- #526
pace
- 240
- 1
And I believe that the theory of evolution will cause more good to other animals in length, than it has caused us bad things.
Well, most of what you say doesn't make any real sense, honestly.Dooga Blackrazor said:Personally, I've found myself at the conclusion that vegetarianism is not just "not right", but in fact wrong.
Define 'efficient' for me. If 'efficient' means having a large amount of protein per unit weight, then yes, it's efficient. If 'efficient' means having a large amount of essential vitamins per unit weight, then no, it's extremely inefficient.Eating meat is efficient and more efficient than eating substitutes. Not only is meat more efficient, but it is also more enjoyable in many instances.
Since when have animals been tasked with contributing something to human society? Is it our right to declare that every living thing on the planet either help us or end up in our bellies? That's extortion. It's not only immoral but illegal to extort people, so why shouldn't that moral standard apply to other living things, too?Animals cannot contribute postively to society in an amount that justifies not eating them.
It makes an excellent justification for being vegan. The whole point of veganism is this: There are two ways to live your life. One depends upon the exploitation of animals, the other does not. Given that choice, vegans choose (for many reasons) to live a life that does not depend on the exploitation of animals. In other words, if you don't have to kill animals, why should you?If something doesn't help us, why shouldn't we take advantage of it? Maybe it's cruel, maybe we wouldn't like it if people did that to us, but what justification for being vegan does that create.
Fear?The whole premise of treating animals how you would like to be treated is based on fear.
This is just abject silliness.But with humans that logic applies and can benefit you directly rather than through some unlikely possibility. If animals can't help us the only reason I can see to let them live, is a reason based on fear. They wouldn't like to be in an animals situation, so instead of taking advantage of an opportunity - vegans refuse to do so based on fear.
Vegetarianism is insufficient? What does this mean? What does it mean to 'work against idealism?' This doesn't make any sense.Even though vegetarians aren't overtly harming people. Vegetarianism is insufficient and works against idealism, making it wrong in my mind.
Lower animals do not have the capacity for technology or ethics, so comparing human behavior to lower animal behavior is silly. There is no particular reason that we should model our behavior on lower animals.proneax said:Now the argument becomes 'any killing of an animal for consumtion is morally wrong' ?? Sorry but I dont' see the justification for that. Is your cat morally wrong when it kills a mouse or bird?
They may have great intellect, but they lack technology. Technology is a critical component.What about dolphins? They have a pretty high cognitive ability and they eat other fish.
In the recent past. Most vegans (not the ones you see on TV holding signs) are not militant. They don't really care if you eat meat or not, as long as you don't persecute them for their choices. Few vegans will say outright that 'eating meat is wrong.' They will simply say that they have chosen not to eat meat. Why should they?If you look at the evolution of the human race, at what point in its history did it suddenly become 'wrong' to eat meat? When was our reasoning capacity high enough that we should have said 'lets stop eating meat'.
It seems funny that you ask for reasons, then provide them yourself. The most common reasons are for better health, for environmental protection, and for animal rights. Every person who chooses to be vegan chooses for one or more of those reasons. Some vegans are concerned only with their health and couldn't care less about killing cows.I've heard people say that they're healthier when eating vegetarian but it also seems to take a good dietary knowledge to pull this off.
I haven't heard of many vegans being vegan solely to boycott animal mistreatment. In fact, the two camps are somewhat disparate. Many (if not most) PETA members are meat-eaters, and many vegans don't really care about animal rights.And being vegetarian to 'boycott' the poor treatment of animals really doesn't fly either.
You have one data point -- one person's opinion. Many other nutritionists would say precisely the opposite, that meat is not required in any respect.Revelationz said:1. I spoke with a nutritionist once, who said that there are structures in the brains of developing children that do not develop properly without cholesterol that can't be gotten from plants. He thought it positively harmful to deprive a child of meat entirely. However, not a lot of meat is needed to make up the requirement.
And we're biologically diggers, too, since we have those pretty fingernails. Why aren't you out digging for termites?This leads me to conclude that humans are designed to eat both flesh and plants.
Now it's an economic problem? If you keep shifting the topic of this debate from one subject to another, we're never going to have a useful discussion. Please don't use the stupid tactic of continuing to argue when you're backed into a corner.Dooga Blackrazor said:By people refusing to eat meat, because they refuse to kill animals (who don't help society), they are creating changes in the economy that make it less efficient.
Uh, what? Restaurant employees work specific shifts. They don't work overtime to make vegan dishes. Once again, point of fact, vegetarian entrees often take less time to prepare than cooking meat entrees.Restaurants could delete vegan specific options - allowing for employees to have the spare time to volunteer or do something else more important.
Perhaps because, despite prevailing dogma, we are part of an ecosystem. Preservationists desire to keep the environment and the ecosystem as stable as possible. We don't really know what the effects on the planet's habitability will be if we kill all the animals and raze all the forests, just because we can. Some of us would rather not find out.Should we prey on everyone/everything that doesn't contribute to our society? If it gives us pleasure - logically, why not?
Thankfully, we're not all as selfish as you. Besides, you didn't respond to my earlier point that many people find fruits more appetizing and satisfying than steaks. Point of fact, vegans are working toward their own happiness, your inability to understand that happiness notwithstanding.Should the goal of an individual not be to gain the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain by working within society and choosing the option best for "themself and the group"? Logically, to me atleast, it should be.
I've already answered this. Can't you read? People might choose not to kill an animal for health reasons, for environmental reasons, OR, often lastly, for animal-rights reasons.I don't see my linking of vegetarianism to fear as being silly at all. In some cases, perhaps not all, you could make a logical case towards that point. Why else would someone spare an animal's life if not because of empathy, which is linked to understanding, which can be extrapolated to the idea of a vegetarian being fearful.
Boy, I sure would like to kill your whole family and take all your money. Perhaps I should, since you're not likely to contribute to my happiness in any other way.Your stuck in a room eternally - you have all your essentials for life. However, you see something that can make you happy. Your told an animal will cruely die if you are to get that thing. Why wouldn't you get it? They animal will never contribute to you directly in any way. However, through its death you can achieve something that will bring you pleasure.
Ah, so we'll just keep all the cute and cuddly animals, and eat all the ugly ones left over. Superb rationalization.Why is it cruel to kill a dog? Dogs have personality traits and physical characteristics that make them contribute to the pleasure of humans.
You've yet to provide any evidence that society benefits from meat consumption. If you're really working towards the good of society, perhaps you should spend your time worrying about welfare, public health, social security, low-income housing, water quality, education standards, and so on. They all seem to have a much larger impact on society's well-being than whether or not I eat a hamburger or a salad. I suspect you are just couching your rhetoric behind a banner of "societal benefit' to avoid looking like the bastard you really are.The root of the issue for me lies in what is a greater contribution to society. Meat eating or vegetarianism?
Dooga Blackrazor said:I've discovered that I need to make an alteration within the core of my philosophy - from which I derive my ethics.
You are changing your story. You quite specifically began your intrusion into this topic with the assertion that vegetarianism is wrong. Now you're trying to escape by claiming that you really just meant to address those militant vegetarians who want to stop you from eating meat. Why don't you just consider apologizing, rather than trying to convince us all that we just misread you?Dooga Blackrazor said:I'm not addressing vegetarians in general as wrong in this instance, but the ones who advocate the dissolution of meat eating.
Posting ridiculous arguments is far worse for your case than posting no arguments.2. That was an extreme example because I couldn't think of anything else at the time.
This "fear" concept of yours is out of left field. Few people have decided not to eat meat out of some kind of fear.3. Not taking a risk that results in pleasure because of fear of a theoretical possibility of pain is typically frowned upon. I have to think on this.
I expected this response. How about if I instead just go out on the streets of San Francisco tonight and slay a bum or two in cold blood? The bums are certainly not contributing to society; in fact, they're leeching from it! It should be totally okay to go kill those people. When the police stop me, I'll just explain that it gave me pleasure, and they weren't contributing anything anyway.5. The room is a representation of society as a whole. In reality if you killed one of my family members they would deprive you. They would contribute somehow to someone then that person would to someone else, ect, therefore contributing to the society your a part of.
Anyway, I hope you haven't been too offended by my rhetoric. On a "hopefully" positive note, I've discovered that I need to make an alteration within the core of my philosophy - from which I derive my ethics. Your not the only one to congratulate on this, the study of Mitosis helped as well.
All of the protein and amino acids you need are available in foods not derived from animals. You do not need meat to get them.XMLT said:We need meat for protein which plays an important part in our protein synthesis making the most vital amino acid molecules for proper functions of body cells.
XMLT
XMLT said:But most of them come from meat.
Not if you don't eat meat. Then they all come from plants.XMLT said:But most of them come from meat.
chroot said:Not if you don't eat meat. Then they all come from plants.
- Warren
That's very stupid. Do you actually know anyone who is vegan? Can you ask him or her about his/her diet?XMLT said:Then you have to eat a lot of plants.You're going to be very busy.
![]()
Oh, cmon. I was just joking around. I know there are lots of vegans and their diets anyway. Nevermind, just forget what i have said. Jokes sometime don't work at all.chroot said:That's very stupid. Do you actually know anyone who is vegan? Can you ask him or her about his/her diet?
- Warren
Your joke was fine, too..XMLT said:It's fine.![]()
XMLT
hey i didn't get the jokearildno said:Your joke was fine, too..![]()
You're a psychopath. Do you have no respect for life at all?Dooga Blackrazor said:If he [the bum] has such resolute as to resist torture I wouldn't object to his death. His organs could be harvested and used.
You really can't make these kinds of arguments by assertion anymore. If you can't provide any evidence for this statement, I demand that you retract it. It's stupid anyway -- farmers who raise animals can just as easy farm vegetables on the same land. The same number of mouths need to be fed with same number of calories. Vegetable calories are much cheaper to produce than animal calories. The farmer who switches to raising vegetables because meat is no longer fetching a good price will actually end up making more money. It's plain, simple supply-and-demand economics.Through eating only vegan, vegetarians likely decrease the amount of jobs.
What?! Wouldn't it - logically - also be better if people liked to eat rubber and glue and old tires and sheet metal and solid waste? They would have more sources of enjoyment, and that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?Some vegetarians do not enjoy eating meat. Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat. If you could enjoy more food you would have more sources of enjoyment, since variety often provides more joy.
Since everyone dislikes some kinds of food, I would suggest that it's a genetic variation, not a flaw. Genetic diversity is essential for the survival of a species. I know you're only 16, but have you ever taken a biology class?To put it simply it seems like not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw.
Oh, now it's a survival issue. It's no longer about killing bums and eating cows for pleasure, now it's about survival? Guess what? If it comes down to eating a hamburger or dying, there are very few vegans who would choose death. To be sure, there are some PETA members who claim they would rather let their children die than kill a cow, but I'd venture that they might change their minds when actually confronted with such a reality.Not only for the purpose of pleasure, but for survival of humans if something were to happen to certain food sources.
I hope that anyone with even a mild respect for life (human or otherwise) would be offended by your statements.Chroot, you seem to be getting offended by some things I'm saying. I know my rhetorical skills aren't excellent and I phrase things in an incorrect way sometimes. However, despite the absence of certain skills in some areas - I am trying to discuss this issue intellectual as you are.
So you see no reason not to declare yourself judge, jury, and executioner of any person on Earth that you deem a "non-contributor" eh? Welcome to the Middle Ages, m'Lord!Dooga Blackrazor said:If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit.
This really has nothing to do with vegetarians, Dooga. This heart of this discussion is your disgusting self-aggrandizement. You feel that you are so far superior to everyone (and everything) else on the planet that you alone are qualified to make a decision as to who lives and who dies.I have to contemplate the issue of Vegetarianism further before I comment on it again.