little hands of a possum or because there are too many roosters in a flock or by my own hands to serve my family. Responsible animal husbandry will recall you to your own mortality. I would agree with those vegetarians who say that our culture eats too much meat. Too much meat creates its own imbalances as farms are converted into smelly feedlots. I am often disappointed at restaurants where vegetables seem to be an afterthought, a mere garnish next to the meat. We need to seek balance in our land and in our kitchens. However, I also ask my vegetarian friends to consider that if they are eating eggs, then someone had to cull the roosters or mature hens, and I hope those animals were not wasted. If they are drinking dairy, someone had to cull the males from the herd, since a world where every animal is maintained would be unsustainable. And if there are no animal inputs on the farms, then that energy has to come from fossil fuels and other nonorganic sources. A farm animal is not a pet or a wild animal fending for itself. The farm animal and the small farmer must cooperate to build a stronger herd or flock; we literally cannot survive without each other. The eating of animals is paramount to the production of food in a system that embraces the whole of reality. This is why eating meat is ethical. To not consume meat means to turn off a whole part of the natural world and to force production of food to move away from regenerative systems and to turn toward a system that creates larger problems for our world. That is a pretty good personal account of the situation. But if anything it merely presents a technical obstacle, it doesn't argue against the fundamental truth that it is unethical to kill and eat a living creature because it tastes good. All it says is that for now, *supposedly*, killing animals reduces the overall environmental impact that we would otherwise have, and we have to do it in order to create a sustainable animal population. So overall there is more good than bad in eating animals to a certain, limited amount. Now we should probably hear some more expert insight on this than the personal experiences of one accountant turned farmer, but lets say its all true. What if we develop ways to control the animal population without killing off members from the herd? Some sort of contraceptive? What if we figure out how to make renewable energy more affordable and more efficient, so that the extra energy needed to gather the crops can be attained without leaving an ecological footprint? Then we would have a moral obligation to stop eating meat just as before. There are challenges that have been met in so many other fields. I think if people put their thought towards this, and truly cared about the ethics of eating meat, they could find solutions too. Maybe not immediately, but eventually we would find a way to live without having to kill animals for food, or rely on them to help with farming in such a way as to require killing a portion of them. | ||
megapants
United States1314 Posts
the fact that much of the meat that is circulated through the market is basically produced by man for the sake of economic gains is the questionable part of the way we eat meat today. //edit: On November 25 2012 10:18 radscorpion9 wrote: What if we develop ways to control the animal population without killing off members from the herd? Some sort of contraceptive? What if we figure out how to make renewable energy more affordable and more efficient, so that the extra energy needed to gather the crops can be attained without leaving an ecological footprint? Then we would have a moral obligation to stop eating meat just as before. the idea of hindering an animal's ability to reproduce is something that i, personally, find way less ethical than eating them. not to sound cheesy, but that feels too much like trying to play god and has so much potential to cause more harm than good. similarly when it comes to generally improving the planet as a whole - efficient and affordable renewable energy, as you suggested - these types of things open up many other cans of worms that are not really relevant to the sake of preserving the livelihood of livestock. while meat consumption may be effected by such things, it should not be the major, or even minor, motivator for them. | ||
GohgamX
Canada1096 Posts
| ||
Channel Pressure
United States62 Posts
On November 25 2012 10:03 Zealotdriver wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? What the fuck? Killing animals for meat is a lot different than killing humans for meat. It is ethical to kill animals for meat, while it is unethical to kill humans for meat. Is anyone seriously advocating killing humans for meat? I don't know if I have the time to develop this, but killing animals for meat over killing humans for meat only has real significance if you have a theistic assumptions. The notion that humans are intrinsically valuable and different from animals. does not come from atheistic thought. On a non-theistic worldview, this seems to simply be socio-biological. My understanding is that evolution will never breed truth, merely survival. So on non-theistic assumptions, killing humans for meat is unpopular, but it isn't necessairily wrong. And if it is wrong ide just have to ask on what grounds is it wrong. All the responses I can think of seem to be in the genre of socio-biological evolution or common contract of some kind. I don't know that anyone is trying to advance that, but it isn't so far-fetched witht he proper presuppositions. Bold and wildly-unpopular seem to be the appropriate adjectives. I don't say this really to get into it as its kind of off topic. . Maybe just to say the notion isn't as outlandish as it may seem at first glance. I don't endorse it though, I hope you know. | ||
decafchicken
United States19902 Posts
On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. Show nested quote + I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. Show nested quote + I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Show nested quote + Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. Show nested quote + From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Show nested quote + Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? I notice you skipped DDies sources backing my statements which you made to sound ludicrous and chose to attack this post instead. | ||
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On November 25 2012 11:02 Channel Pressure wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 10:03 Zealotdriver wrote: On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? What the fuck? Killing animals for meat is a lot different than killing humans for meat. It is ethical to kill animals for meat, while it is unethical to kill humans for meat. Is anyone seriously advocating killing humans for meat? I don't know if I have the time to develop this, but killing animals for meat over killing humans for meat only has real significance if you have a theistic assumptions. The notion that humans are intrinsically valuable and different from animals. does not come from atheistic thought. On a non-theistic worldview, this seems to simply be socio-biological. My understanding is that evolution will never breed truth, merely survival. So on non-theistic assumptions, killing humans for meat is unpopular, but it isn't necessairily wrong. And if it is wrong ide just have to ask on what grounds is it wrong. All the responses I can think of seem to be in the genre of socio-biological evolution or common contract of some kind. I I'm an atheist and I think Humans are more valuable than animals. There doesn't need to be a rational basis for it. One's values and ethics stem from their emotions. No rational basis is needed. There is no rational basis for any morals, so by your argument ethics can simply be thrown out the window altogether. Killing and eating another human being feels wrong. Killing and eating an animal doesn't (Not for me anyway). If this is not enough of a grounding for your ethics, than you are an atheist in search of a theistic worldview. This is essentially a living hell and I hope you find your way out of it. You will never be able to ignore your emotions, and you will never be able to find a metaphysical grounding for your values as you simply don't believe in bullshit. Your only solution is to read David Hume. Come to accept and appreciate your worldly nature. You're a theist at heart until you do. | ||
Mstring
Australia510 Posts
On November 25 2012 11:12 decafchicken wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? I notice you skipped DDies sources backing my statements which you made to sound ludicrous and chose to attack this post instead. I asked you a question or two not DDie to bring me four google links. Besides, I'm not in the mood to form someone's argument for them and then argue against it. Anyway, can you explain how I 'attacked' smokeyhoodoo? Did you feel attacked by me? I'm not trying to attack anyone; I'm just asking questions. I'm not trying to put anyone down though I feel as though people have tried this on me. I'm not attached to opinions for either side really, I just like to poke at beliefs to see where the loose ones are. | ||
chuckboris
56 Posts
It seems that more than one person actually hold the belief that not eating meat and the position that it is unethical is somehow dogmatic or religious in nature. This quite obviously just needs to be thought through slightly more carefully, such a thing as holding a moral opinion in this fashion, cannot in and of itself be dogmatic or religious. It simply doesn't enter into that territory. Just like it cannot be wrong or right, it does not have a solution, or intrinsic moral answer (unless you want to claim some kind of enlightened truth) Then on the other hand, more than one person have held that for humans to have intrinsic value, religiosity or some kind of irrational third party of enlightened knowledge must enter. (and so it seems some people want to conclude eating animals is as 'just as wrong' as eating humans) This is not neccesary at all. It is perfectly possible to imagine and argue for, intrinsic human worth (also, why does the vlaue have to be intrinsic?), without enlightened knowledge. This jump between animal and human worth seems extremely rushed and senseless, and quite obviously has not rational effect. - My personal opinon on this subject starts and ends with the ethicacy of how we treat animals as a whole (i don't think anyone is on their way to eating people, and so i don't find that discussion very interesting). It seems to me that animals and their life has some value, by the way i percieve them. If someone harms animals in a certain way myself and others have strong reactions to this and experience displeasure almost at the level we would have, had the victim of harm been a fellow human. So, plants have lives too, and have even been proved to have nervous-systems that can be compared to the ones of humans and animals, so why do i want to attribute more worth to a non-human animal than a plant? For me it lies in how i can feasibly imagine something to have a perception of reality that has a certain alignment with my own. What i mean is; insofar as i imagine a cow to experience the world in a similar way to myself, i want to attribute this perception with moral worth. And so for me, killing a cow whether for the purpose of eating it or not, has a degree of wrongness to it, that can differ from that of killing another animal, if the other animals perception of reality is something i imagine to be more or less like my own. For example: If i was hungry enough, or the benefit i would have from killing a cow was large enough, i would do it. Presently the only benefit i would have from eating a cow would be taste, which i find to be inadequate moral grounds. I do however eat fish, at least once a week, and sometimes eggs/milk etc. It simply seems to me (by consult of my doctor) that i have a serious health value to gain from eating fish. Also i don't find the fish i eat and their lives, to have the same moral worth as that of, forexample cows, things to do with their nervous system and the rest of their physical and behavioral make-up lead me to believe, that their perception of reality is one quite different from, and less valuable than, the cows. If i got hungry enough, i would probably eat most things Thanks to others who shared their opinions, it was fun to read! | ||
anrimayu
United States875 Posts
On November 25 2012 11:02 Channel Pressure wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 10:03 Zealotdriver wrote: On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? What the fuck? Killing animals for meat is a lot different than killing humans for meat. It is ethical to kill animals for meat, while it is unethical to kill humans for meat. Is anyone seriously advocating killing humans for meat? I don't know if I have the time to develop this, but killing animals for meat over killing humans for meat only has real significance if you have a theistic assumptions. The notion that humans are intrinsically valuable and different from animals. does not come from atheistic thought. On a non-theistic worldview, this seems to simply be socio-biological. My understanding is that evolution will never breed truth, merely survival. So on non-theistic assumptions, killing humans for meat is unpopular, but it isn't necessairily wrong. And if it is wrong ide just have to ask on what grounds is it wrong. All the responses I can think of seem to be in the genre of socio-biological evolution or common contract of some kind. I don't know that anyone is trying to advance that, but it isn't so far-fetched witht he proper presuppositions. Bold and wildly-unpopular seem to be the appropriate adjectives. I don't say this really to get into it as its kind of off topic. . Maybe just to say the notion isn't as outlandish as it may seem at first glance. I don't endorse it though, I hope you know. Your example is wrong. If I run you over with my car, I'd probably go to jail for the crime. If I run your cat with my car, I'd probably go to Wendy's for double bacon cheese baconator with extra bacon for lunch. | ||
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On November 25 2012 11:02 Channel Pressure wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 10:03 Zealotdriver wrote: On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? What the fuck? Killing animals for meat is a lot different than killing humans for meat. It is ethical to kill animals for meat, while it is unethical to kill humans for meat. Is anyone seriously advocating killing humans for meat? I don't know if I have the time to develop this, but killing animals for meat over killing humans for meat only has real significance if you have a theistic assumptions. The notion that humans are intrinsically valuable and different from animals. does not come from atheistic thought. On a non-theistic worldview, this seems to simply be socio-biological. My understanding is that evolution will never breed truth, merely survival. So on non-theistic assumptions, killing humans for meat is unpopular, but it isn't necessairily wrong. And if it is wrong ide just have to ask on what grounds is it wrong. All the responses I can think of seem to be in the genre of socio-biological evolution or common contract of some kind. I don't know that anyone is trying to advance that, but it isn't so far-fetched witht he proper presuppositions. Bold and wildly-unpopular seem to be the appropriate adjectives. I don't say this really to get into it as its kind of off topic. . Maybe just to say the notion isn't as outlandish as it may seem at first glance. I don't endorse it though, I hope you know. The notion that humans are intrinsically valuable and different from animals. does not come from atheistic thought. Logic dictates that the only animal which can appreciate and wield logic is intrinsically valuable. That aside, you seem to be saying "atheistic thoughts don't result in the belief that humans are valuable, but here is the reason why even atheistic thoughts point towards the belief that humans are valuable". Cannibalism is inherently wrong from a biological perspective. It unnecessarily diminishes the gene pool from which evolutions could be derived. And though survival of ourselves and our immediate families (specifically our children) would appear to be the most important thing to not just humans, but damned near every animal, this can equally be viewed as a mechanism to ensure the survival of whole species. We are then left with a macro-survival mechanism which itself is composed of every individual's survival mechanisms. That is to say: humans are intrinsically valuable.. to humans. Likewise, had badgers the ability to appreciate value, they would likely hold the belief that badgers were intrinsically valuable. To remove any human from the gene pool is to negatively impact the entire species, but only on a small scale. As for whether or not this logic can be applied to animals aside from humans, I will reserve my judgment for the day when another species stands and demands to be counted. Until then, my ethical beliefs will exist only in regards to creatures that can understand ethics. Anything else is just arguing for the sake of arguing. | ||
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On November 25 2012 16:10 Chargelot wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 11:02 Channel Pressure wrote: On November 25 2012 10:03 Zealotdriver wrote: On November 25 2012 09:47 Mstring wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 25 2012 09:39 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Show nested quote + On November 25 2012 08:57 Mstring wrote: On November 25 2012 08:26 decafchicken wrote: And the reason we have evolved as much as we have is because of our ability to cook food. It makes the nutrients more bio available and is how we have been able to grow our brains over the generations. Do you honestly believe this or is it just a way to rationalise eating meat/cooked foods? I'd love someone to share the thought process which allowed them to conclude this and also why we must mirror our ancestors. I find it a stretch is all... but fantastic dogma for a heavily meat eating culture. On November 25 2012 08:27 Itachii wrote: Eating meat is as natural as eating can get, it always was main part of our "diet" and allowed humans to develop muscles How do you know? If we don't need meat to develop muscles now, why did our ancestors need it? Or perhaps you disagree that we don't need meat to develop muscles now? This may work to convince meat eaters that are guilt ridden and attempt to rationalize their meat eating, but what do you say to those who simply don't care? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here (except that I'm not so convinced by their beliefs). The word rationalise doesn't need to be a negative, I simply noticed a lot of rationalisation in this thread and wondered if this was simply more of the same. I think you are reading something into my message that isn't there. I consider your meekness to be unethical, as I have a different set of values than you do. Ok. I consider your lack of stomach, and inability to kill without remorse, to be an inherently undesirable and inferior trait in a human being. I think you have me confused with someone you know slightly more than nothing about Ethics simply deals with what is good and bad, right and wrong. What falls in these categories is dependent on what a particular individual or society values. Ok. From the perspective of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and pre-christian Europe in general, you are unethical. Ok. Your meekness is both wrong and bad. Our ancestors may not have needed meat. I certainly do not need meat. But I want it, and I'll kill for it, and this is good. Ok. Are you OK with people using similar logic to conclude that killing you is good? What the fuck? Killing animals for meat is a lot different than killing humans for meat. It is ethical to kill animals for meat, while it is unethical to kill humans for meat. Is anyone seriously advocating killing humans for meat? I don't know if I have the time to develop this, but killing animals for meat over killing humans for meat only has real significance if you have a theistic assumptions. The notion that humans are intrinsically valuable and different from animals. does not come from atheistic thought. On a non-theistic worldview, this seems to simply be socio-biological. My understanding is that evolution will never breed truth, merely survival. So on non-theistic assumptions, killing humans for meat is unpopular, but it isn't necessairily wrong. And if it is wrong ide just have to ask on what grounds is it wrong. All the responses I can think of seem to be in the genre of socio-biological evolution or common contract of some kind. I don't know that anyone is trying to advance that, but it isn't so far-fetched witht he proper presuppositions. Bold and wildly-unpopular seem to be the appropriate adjectives. I don't say this really to get into it as its kind of off topic. . Maybe just to say the notion isn't as outlandish as it may seem at first glance. I don't endorse it though, I hope you know. Show nested quote + The notion that humans are intrinsically valuable and different from animals. does not come from atheistic thought. Logic dictates that the only animal which can appreciate and wield logic is intrinsically valuable. How is that? If its logical you can lay it out. I find cute adorable animals to be valuable despite being utterly retarded, and I would weigh them as being greater than many humans. For example, I would choose the life of a little kitten over Barack Obama. Yea, I went there. | ||
shadowy
Bulgaria305 Posts
Your vote: Eating meat is: (Vote): Ethical (Vote): Unethical I would rather ask if it's necessary, rather than ethical. Without any bias, if one defends the idea that killing animals it's unethical and refuses to eat meat based on those grounds, then the only option for such a person would be to protest all the killing of living organism in this world. Mind you mosquitoes, poisonous creatures, wild beats who are danger to humans, all kind of bugs in the farms etc. etc. etc. You either stand up for something all the way or you don't at all. | ||
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
99% of real athletes eat copious amounts of meat, every fucking day, and instead of worrying about the ethics of that, enjoy beating their competition, banging chicks or getting medals at the olympics. Meat has almost every fucking nutrient you need for healthy living and high performance. You don't even need salad if you eat the entire animal (liver has overdose B vitamin group) (before some vegan here says something, like "I jog 30 minutes 3 times week", that does not make you an athlete) | ||
Fus
Sweden1112 Posts
| ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4254 Posts
| ||
| ||
Kung Fu Cup
2024 Summer Weekly #2
[ Submit Event ] |
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War GuemChi 9836 Dota 2Bisu 3222 Horang2 1616 EffOrt 1333 Mini 1100 actioN 491 ZerO 462 Light 350 Soulkey 272 Stork 228 [ Show more ] Mind 132 Rush 122 Sharp 98 Pusan 97 Sea.KH 77 sorry 76 ZerO(Twitch) 65 GoRush 57 Sacsri 39 scan(afreeca) 17 PianO 17 Barracks 15 Rock 13 IntoTheRainbow 10 ajuk12(nOOB) 10 HiyA 4 eros_byul 2 Yoon 0 Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2482 hiko2223 B2W.Neo996 Beastyqt727 DeMusliM715 Mlord646 crisheroes550 Hui .525 Happy347 XaKoH 226 Liquid`VortiX99 NuckleDu74 QueenE53 Trikslyr32 KnowMe29 Organizations StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War
StarCraft 2 • LUISG 2 StarCraft: Brood War• Kozan • Poblha • Migwel • Laughngamez YouTube • aXEnki • LaughNgamez Trovo • intothetv • IndyKCrew • Gussbus Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
GSL Code S
Maru vs TY
Creator vs SHIN
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
ESL Pro Tour
Online Event
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
Hatchery Cup
[ Show More ] BSL
ESL Pro Tour
Sparkling Tuna Cup
World Team League
ESL Pro Tour
BSL
ESL Pro Tour
|
|