Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Humans seem to love to feel superior to all other forms of life. I am not convinced plants don't feel to be honest. I find it amazing how plants have a will to survive. They grow towards the sun and their root systems fight for water with other life forms. Large trees block sun from all little plants, yet the little plants seem to adapt. How do plants do it? Humans will magically come up with some so-called scientific explanation which would clearly show how humans are superior, yet we are the least harmonious lifeforms on the planet. We are indeed a cancer (invasive). What other form of life is so destructive to our world?
Anyway, the reason we have people running around not eating lifeforms like cattle, pigs and such is because WE can relate to them. We can't relate to plants, because that would take too much thought and depth. Humans are simple and shallow, without any care for environment at all. Even "green living" people are cancer to the planet for the most part. Just look at all the Excursions and Escalades on the road to see extreme cancer to the planet.
It's funny that you're implying that I somehow am placing myself above other life forms when I am the one arguing that we shouldn't kill animals just because we like the way they taste.
The scientific evidence indicates that plants aren't conscious.
The point you raised about what people relate to and what they don't is true. But that should be something we should seek to correct. White people used to not relate to black people, which is why they felt it was acceptable to enslave them. These sorts of explanations are explanations for the existence of action, not a moral defense of actions.
Also: most vegetarians by default are careful about their diet/bodies.
Your attempting to compare them with a populace which includes those eats twinkles and chips as their main meals, with a side rider of bacon, AND those who also take care of their bodies.
Invalid comparison.
Care to try again?
Morality is a philosophical topic, not a sociological topic. People used to think the earth was the center of the universe. Does that mean that astronomical science is just "opinion" as well"?
And I never said that there were no vitamins vegetarians need to supplement. There are. But they are readily available, so it isn't an issue.
Explain why my analogy to kids in poverty-stricken nations is a red herring. How is it not analogous? Yes, humans are likely more conscious than other animals, but that is a matter of degree. Why is the magic line somewhere between human and pigs?
Our food animals were "invented." They were bred to the extent that they simply could not survive in the wild, with the possible exception of pigs. The chickens we eat can often not even stand up their breasts are so large. Cattle are nowhere near hearty enough to survive in the wild. These are the products of modern genetic engineering, not nature.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-02-2015 at 08:21 PM..
Reason: Removed deleted quote
Not eating meat causes suffering too. What happens to those animals that don't have a predator that hunts them and eats them? They live longer and overpopulate and diminish their food supply. Death by starvation is suffering also. Eating meat helps to keep the animal population balanced out.
Gotta thin the herd somehow!
Animal fat causes the muscles of our bodies to struggle to utilize insulin. Diabetics would benefit greatly from not eating meat.
Wait. Can we eat road kill? Since it's dead already? And what about fish? How about lower forms of seafood like shellfish or squids? Can we eat that?
I know you don't think baby humans feel anything when they're aborted so would you object to them as a food source? Seriously. How about we abort cows and have really young veal, or lamb. We could use anesthesia on the mother cow so as not to cause suffering. I had a c-section once - it wasn't that bad.
Our food animals were "invented." They were bred to the extent that they simply could not survive in the wild, with the possible exception of pigs. The chickens we eat can often not even stand up their breasts are so large. Cattle are nowhere near hearty enough to survive in the wild. These are the products of modern genetic engineering, not nature.
True, but none of that has anything to do with your original argument.
There are still heritage and wild species of cows, pigs, and chickens that exist completely outside of factory farming. How does the above or your original argument relate to that fact?
The below argument for vegetarianism is very straightforward, yet I've never heard an actual rebuttal to it that held water:
I. One should avoid causing suffering that is reasonably avoidable.
II. Eating meat causes suffering.
III. Eating meat is reasonably avoidable.
Conclusion: One should not eat meat.
The argument is obviously valid, and premises II and III seem to me to be clearly sound. I'm really not sure where meat eaters disagree, but I'm guessing it must be premise I.
Meat eaters: What do you dispute about this argument? Do you dispute its validity or its soundness, and if it's soundness, which premise do you dispute?
Moderator cut: -
Not a valid argument, unless your the meat. The pleasure derived from Eating a nice grilled Medium Well Rib eye Steak , far out weighs the negative aspects, which can not be actually measured or experienced by one, and are purely theoretical. So actually, Eating meat causes pleasure, not suffering, and there is no valid reason listed to avoid it.
Your argument is perfectly valid and is one I have used many time. The fact of the matter is eating meat is so clearly unethical and most people know this. That's why meat eaters get so worked up at the thought of vegetarians and vegans because it makes them feel guilty. It is also why they come up with such poor arguements to "justify" them eating meat.
Our food animals were "invented." They were bred to the extent that they simply could not survive in the wild, with the possible exception of pigs. The chickens we eat can often not even stand up their breasts are so large. Cattle are nowhere near hearty enough to survive in the wild. These are the products of modern genetic engineering, not nature.
Not so. Totally False. Our "Food Animals" have evolved and some have been been "enhanced" but already existed, and some species have existed before man. Animals ate other animals and evolved, like man, and still continue to eat other animals like man. Its a Natural Occurrence.
In fact, you can not really say that "Plants" are not conscious either, even if scientific proof is not available. We just may not actually know how to recognize it. Can a plant think? Can a plant feel? Maybe. We know a plant senses sunlight, and turns to it. Or does it "feel" sunlight and turn toward it? Plants reproduce and send out seeds in may ways. Some are airborne. How does a plant know there is going to be air to carry the seeds? some stick to animals fur. How do plants know an animal is going to come by, or that there are such things as animals? Good questions, not easy to answer, because we can't talk to plants. You have any answers?
Not so. Totally False. Our "Food Animals" have evolved and some have been been "enhanced" but already existed, and some species have existed before man. Animals ate other animals and evolved, like man, and still continue to eat other animals like man. Its a Natural Occurrence.
In fact, you can not really say that "Plants" are not conscious either, even if scientific proof is not available. We just may not actually know how to recognize it. Can a plant think? Can a plant feel? Maybe. We know a plant senses sunlight, and turns to it. Or does it "feel" sunlight and turn toward it? Plants reproduce and send out seeds in may ways. Some are airborne. How does a plant know there is going to be air to carry the seeds? some stick to animals fur. How do plants know an animal is going to come by, or that there are such things as animals? Good questions, not easy to answer, because we can't talk to plants. You have any answers?
Look up artificial selection. Even if plants were sentient, which they aren't, vegans and vegetarians would still be causing less harm to them because food animals eat many more plants than vegans or vegetarians. Therefore, vegetarianism would still be the more ethical option.
Look up artificial selection. Even if plants were sentient, which they aren't, vegans and vegetarians would still be causing less harm to them because food animals eat many more plants than vegans or vegetarians. Therefore, vegetarianism would still be the more ethical option.
Nonsense. Vegans are life-killing vampiric consumers, they just choose alternate life forms to destroy. There is NO ETHICAL implication in being a vegan.
Eating veggies, fruits, or cows is ALL EQUAL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
