Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2005 15:24:09 GMT -5
sure we are biologically capable of eating meat but we needn't to survive. we are biologically capable of murdering people, raping people and eating babies but we needn't and shouldn't We are biologically capable of mouth to mouth resuscitation helping elderly people across the road and applauding when people succeed. So to come up with what we can biologically do is not of help to your argument. The healthiest diets are those were the widest range of foods is eaten, including meats.
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jul 20, 2005 15:28:18 GMT -5
you missed the point of what I said completely. you were claiming that being biologically capable of eating meat was a justification for eating meat. I wasn't saying that what we are biologically capable of doing is necessarily bad but that being biologically capable of doing something does not by itself justify doing that thing, since, as I showed there are many things we are biologically capable of doing that we should still not do. I therefore find it highly amusing that you say "coming up with what we are biologically capable of doing is of no use to your argument" since that is precisely what I was trying to show you. Namely that being biologically capable fo doing something is not a justification for doing that thing. Thank you for proving my point for me, too bad you didn't realise that this is what you were doing though.
Finally, you have since alluded to the idea that we are not just biologically capable of doing it but it should be thought of more as a biological necessity. This is not true. It is harder to have a well-balanced vegetarian diet but it is definitely possible.
|
|
|
Post by rockandroll on Jul 20, 2005 16:09:30 GMT -5
I hate to sound and come out as a smart ass and a git....but by definition, murder is a crime consisting in causing the death of another human being. Based on that I'd have to say no.
I do eat meat. I'm not the direct responsible of any animals death though.....do I sponsor that by been a consumer?...perhaps...but that's nature behavior. We eat to satisfy our biological needs.....either way, everyone has a choice, I choose to eat meat and I'm happy this way, if you don't fine, it's your life and I hope your happy with that choice as well
|
|
|
Post by Wireless on Jul 20, 2005 16:13:25 GMT -5
Man has always eaten meat, I will strive to continue that...
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jul 20, 2005 16:17:21 GMT -5
man (at least some) have always eaten, enslaved, raped and killed each other. do you want to continue that....
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 20, 2005 16:24:58 GMT -5
man (at least some) have always eaten, enslaved, raped and killed each other. do you want to continue that.... do the zzz's after albert relfect on the excitement of your posts
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jul 20, 2005 16:29:23 GMT -5
oh c'mon, we all know you love meat, seeing as you get "end lions" from your name - though more disturbing is "ned's loin"
|
|
|
Post by Wireless on Jul 20, 2005 16:34:29 GMT -5
man (at least some) have always eaten, enslaved, raped and killed each other. do you want to continue that.... Thats a fucking stupid reply. We as a race, are carnivores, which means we eat meat yes?? Is it wrong for bears to eat fish? Or sharks to eat seals? Or lions to eat antelopes? Look I'm down with you being a veggie if you want, I just dont like people saying its WRONG to eat meat
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jul 20, 2005 16:43:32 GMT -5
man (at least some) have always eaten, enslaved, raped and killed each other. do you want to continue that.... Thats a fucking stupid reply. We as a race, are carnivores, which means we eat meat yes?? Is it wrong for bears to eat fish? Or sharks to eat seals? Or lions to eat antelopes? Look I'm down with you being a veggie if you want, I just dont like people saying its WRONG to eat meat you people are not worth arguing with IF you continue to refuse to listen to what I'm saying. I'll spell it out for you. Firstly, my reply was not stupid. In my reply to you i was MERELY showing that the fact that we have always done something does not in itself provide sufficient reason for continuing to do that thing (which is what you were arguing) I was NOT there making the argument for why eating meat is wrong. For that argument read my earlier posts about how causing pain un-necessarily is a bad thing. (I mean, on what grounds is it ok? because you like it? by that logic I could kill eople if I liked it? you might say I couldn't because we're talking about animals not humans - but then that implies that humans are better than animals - and usually they are - but what do you do when they're not - ie - in the case of mentally retarded people. for the argument about how we are biologically capable - again, that doesn't imply biological necessity) also I'm pretty sure carnivores are species that only eat meat. that means we are not carnivores. we are omnivores. Finally, I know bears eat fish - they also do not have something called ETHICS - they do not have sufficiently developed brains to think in these terms. I thought that humans did. So far you guys have proved me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Wireless on Jul 20, 2005 16:57:43 GMT -5
Firstly, my reply was not stupid. In my reply to you i was MERELY showing that the fact that we have always done something does not in itself provide sufficient reason for continuing to do that thing (which is what you were arguing) I actually was not arguing anything, I hadn't read any of the above posts, I was just giving my answer the thread question. Everyone is entitled to their view and this is mine.. Meat is not murder.
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 20, 2005 16:59:45 GMT -5
albert is always right why did you change your original reply to me? The first one was so much more entertaining. I don't have a pro-meat eating argument, but I eat meat and don't need some prick calling me a fucking murderer for eating it So if I quit buying all my meat in the stores and go hunt for it to eat cos I don't feel like eating leaves is that wrong too? And don't fucking post a reply saying that I am brainless...oh wait, you already called everyone who disagreed with you that.
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jul 20, 2005 17:05:44 GMT -5
wireless - you said we've always eaten meat - I took that as an argument for why it's ok - maybe you didn't intend to make it anyway whatever. lions - I wasn't calling everyone brainless. I was saying that it takes a brain to think in ethical terms, in reply to wireless' argument that all other mamals eat each other so why shouldn't we.
look, don't get so personally offended. I think it is wrong/immoral/unethical to eat meat. I don't think you or I should eat meat. But given societal pressures, the way you've been brought up, how tasty it is and not having to do the deed yourself it is hard to not eat meat. I'm not calling any of you bad people. Hell I'm eating meat right now. I'm only interested in the idea of whether it is right or wrong and if people's reaction would be to actually consider the arguments rather than to simply make "you're not the boss of me" replies
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Jul 20, 2005 17:23:00 GMT -5
if we cant eat meat, are you suggesting that animals are our peers as such, so why is it ok for lions to eat wilderbeast , pegiuns to eat fish,?
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jul 20, 2005 17:33:34 GMT -5
I don't really understand what you're saying.... I'm saying that animals cannot think in ehtical terms. therefore to hold them up to ethical standards is ludicrous.
further, to present animals conduct as a justification for our own conduct is ludicorus because we CAN think in ehtical terms. As in, to say "bears eat fish" so it's ok for hujmans to eat bears is invalid just as it is invalid to say "bears rape each other, preying mantii eat each other so it must be ok for us to do so as well.
now, since we can think in ethical terms, and since, I think you'll agree that causing pain is a bad thing, then it would seem to follow that we shouldn't cause pain when it isn't strictly necessary. It is not necessary to eat meat and animals feel pain so we probably shouldn't eat them. now on what basis is it ok? we don't need to do it so that can't be a reason. the fact that we always have done it is n't a reason because mankind has always enslaved, raped, murdered and eaten his fellow human. and the fact that we can doesn't imply taht we must. so i fail to see on what grounds it is justified. some argue that they are inferior. but how are they inferior? they are less intelligent. sure. but then there are some really stupid humans, like mentally retarded people who are dumber than really smart monkeys. is it ok to harm mentally retarded people then? if not, why not? because as a whole their species is superior. but that's speciesm - which is the same logic that underpins racism. anyway, that's my thinking if you're interested
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Jul 20, 2005 17:50:00 GMT -5
dude its a topic that has no right or wrong, i respect your opinion
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jul 20, 2005 19:46:52 GMT -5
I completely disagree. Look, it's difficult and I might be wrong you might be right or vice-versa but that doesn't mean that we're both right. If you care to then you'd follow through my chain of reasoning starting from "now since..." above. I'm either right or wrong. what I say is either deductively valid or deductively invalid. we're not both right. Unless of course you think ethics is just opinions. which it most certainly is not. at a bare minimum they have to be consistent. anyway, i'm too tired to argue against relativism right now - suffice it to say that it has both horrible consequentialist positions and empirical problems stemming from what one considers a society to be. But it's really not just opinions. try telling that to a slave. oh mr. slave owner I think what you're doing is wrong and you think it's right and we're both correct. huh?
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 20, 2005 19:58:33 GMT -5
I completely disagree. Look, it's difficult and I might be wrong you might be right or vice-versa but that doesn't mean that we're both right. If you care to then you'd follow through my chain of reasoning starting from "now since..." above. I'm either right or wrong. what I say is either deductively valid or deductively invalid. we're not both right. Unless of course you think ethics is just opinions. which it most certainly is not. at a bare minimum they have to be consistent. anyway, i'm too tired to argue against relativism right now - suffice it to say that it has both horrible consequentialist positions and empirical problems stemming from what one considers a society to be. But it's really not just opinions. try telling that to a slave. oh mr. slave owner I think what you're doing is wrong and you think it's right and we're both correct. huh? ARE YOU FOR REAL OR SOME SORT OF COMPUTER PROGRAM
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jul 20, 2005 20:12:47 GMT -5
k, i'll give it a rest
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Jul 20, 2005 20:17:12 GMT -5
was a joke - don't take anything i say too seriously i'm a clown
|
|
|
Post by Wireless on Jul 20, 2005 20:33:57 GMT -5
I completely disagree. Look, it's difficult and I might be wrong you might be right or vice-versa but that doesn't mean that we're both right. If you care to then you'd follow through my chain of reasoning starting from "now since..." above. I'm either right or wrong. what I say is either deductively valid or deductively invalid. we're not both right. Unless of course you think ethics is just opinions. which it most certainly is not. at a bare minimum they have to be consistent. anyway, i'm too tired to argue against relativism right now - suffice it to say that it has both horrible consequentialist positions and empirical problems stemming from what one considers a society to be. But it's really not just opinions. try telling that to a slave. oh mr. slave owner I think what you're doing is wrong and you think it's right and we're both correct. huh? You made some of those words up, didnt you? Admit it!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by J.Velvert on Jul 21, 2005 0:57:42 GMT -5
Robert Smith has said something along the lines of 'I eat meat because Morrisey thinks it's murder'. That's a good way of putting the patronising attitudes of vegetarians into their place.
I'm also a bit lost on this 'give animals human rights' thing. Fuck, most humans don't have them! Lets start from there and see about those qute little animals a bit later.
My last point derives from the above, what kind of animals are qute? 'cos I certainly think that it's a question of recognition: monkeys are quite like us, therefore we shouldn't kill them. Fish on the other hand are not, and it's alright to eat them...
I'm not really that sure of who exactly is capable of drawing the line here, personally I eat meat every day. It's a good, healthy diet.
|
|
|
Post by Black Rebel Motorcycle Pixie. on Jul 21, 2005 2:16:59 GMT -5
I only eat fish and chicken and if I could stop doing that, I probably would. I don't think it's right to kill anything that breathes basically or that has a nerve system (=pain). I know in this society nothing will change but for me it's enough when people are just aware of the choices and what they are eating. I just don't like the ignorant ones who go "well it's good and we need it". Obviously not, when so many veggies or still alive on this planet. But each to their own. Like everything in life we just all need a minute to think about it. And don't even get me started on fur
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2005 5:14:50 GMT -5
Allot of the animals we eat only exist to be eaten. So the rights of the animals to life is a poor excuse. Animals should be looked after whilst alive and should be killed causing the least possible pain. But to say that we shouldn’t eat something which are bodies are designed for us to eat seems to be to be a poor argument. What I mean by this as we function better by eating meat. Not we are merely capable of eating meat. I completely disagree. Look, it's difficult and I might be wrong you might be right or vice-versa but that doesn't mean that we're both right. If you care to then you'd follow through my chain of reasoning starting from "now since..." above. I'm either right or wrong. what I say is either deductively valid or deductively invalid. we're not both right. Unless of course you think ethics is just opinions. which it most certainly is not. at a bare minimum they have to be consistent. anyway, i'm too tired to argue against relativism right now - suffice it to say that it has both horrible consequentialist positions and empirical problems stemming from what one considers a society to be. But it's really not just opinions. try telling that to a slave. oh mr. slave owner I think what you're doing is wrong and you think it's right and we're both correct. huh? As for this point I agree both sides of the argument can’t be right, there can only be one right answer the fact that we will never know as a fact which is correct it will only be peoples opinions doesn’t mean both sides are right as both sides contradict each other so for both sides of the argument to be right, both sides of the argument must be equally wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Jul 21, 2005 5:18:38 GMT -5
I completely disagree. Look, it's difficult and I might be wrong you might be right or vice-versa but that doesn't mean that we're both right. If you care to then you'd follow through my chain of reasoning starting from "now since..." above. I'm either right or wrong. what I say is either deductively valid or deductively invalid. we're not both right. Unless of course you think ethics is just opinions. which it most certainly is not. at a bare minimum they have to be consistent. anyway, i'm too tired to argue against relativism right now - suffice it to say that it has both horrible consequentialist positions and empirical problems stemming from what one considers a society to be. But it's really not just opinions. try telling that to a slave. oh mr. slave owner I think what you're doing is wrong and you think it's right and we're both correct. huh? well mate my opinion stands the same, and im not going to hear it called wrong, if you had the same level of tact as me, as to respect my opioion like i respect yours
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Jul 21, 2005 7:36:42 GMT -5
well you just did. I think you're wrong. I gave reasons why I think you're wrong but I think you're wrong. I'm sorry if that offends you. It shouldn't. It's just a bunch of opinions. I guess you could call making untruths like we're both right being tactful, I call it making untruths. That being said that doesn't make me not respect your opinion. In the absence of being sure taht I'm right I see your argument as plausible and I respect the reasons you think what you do.
as for duncan's point about how we're not just biol. capable but we're better functioning if we eat meat I'm not sure if that's technically true. I think we can be just as well functioning iwhtout meat - worst case scenario you have to have a protein shake every now and again but I don't think that even taht is strictly speaking necessary. still even if you're correct then that means that aiming for our topmost physical health (instead of say, what many people find perfectly acceptable (vegetarians) level of health or instead of a terrible diet (that of most people who eat way too mush meat - (ie - you're only supposed to have 2-3 servings of meat a week I think but we've gone crazy) is more important than other creatures' life - (not saying that's necessarily wrong, just saying that that's the trade-off you're making)
with regard to fur I think that if you are eating an animal you should DEFINITELY take its fur as well and if you're taking an animals fur then you should definitely eat it as well
a less controversial point, as someone alluded to earlier, is the diea that maybe ethical treatment is more important than say their life itself. I have some understanding of this position. Ie - animals don't have that much of an advanced idea of their future life. so depriving them of this isn't much of a big deal. depriving their family members of their friends might still suck but you can't do anything about that. what you can do is minimize the pain these creatures feel - (b/c the methods used currently are cost-effective but ethically dubious) of course - humane killing woujld also mean our burgers would cost a little bit more
|
|