Vegetarian's guide to talking to carnivores

[S.A.M.]

Nobody bargains with a tree, so you're asking a meaningless question.

Exactly and the same applies to any other source of food.

Why don't you explain to me why it is ok to kills cattle and eat them? .

Same reason it is okay to kill an <insert food source> and eat it. Eating is not a moral argument, its what we call a cycle of dependence. Every living thing lives off each other - you have to kill to eat. Noting you eat is non-living to begin with and the process of food production itself is fatal to other organisms which are not eaten. You can become a Jain and eat only fruits and vegetables excluding those that grow underground, a Jew/Muslim and follow religious dietary laws [or not], a Hindu and abstain from beef [or not]. All food taboos are due to philosophical reasons or ideological conditioning, but in and of itself, all food sources are equivalent and should receive yes, equal consideration as food sources. You may defend a cow as vigorously as a Jain defends a potato tuber but those are your PERSONAL reasons for eating or not eating some foods. To a Jain it is as unethical to eat a tuber as it is to eat a cow. If thats how you feel, you're welcome to go that route but to other people potato = food and cow = food.

 

[adoucette]

aduocette:

LOL all you like. Is that the best you can do?

No James, I know I'm not going to change your mind so it's really not worth putting much effort into it.

But clearly you are WRONG, because even our children don't normally begin to grasp the concept of death until they are about 5, but even at 2 they are FAR more aware of the world and abstract concepts than cows are.

What about Clams James?

What do Clams think about death?
Or Shrimp?

You see it just gets sillier by the minute but you are so full of your own moral superiority it's pretty funny to watch.

And likewise you are clearly so convinced you are right and you aren't going to let the facts that virtually none of the rest of the world agrees with you and not a single government's laws, dissuade you.

So there is hardly a point in discussing this since it's not about facts but a matter of faith to you.

Why don't you explain to me why it is ok to kills cattle and eat them? That's if you can come up with an ethical reason.

It's ok for the same reason it's ok for a dolphin to kill and eat a fish. We evolved as omnivores and so a proper human diet from things you can grow yourself or acquire from locally grown sources requires meat.

Arthur

 

[Anti-Flag]

Anti-Flag:

Haven't I made myself clear about what bothers me? Go back and read the thread if you haven't understood. I see no reason to repeat myself yet again just because you're too lazy to follow my argument.

Yes, killing and suffering - except when put on the spot about other times and reasons that occurs you have no objection to it, so evidently it isn't the killing or suffering that bothers you one iota.

My argument is based on equal consideration for equal interests. Where interests differ, equal consideration does not apply. There is nothing arbitrary about this.

Thoroughly debunked and dealt with.

Rather than you inventing straw-man positions for me, let's hear what you think for a change.

Which animals do you, Anti-Flag, think it is ok to kill? And why? In particular, please explain to me why it is ok to kill a cow or a chicken and eat it. Then we'll see if I have any objection.

It's your argument, don't try to deflect just because you can't back it up with anything that holds up to scrutiny.

Is that your reasoning as to why it's ok to kill and eat cattle? That they aren't humans?

If so, then you're on the same speciesist track as Bells.

Got anything else?

Dealt with already, you and meat eaters have a lot in common, but at least they recognise it.

The number of meat eaters is increasing. There was even a report linked earlier in the thread that shows that.

Bzzt.
http://www.raw-food-health.net/NumberOfVegetarians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

Many reports and surveys suggest vegetarianism is in fact on the increase.
And the world has never been 50% vegetarian. Reported for continued intellectual dishonesty.

No need to lie. I know you never even started to consider not eating meat.

Apparently you know very little, and when found out about that you just start to lie. More deflection, but I suppose when all else fails you.

 

[Anti-Flag]

adoucette:



If a cow could talk, what do you think it would say if you asked it "Would you rather be killed and eaten now, or allowed to go on living your life for the next 13 years?" And how would a human answer the same question?

Now, explain to me how the interests of the cow and the human are not equal in this regard.

If a cow could talk? Geez you really are dropping low now.
What would a plant say? A bug? All supposition regardless, but your hypocrisy is again evident.

 

[billvon]

Yes, I think cows and black people should be treated exactly the same when it comes to arbitrarily killing and eating them for your own pleasure. In other words, in case you're not clear on this, I think that neither black people nor cows should be arbitrarily killed and eaten for your pleasure.

And why do you think carrots should be treated differently?

What do you think? That both should be killed? Or one but not the other? If you kill the cow but not the black person, then on what basis are you distinguishing between them in making this particular decision? You haven't said, so far.

Blacks (and whites, and asians, and any humans) are humans. Cows are not. That is the distinction. We make it in legal frameworks, when discussing safety, when discussing morality, decisionmaking etc etc. Indeed, it's probably safe to say that everyone in this thread (with the possible exception of yourself) can see the difference between cows and people.

Not at all. There are objective and morally significant differences between cows and carrots, which I already pointed out earlier in the thread.

Ah, so you are making a "racist (speciesist)" argument.

One of the first rules of Internet arguments is "once the hole you are digging is deep enough - stop digging!" There are a great many valid arguments you can make against eating meat. "Cows should have the same right to life as blacks" is not one of them.

 

[kira]

Emil:

I haven't seen anybody in this thread supporting total equality between animals and humans. Though, you also need to read back to where I explained the two senses of the word "equality".

adoucette:



No, I can't see the inate moral difference between the interest of a cow in living and the interest of a human in living.

And apparently you can't explain it to me.

So, I guess that's it for you in this thread.

James,

supposed you were stranded on a desert, riding a camel, with 3 other living things: a kid, a pig, and the camel itself. You have a knife and a means to make fire/ to cook. No other living things (especially vegetables) around. The condition is such that if you and the kid don't eat one of the living things that were travelling with you, you wouldn't make it to reach the next food source (vegetables) alive. What are you going to do in that situation? Eat the pig, the camel, or the kid? Or, perhaps, would you kill yourself as a sacrifice for the other 3? And why?

Let's see, you said you support equality between human and other animals. I want to see your food of preference in such situation.

Everyone else who are vegetarians are welcome to respond as well.

 

[Anti-Flag]

No James, I know I'm not going to change your mind so it's really not worth putting much effort into it.

But clearly you are WRONG, because even Children don't grasp death until they are about 5 and even at 2 they are FAR more aware of the world and abstract concepts than cows are.

What about Clams James?

What do Clams think about death?
Or Shrimp?

You see it just gets sillier by the minute but you are so full of your own moral superiority it's pretty funny to watch.

And likewise you are clearly so convinced you are right and you aren't going to let the facts that virtually none of the rest of the world agrees with you and not a single government's laws, dissuade you.

So there is hardly a point in discussing this since it's not about facts but a matter of faith to you.
Arthur

You forgot to mention plants and bugs. But I guess they weren't in Dr Doolittle and aren't really "cute" or anything to most people.

 

[Gustav]

So there is hardly a point in discussing this since it's not about facts but a matter of faith to you.

yes
it is strange that this self-professed moral being cannot even take it upon himself to give plants the benefit of the doubt. i mean, there are questions about the sentience of plants but james insists that any such self awareness be expressed in a manner that he feels comfortable with. it is an aesthetic based not so much on a clear rationale but rather a dogma fueled by the fanaticism and desperation of a hungry man.

would james eat us if he encountered us at an earlier stage of our evolution? i most certainly think so

 

[Tiassa]

Because they're black?

Let us take a syllogistic look at how this issue has no logical center:

• "I haven't seen anybody in this thread supporting total equality between animals and humans." (#282)

• "'Black people have no rights because they are black and not white. White people can do whatever they like to black people, including beating them or killing them, because they are black. In addition, this is justified because black people aren't as intelligent as white people. White people are entitled to control black people - even to use them as slaves. Black people should be considered mere property of white people. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for white exploitation. It may be a good thing for white people to treat black people humanely, but that's only because the value of the black people to the whites is diminished if they aren't treated properly.'

"Now, swap a few words:

"'Cows have no rights because they are cows and not human beings. Human beings can do whatever they like to cows, including beating them or killing them, because they are cows. In addition, this is justified because cows aren't as intelligent as human beings. Human beings are entitled to control control - even to use them as work animals. Cows should be considered mere property of human beings. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for human exploitation. It may be a good thing for human beings to treat cows humanely, but that's only because the value of the cows to the human beings is diminished if they aren't treated properly.'" (#185)​

There is a big side debate going on about whether or not James compared black people to livestock, and while he and a couple others insist this is not the case, we must pay attention to the context of the alleged comparison.

We might pause to wonder what James' problem with dogs is that he doesn't recognize the fundamental difference in western culture between the relationships of dogs and people on the one hand, and chickens and people to the other. However, that is actually a distraction.

After specifically comparing racism and speciesism (#161), James is reminded of the basic issue of relationships: "Because my dog is a part of my family and no, my saying because it is a dog, is not a "racist" argument." (Bells, #174)

And in responding to that, James makes the comparison in which he suggests the blacks/cows comparison. And here is the point: James overlooks entirely the relationships that exist between humans in various cultures and the animals in question. It is not a "racist" (i.e., speciesist) argument to note the relationship between a human and an animal? "Yes," James says explicitly, "it is." And then he tells people to "Read this", with this being his comparison of blacks and cows. As there are no questions of relationships to consider, it is easy enough to make black people and cows interchangeable.

So take a look at it syllogistically:

• James says nobody is arguing that people and animals are totally equal.

• James says that black people and cows are argumentatively interchangeable.

____________________
∴ James says that black people are not totally equal to humans.​

Once you recognize the degree of irrationality and hatred you are facing, it becomes something of a vapid exercise in futility to even bother with it.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take part in this thread. It's fair enough to simply shrug and chuckle. Just don't make yourself a spectacle by rolling on the floor, hooting with laughter, and pissing yourself in mirth.

 

[Trippy]

Nobody is forcing anyone to take part in this thread. It's fair enough to simply shrug and chuckle. Just don't make yourself a spectacle by rolling on the floor, hooting with laughter, and pissing yourself in mirth.

Too late...

 

[Tiassa]

Playing RUF at Sciforums

Too late...

Shall we take up a collection for a Reserve Underpants Fund?

 

[Trippy]

Shall we take up a collection for a Reserve Underpants Fund?

Please, if you wouldn't mind.

 

[Tiassa]

What value, facts?

Funny, when I start raving about rampant violations of the scientific method, which I rather reasonably believe should be the Prime Directive for a website with the word "Science" in its title, I get almost no support.

In that context, what value have facts?

 

[Gustav]

consistency demands that james should eat.......... shit

​

The meatpacking industry causes 18 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions, mostly due to the release of methane from animals. The livestock industry also consumes huge amounts of feed and water in relation to the amount of meat that it yields, and many find the industry to be inhumane and cruel to animals. These factors alone are reason enough for vegetarians to replace their meat intake with vegetable proteins and legumes. But Ikeda, a scientist at the Environmental Assessment Center in Okayama, sought to further the field of alternative proteins by recycling a form of protein-rich waste : sewage mud.

“Sewage mud” is exactly what you think it is – poop. Ikeda’s process begins by extracting protein and lipids from the “mud.” The lipids are then combined with a reaction enhancer, then whipped into “meat” in an exploder. Ikeda then makes the poop more savory, by adding soya and steak sauce.

Currently, the price of the poop burgers are 10-20 times that of regular meat, due to the cost of research, but he feels they will even out in a few years. He admits that “some people” may have a psychological aversion to eating artificial meat made of their own poop at first, but thinks many would be open to personally completing the food chain. He also notes that the burgers are extremely low in fat.

The artificial meat is low in fat and reduces waste and carbon emissions, however it’s hard to believe that any number of benefits could persuade consumers to take a bite out of a poop sandwich.

 

[adoucette]

Shall we take up a collection for a Reserve Underpants Fund?

Depends

 

[Trippy]

Depends

Do they make them big enough?

 

[Trippy]

Something occured to me, in amongst all of this, that almost makes me wish I was a strict carnivore.

The Union Carbide factory in Bhopal India suffered a gas leak in December 1984.

The gas leak caused an estimated 8000 deaths and 560,000 injuries, of which some 3,900 are permanent and major. Compare this to, for example, the estimated 4,000 people of the 600,000 most exposed at Chernobyl that are expected to die of cancer (according to the World Health Organization).

What were Union Carbide manufacturing in India that could cause such destruction? Carbaryl, a pesticide used to eradicate insects to protect food crops - in fact, as I understand it, in the US Carbaryl is the favoured pesticide for food crops (even though it is toxic to humans and a likely carcinogen.

Shall we add that, and other similar incidents into the equation when considering the environmental cost of a vegiterian diet?

 

[billvon]

Shall we add that, and other similar incidents into the equation when considering the environmental cost of a vegiterian diet?

You could. Of course, you'd then have to factor in the costs of a meat-heavy diet, since you need to produce 10 pounds of grain for every pound of meat you get.

 

[Trippy]

You could. Of course, you'd then have to factor in the costs of a meat-heavy diet, since you need to produce 10 pounds of grain for every pound of meat you get.

This is only true, however, if you eat grain fed meat.

I don't, and New Zealand Beef and Lamb is Grass fed, not grain fed.

And the costs of a meat heavy diet have been asserted, on multiple occasions in this thread.

 

[Bells]

Let us take a syllogistic look at how this issue has no logical center:

• "I haven't seen anybody in this thread supporting total equality between animals and humans." (#282)

• "'Black people have no rights because they are black and not white. White people can do whatever they like to black people, including beating them or killing them, because they are black. In addition, this is justified because black people aren't as intelligent as white people. White people are entitled to control black people - even to use them as slaves. Black people should be considered mere property of white people. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for white exploitation. It may be a good thing for white people to treat black people humanely, but that's only because the value of the black people to the whites is diminished if they aren't treated properly.'

"Now, swap a few words:

"'Cows have no rights because they are cows and not human beings. Human beings can do whatever they like to cows, including beating them or killing them, because they are cows. In addition, this is justified because cows aren't as intelligent as human beings. Human beings are entitled to control control - even to use them as work animals. Cows should be considered mere property of human beings. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for human exploitation. It may be a good thing for human beings to treat cows humanely, but that's only because the value of the cows to the human beings is diminished if they aren't treated properly.'" (#185)​

There is a big side debate going on about whether or not James compared black people to livestock, and while he and a couple others insist this is not the case, we must pay attention to the context of the alleged comparison.

We might pause to wonder what James' problem with dogs is that he doesn't recognize the fundamental difference in western culture between the relationships of dogs and people on the one hand, and chickens and people to the other. However, that is actually a distraction.

After specifically comparing racism and speciesism (#161), James is reminded of the basic issue of relationships: "Because my dog is a part of my family and no, my saying because it is a dog, is not a "racist" argument." (Bells, #174)

And in responding to that, James makes the comparison in which he suggests the blacks/cows comparison. And here is the point: James overlooks entirely the relationships that exist between humans in various cultures and the animals in question. It is not a "racist" (i.e., speciesist) argument to note the relationship between a human and an animal? "Yes," James says explicitly, "it is." And then he tells people to "Read this", with this being his comparison of blacks and cows. As there are no questions of relationships to consider, it is easy enough to make black people and cows interchangeable.

So take a look at it syllogistically:

• James says nobody is arguing that people and animals are totally equal.

• James says that black people and cows are argumentatively interchangeable.

____________________
∴ James says that black people are not totally equal to humans.​

Once you recognize the degree of irrationality and hatred you are facing, it becomes something of a vapid exercise in futility to even bother with it.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take part in this thread. It's fair enough to simply shrug and chuckle. Just don't make yourself a spectacle by rolling on the floor, hooting with laughter, and pissing yourself in mirth.

Good to know I am not going insane..

:m:

At one point there, I was starting to wonder... 'Is it me?'..

Then I started to wonder if he would accuse someone who pointed out a 'black cow' as being racist.. Or multicutural society? Yes, my mind actually wondered there amongst this insanity..

Then I laughed myself senseless that he could demand I not find his argument offensive based on how he has been pushing that particular point... Anywho, least said about that turn the better.