Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 58
  1. #31
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,184
    Tony, why do you eat meat, how do you seperate an animal life from a human life?
    And still, no one has satisfactorily proven, that it isn't opposite day.

  2. #32
    CC International Master Space_Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Where you live
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Saragossa
    Tony, why do you eat meat, how do you seperate an animal life from a human life?
    First, its better in long term.

    second, why are you comparing a human life to a farmed animal? If you could save a person or a dairy who would you save?

    Thirdly, they taste awesome!!! I rather have beef steak than a lentil subsitute...
    IMABACK

  3. #33
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Saragossa
    Tony, why do you eat meat, how do you seperate an animal life from a human life?
    How do you seperate a plant life from an animal life?
    meep meep

  4. #34
    CC International Master Space_Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Where you live
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    How do you seperate a plant life from an animal life?
    ohhh!!! SNAP!!!!
    IMABACK

  5. #35
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    How do you seperate a plant life from an animal life?
    I see the plants living a far more natural life than the animals for slaughter, when compared to theur natural environments or well-treated domesticated lifestyle.

    An arguement which seems to hold against canabalism is it is not natural because we look at humans as equals and we can identify with them, I indentify to the depth of animals but cannot conjure that sympathy for plants.

    Further more, proving someone is a hypocrite is does not prove them wrong, how do you seperate human life from animal life, Boris?

    As an aside, if your post had the intention of proving me a hypocrite, I have already mentioned that meat production kills more plants than vegetarians. So you have kind of doubled up your distribution of suffering to other life-forms.
    Last edited by Saragossa; 20-08-2010 at 10:43 PM.
    And still, no one has satisfactorily proven, that it isn't opposite day.

  6. #36
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,184
    Quote Originally Posted by that_guy
    First, its better in long term.

    second, why are you comparing a human life to a farmed animal? If you could save a person or a dairy who would you save?

    Thirdly, they taste awesome!!! I rather have beef steak than a lentil subsitute...
    First answer is ambiguous and seemingly ridiculous. It is better in the long run to kill off a large percentage of the population, to avert global warming, that doesn't mean I would do it, or another like-wise analogy, I'm sure there are a few.

    second, why are you comparing a human life to a farmed animal? If you could save a person or a dairy who would you save?
    A very relative question, as it depends on the human, however, in most instances, I would save the human, as I am sure you intended. However, your question serves little purpose as it only proves that I value human life over animal life, it doesn't prove I needlessly mistreat and kill animals so I can eat, when there are perfectly good substitutes.

    I hear Cocaine is way better than energy drinks, do it! The taste argument is silly, slavery also feels radical, generations ago we deemed it immoral, hopefully we will do the same in regards to the slaughter of animals.
    And still, no one has satisfactorily proven, that it isn't opposite day.

  7. #37
    CC International Master Space_Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Where you live
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Saragossa
    First answer is ambiguous and seemingly ridiculous. It is better in the long run to kill off a large percentage of the population, to avert global warming, that doesn't mean I would do it, or another like-wise analogy, I'm sure there are a few.



    A very relative question, as it depends on the human, however, in most instances, I would save the human, as I am sure you intended. However, your question serves little purpose as it only proves that I value human life over animal life, it doesn't prove I needlessly mistreat and kill animals so I can eat, when there are perfectly good substitutes.

    I hear Cocaine is way better than energy drinks, do it! The taste argument is silly, slavery also feels radical, generations ago we deemed it immoral, hopefully we will do the same in regards to the slaughter of animals.
    hmm... how about this... you are starving and freezing. you have a cow and a man, which you both deeply value... which would you kill and eat?
    IMABACK

  8. #38
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,184
    Quote Originally Posted by that_guy
    hmm... how about this... you are starving and freezing. you have a cow and a man, which you both deeply value... which would you kill and eat?
    Extremely odd hypothetical you have posed me, I assume if I value the person and the cow equally there would be no rational way of determining which one to eat. Thus I would have to revert to my primal instinct and eat the cow, regardless of how much it tortured me, let alone my deeply valued friend standing there being judged alongside a cow. I still have no idea whta you are trying to prove with this hypothetical, but seeing as all of your other arguments have been flimsy I am not surprised.

    I will set you a ludicrious, out-of-this-world, zany hypothetical: you are completely fine, and you have the choice of picking some field mushrooms and potatoes, then cooking them on the fire, or you can slit a puppy's throat, skin it and cook it on the fire. Which option do you take?
    And still, no one has satisfactorily proven, that it isn't opposite day.

  9. #39
    CC International Master Space_Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Where you live
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Saragossa
    Extremely odd hypothetical you have posed me, I assume if I value the person and the cow equally there would be no rational way of determining which one to eat. Thus I would have to revert to my primal instinct and eat the cow, regardless of how much it tortured me, let alone my deeply valued friend standing there being judged alongside a cow. I still have no idea whta you are trying to prove with this hypothetical, but seeing as all of your other arguments have been flimsy I am not surprised.

    I will set you a ludicrious, out-of-this-world, zany hypothetical: you are completely fine, and you have the choice of picking some field mushrooms and potatoes, then cooking them on the fire, or you can slit a puppy's throat, skin it and cook it on the fire. Which option do you take?
    i dont know is the dog annoying?
    IMABACK

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Saragossa
    I see the plants living a far more natural life than the animals for slaughter, when compared to theur natural environments or well-treated domesticated lifestyle.
    I don't see any difference between say breeding and raising a calf and then eating it, and planting and growing some parsley and then eating it. That is, no difference unless you differientiate the two lives somehow.

    An arguement which seems to hold against canabalism is it is not natural because we look at humans as equals and we can identify with them, I indentify to the depth of animals but cannot conjure that sympathy for plants.
    we are social creatures, it is a selective benefit for us to cooperate. Eating Joe Bloggs up the road probably doesn't meet that end too well.

    Further more, proving someone is a hypocrite is does not prove them wrong, how do you seperate human life from animal life, Boris?

    As an aside, if your post had the intention of proving me a hypocrite, I have already mentioned that meat production kills more plants than vegetarians. So you have kind of doubled up your distribution of suffering to other life-forms.
    It was not my intention to prove you a hypocrite. It was my intention to point out what I believe is a flaw in your argument.

    Does parsley suffer if I pick and eat it? Somehow I doubt it has the cognition to do so.

    No doubt some animals can suffer. We have procedures in Australia that ensure that any suffering is kept to a minimum. Some animals I don't think they do suffer.

    Basically I think that the more like us something is, the more we sympathise with it. As it happens, the more like us something is, it probably also has more cognitive activity. We eat tuna but not dolphin. Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by that guy
    second, why are you comparing a human life to a farmed animal? If you could save a person or a dairy who would you save?
    Quote Originally Posted by sara
    A very relative question, as it depends on the human, however, in most instances, I would save the human
    To me it just beggars belief that you would have to consider "what human" but not consider "what animal".
    meep meep

  11. #41
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    I agree with Boris here. One can be a vegetarian because of preference, but the implication trotted out here is that vegetarianism is somehow morally superior. If it is superior, then a moral argument needs to be made, and so far it hasn't been. I have no problem with people being vego's for preference sake; but I object when they claim moral superiority and then either trot out an illogical argument, or worse, seem to be claiming that its superior "just because it is".
    ďAs you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.Ē -- C.S.Lewis

  12. #42
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,184
    [QUOTE=Boris]I don't see any difference between say breeding and raising a calf and then eating it, and planting and growing some parsley and then eating it. That is, no difference unless you differientiate the two lives somehow. [QUOTE]

    The two lives are seperated by humans and the cruelty humans inflict. When I buy organic vegetables, the vegetables have lived, what I consider to be a far more natural life than a farmed pig. I have seen naturally occuring yams and I have seen organic potato farms; the potato farm seemed to replicate nature far better than the farmed pigs' lives.

    we are social creatures, it is a selective benefit for us to cooperate. Eating Joe Bloggs up the road probably doesn't meet that end too well.
    This is true, but the concept is the same. If you can justify an animal's death, for food, how can you not justify a human's death, for food? If I set up a hypothetical where animals were as socially based as humans, do you believe we would stop eating them?

    It was not my intention to prove you a hypocrite. It was my intention to point out what I believe is a flaw in your argument.
    How is it a flaw? If anything it furthers my argument, if I cannot justify the plants I kill, how coould I possibly justify killing animals? How can you do it?


    Does parsley suffer if I pick and eat it? Somehow I doubt it has the cognition to do so.
    As do I.

    No doubt some animals can suffer. We have procedures in Australia that ensure that any suffering is kept to a minimum. Some animals I don't think they do suffer.
    Some animals don't suffer; the root of the problem is we see the animals as our resources, they are a seperate life and should not be ruled by us. I also have this opinion on slavery, which I see as practically identical to animal farming. Everyone else seems to love slavery.

    Basically I think that the more like us something is, the more we sympathise with it. As it happens, the more like us something is, it probably also has more cognitive activity. We eat tuna but not dolphin. Why?
    I don't eat either of them. Why should I have to justify omnivores' problems?

    To me it just beggars belief that you would have to consider "what human" but not consider "what animal".
    I assume if I had any animal sitting in front of me I could indentify it easily, to a certain extent. Any human would be a different instance as I would have to take moral gauge of their previous actions etc, regardless I think in a majority of the situations I would choose human survival anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny
    I agree with Boris here. One can be a vegetarian because of preference, but the implication trotted out here is that vegetarianism is somehow morally superior. If it is superior, then a moral argument needs to be made, and so far it hasn't been. I have no problem with people being vego's for preference sake; but I object when they claim moral superiority and then either trot out an illogical argument, or worse, seem to be claiming that its superior "just because it is".
    It has yet to be demonstrated that it is not morally superior and even reading these arguments I am convinced everyone arguing for meat hasn't seriously thought it over. Perhaps I need to construct a picture book.


    http://www.animal-rights-library.com...-m/regan03.htm

    Read The Case For Animal Rights and Animal Liberation

    What gives you the right to end and animal's life, Spiny?
    And still, no one has satisfactorily proven, that it isn't opposite day.

  13. #43
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,184
    Also I notice how Rincewind and Spiny have not clarified how they differentiate between a human's life and an animal's life.
    And still, no one has satisfactorily proven, that it isn't opposite day.

  14. #44
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Saragossa
    Also I notice how Rincewind and Spiny have not clarified how they differentiate between a human's life and an animal's life.
    Speaking for myself only, I differentiate between human life and animal life on the premise that human life is specially created by God and is therefore fundamentally superior in value to any animal life. Humans demonstrate superior intellectual capacities and are also capable of making moral, philosophical and aethetic judgements in ways that animals cannot.
    ďAs you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.Ē -- C.S.Lewis

  15. #45
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Humans demonstrate superior intellectual capacities and are also capable of making moral, philosophical and aethetic judgements in ways that animals cannot.
    Pretty much any broad assertion of the only-humans-can-do-X variety is an argument from ignorance that will get shot down by contrary evidence sooner or later. How would you know whether animals make moral, philosophical or aesthetic judgements or not?

    Furthermore, not all humans demonstrate superior intellectual capacities; indeed some who are extremely severely impaired appear to demonstrate none at all.

    Once you buy the moralistic premise you get sucked all the way to Regan and Singer or else you wind up in an inconsistent and arbitrary position.

    I have the good furtune of not buying the moralistic premise in the first place so this all doesn't bother me.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-01-2011, 10:49 PM
  2. Postmodern philosophy of science (po-mo con job)
    By Spiny Norman in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-01-2010, 04:07 PM
  3. The philosophy of marriage
    By Thunderspirit in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 14-06-2005, 07:44 PM
  4. Philosophy (of Religion especially)
    By antichrist in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 25-01-2005, 12:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •