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.
absolutely right!! OP if you only want to eat vegetables, go ahead, that is your prerogative. but dont tell me what i should be eating as that is MY prerogative.
Your prerogative affects others including myself, therefore I will continue to try to tell you what you can't eat. Just as you would tell a cannibal that what they are doing isn't okay. You don't live in a bubble. Meat doesn't appear out of thin air.
Is it acceptable to any of you to keep a young child (1-3 years old) or someone with severe mental diabilities locked in a cage for it's entire life, stun it, kill it and eat it because you like the taste? If you say "yes" to that, this argument doesn't apply to you. If you say "no" to that, this argument does apply to you.
Scientifically, a pig is more intelligent, more aware of its surroundings, just as sentient and just as emotional as a young child or certain mentally disabled or elderly people. The only way awful treatment of a pig but not a young child etc. can be "justified" is by saying that the pig is a different species than us. This is a speciesist argument. A speciesist argument is of the same form as a racist argument. "A black person is just as sentient, just as emotional and just as aware of their surroundings as white people. However, it is okay to enslave them because they are black." Both speciesism and racism draw a circle around a group of individuals and classify those individuals as "us" and those outside the circle are "others". It is arbitrary. You have to look at an individual, human or animal based on their own merits, not the group they fall into. If speciesism is ethically permissable then so is racism or any other form or arbitrary discrimination. Therefore, if you except speciesism then you must accept racism to be ethically consistant.
If you want to raise the bar such that it is okay to mistreat pigs then the bar goes high enough that you can mistreat young children, the mentally disabled or the elderly. If you choose to keep the bar where it is such that mistreating young children, the mentally disabled or the elderly isn't okay, then you must accept that mistreating sentient, aware animals is also not okay. You cannot have it both ways without opening the door to any form of arbitrary discrimination.
I make sure that I obtain the necessary nutrients for my body. To the extent that it doesn't involve the consumption of other animals, I'm fine with nearly any available protein. The relative efficiencies of various plant proteins will always depend upon growing seasons and soil conditions, which vary both geographically and annually. However, none of these crops involve the planned-slaughter of other sentient life forms.
Actually crop based agriculture probably slaughters as many if not more creatures of the animal kingdom as traditional meat agriculture.
Here's the problem, to grow crops you need land, land that is inhabited by native plant and animal species. You clear that land of those species, and then plant specific species of crops to harvest. During growth they often require artificial watering (which native plant life did not) and patrolling for pests (plant or animal which are often killed). After harvest then the stored crops need protecting from vermin (mice/rats/insects) again most commonly exterminated.
Traditional meat agriculture requires land, some water, and the meat on the hoof. You drive the meat to the land and give them water. They eat native plant life, and do compete with local wildlife, but the impact is significantly less than clearance for plant based agriculture.
Modern feed lots etc. are an entirely different situation, the argument is not about the ethics of feed lots, but of killing animals for consumption.
Of course crops involve the planned slaughter of sentient life forms. Based on a number of studies rodents are considered of higher sentience than say decapod crustaceans, which many states have laws protecting against pain and suffering. If this is "wrong" then crop based agriculture is equally "wrong". Of course there is planned slaughter of other life forms, because its understood that pests (plant, animal, fungi, bacteria) need to be controlled (we just don't use the term extermination), the most evident being rats and mice, although squirrels, crows (which are from a highly intelligent family of avians), deer are also eliminated among others. That also of course says nothing at all about the hive intelligences of ants and termites who as colonies display significant sentience, though as individuals little intelligence, ants farm aphids, and also fungi, termites too farm fungi and create mounds that are specifically designed to provide optimal growing conditions for the fungi.
So with all of that we're just discussing the scale of "wrongness" in agriculture, is it more wrong to raise and kill an animal specifically to eat, or incidentally kill animals who are competing for your non-animal food sources?
There's a good reason why this link reads "weird, bizarre, & offbeat".
Studies have shown that plant life is reactive to external stimuli. However, a plant would require a vocalization mechanism in order to "scream", and a central nervous system in order to experience pain.
There's a good reason why this link reads "weird, bizarre, & offbeat".
Studies have shown that plant life is reactive to external stimuli. However, a plant would require a vocalization mechanism in order to "scream", and a central nervous system in order to experience pain.
Yes, I posted this to lighten things up a bit-- they seemed to be getting a bit heavy-- but I am interested in your thoughts on Gungnir's post (#133.)
Your prerogative affects others including myself, therefore I will continue to try to tell you what you can't eat. Just as you would tell a cannibal that what they are doing isn't okay. You don't live in a bubble. Meat doesn't appear out of thin air.
rubbish, you have no authority over me or what i choose to eat. what you are trying to do is force me into your lifestyle, and that doesnt fly with me. i dont cannibals that they cant eat other humans, who do you think you are that you think you can tell me what i can and cannot eat? in teh grand scheme of things you are a nobody.
I am in search for logical arguments in regards to the ethics of eating meat. Specifically, I am looking for ethical justification in support of meat consumption. For the purpose of this thread, let's define meat as the flesh of a sentient animal, so let's keep the argument focused around birds and mammals mainly as sentience is quite clear. Please do not use any of the following arguments outlined here:Eight Arguments In Favor Of Eating Meat And Objections Thereto
Thanks!
Two things about your professor are obvious;
1. He hates Christians and Christian faith, and
2. He does not understand the teachings of the Bible at all.
You should never ask a non believer to argue Christian faith.
Your prerogative affects others including myself, therefore I will continue to try to tell you what you can't eat.
As does yours, so I will tell you what you can't eat.
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.
