rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 18, 2019 16:56:26 GMT 5
the way i see it is humans are animals and animals have to eat , humans are just as much as a animal as a lion or a bear is. Just so long as it's done the way oldgreengrolar said, I guess
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 18, 2019 17:17:53 GMT 5
Just so long as it's done the way oldgreengrolar said, I guess What's that supposed to mean?
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 18, 2019 18:17:17 GMT 5
What's that supposed to mean? we are exactly the same as other predators and have just as much of a right to eat meat as a hyena or a lion does.
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 18, 2019 20:35:24 GMT 5
What's that supposed to mean? we are exactly the same as other predators and have just as much of a right to eat meat as a hyena or a lion does. I guess, but just so long as it's treated well like oldgreengrolar said
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 18, 2019 20:53:07 GMT 5
I increasingly doubt that there is really a thing such as objective morality, but using conventional morality, I guess I can make a value judgement. Under conventional morality, kicking a dog or a cute kitten is considered abominable, but doing something much worse to equally (if not more) intelligent animals is considered perfectly OK. Psychologist Melanie Joy dubbed this "moral cognitive dissonance" in her book "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows". I don't think we have any good reason to think humans are all that exceptional and should get a special treatment. The best we have is intelligence, but even then many infants are way less intelligent than the animals we eat and not considered killable. That being said, I don't have the spine to go vegan myself, so I don't want to preach any further. well vegans eat plants and plants are living things in fact plants have just as much as right to live as a cow or pig does , so really we should all starve and not eat anything according to that logic The closest thing to a "right to live" criterion I used was intelligence (or more broadly, consciousness), not being alive. On that scale, plants are on a moral level with hills, rocks or chairs. The main things that distinguish a tree from everything else in the landscape are its chemical make up, its ability to suck nutrients from the environment and its ability to replicate. Humans and most animals on the other hand have this mythical thing called "consciousness" or an "inner experience" around which everything in psychology (including morality) revolves. What's that supposed to mean? we are exactly the same as other predators and have just as much of a right to eat meat as a hyena or a lion does. Lions and hyenas have no choice in what they are doing, humans do. There are two reasons why. One is obvious that we can survive better without meat than they do. The second is less obvious, but imo more important. Lions and hyenas have close to no impulse control. Without impulse control, you are barely more morally culpable than an earthquake or a hurricane. To see the difference, consider a male human and a male lion cohabiting with a female member of their species each. Now let's assume that both have an equally strong impulse to, ahem, replicate. Also assume that the female in each case does not want to. The lion will almost always try to impregnate the lioness nonetheless, if he can. The human, on the other hand, will most likely reflect on matters not directly relevant to his situation ("Is rape OK?", "How will society treat me if I rape her?") and then make his decision. This is what I mean when I say humans have a choice in what they do and animals not so much.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 19, 2019 0:29:43 GMT 5
well vegans eat plants and plants are living things in fact plants have just as much as right to live as a cow or pig does , so really we should all starve and not eat anything according to that logic The closest thing to a "right to live" criterion I used was intelligence (or more broadly, consciousness), not being alive. On that scale, plants are on a moral level with hills, rocks or chairs. The main things that distinguish a tree from everything else in the landscape are its chemical make up, its ability to suck nutrients from the environment and its ability to replicate. Humans and most animals on the other hand have this mythical thing called "consciousness" or an "inner experience" around which everything in psychology (including morality) revolves. we are exactly the same as other predators and have just as much of a right to eat meat as a hyena or a lion does. Lions and hyenas have no choice in what they are doing, humans do. There are two reasons why. One is obvious that we can survive better without meat than they do. The second is less obvious, but imo more important. Lions and hyenas have close to no impulse control. Without impulse control, you are barely more morally culpable than an earthquake or a hurricane. To see the difference, consider a male human and a male lion cohabiting with a female member of their species each. Now let's assume that both have an equally strong impulse to, ahem, replicate. Also assume that the female in each case does not want to. The lion will almost always try to impregnate the lioness nonetheless, if he can. The human, on the other hand, will most likely reflect on matters not directly relevant to his situation ("Is rape OK?", "How will society treat me if I rape her?") and then make his decision. This is what I mean when I say humans have a choice in what they do and animals not so much. of course humans can survive without meat but thrive is a seprate issue , without animal products or pills you cannot get enough B12 , study shows 85% of vegans are B12 difficent.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 19, 2019 22:21:36 GMT 5
Actually, a lot of vitamin B12 supplements look more like pink sugar than pills (although they are also contained in multivitamin pills), but yeah, vegans need them. So do most livestock as the farm conditions often prevent them (and their bacteria) from developing it naturally. Thus, most meat-eaters do take vitamin B12 supplements, just in a roundabout way.
It's true that veganism is extremely uncomfortable which is why I won't force it on anyone (and why I'm hesitant myself), but learning to actually look at what you are eating (which vegans seem to be better it than most omnivores, according to my subjective experience of reality) might be overall very beneficial.
|
|
rock
Senior Member Rank 1
Posts: 1,586
|
Post by rock on Jun 20, 2019 1:06:00 GMT 5
Actually, a lot of vitamin B12 supplements look more like pink sugar than pills (although they are also contained in multivitamin pills), but yeah, vegans need them. So do most livestock as the farm conditions often prevent them (and their bacteria) from developing it naturally. Thus, most meat-eaters do take vitamin B12 supplements, just in a roundabout way. It's true that veganism is extremely uncomfortable which is why I won't force it on anyone (and why I'm hesitant myself), but learning to actually look at what you are eating (which vegans seem to be better it than most omnivores, according to my subjective experience of reality) might be overall very beneficial. natrually vegans who do not take B12 suppliments are not healthy as humans need meat to get B12 , vegans are not all that healthy as people who do not eat meat , mike the vegan is prediabetic at least the vegans who do not take pills are not as healthy as people who eat both , vegans who take pills could or could not be healthier than people who eat both
|
|
leo
Junior Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by leo on Jun 26, 2019 21:38:10 GMT 5
In my opinion yes , for all the people saying the pig doesn’t have a choice before it does into the slaughter house to be eaten , when a wolf is chasing a rabbit , the rabbit doesn’t have a choice , it’s food , sameness thing for humans and humans are just as much of a predator as a wolf is.
|
|
leo
Junior Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by leo on Jun 26, 2019 21:39:00 GMT 5
Actually, a lot of vitamin B12 supplements look more like pink sugar than pills (although they are also contained in multivitamin pills), but yeah, vegans need them. So do most livestock as the farm conditions often prevent them (and their bacteria) from developing it naturally. Thus, most meat-eaters do take vitamin B12 supplements, just in a roundabout way. It's true that veganism is extremely uncomfortable which is why I won't force it on anyone (and why I'm hesitant myself), but learning to actually look at what you are eating (which vegans seem to be better it than most omnivores, according to my subjective experience of reality) might be overall very beneficial. natrually vegans who do not take B12 suppliments are not healthy as humans need meat to get B12 , vegans are not all that healthy as people who do not eat meat , mike the vegan is prediabetic at least the vegans who do not take pills are not as healthy as people who eat both , vegans who take pills could or could not be healthier than people who eat both Lol talk about a hypocrite lol
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jun 26, 2019 21:40:01 GMT 5
I agree that we do need meat, but would you care to enlighten me on how people and wolves can compare in this regard?
|
|
leo
Junior Member
Posts: 117
|
Post by leo on Jun 26, 2019 21:43:26 GMT 5
I agree that we do need meat, but would you care to enlighten me on how people and wolves can compare in this regard? Because they say that the wolf has a right to kill the animal because it needs the meat to survive , humans need meat to survive as well so we have just as much of a right to eat as a wolf does , also the rabbit doesn’t have a choice when the wolf is gonna eat him , so why should the pigs and cows we kill have a choice , when we want to eat and when we need it for our health?
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 15, 2019 2:56:37 GMT 5
(Admittedly, this post is mostly for rock, but I address a general audience to justify its extreme length. I see my past self a lot in him, so this topic is kinda important for me.)
I re-read this thread and unfortunately, I don't really like the way vegetarianism/veganism is talked about here. It reminds me too much of myself three years ago.
Three years ago, I discovered a vegan German YouTuber who went under my skin with arguments on how meat is murder that were surprisingly convincing. I'm a generally sensitive person, so it kinda destroyed my self-image and I became obsessed with veganism for a while. I researched every single evil by PETA, every ignorant statement by some vegan. I learned about the health deficiencies of veganism, how impractical it is and how it's OK not to kill animals because they can't reason and so on. Ultimately, my obsession with the topic faded. I did try to cut my consumption of animal products as much as my condition allowed and grew a bit apathetic towards animal suffering as a whole. Mostly because I learned about the ultimate subjectivity of morality.
That's why "meat eating is normal for me and doesn't leave a strain on my conscience" is a good justification to eat meat, but it's also the only one.
Listen, I can get that vegans annoy some of you and you want to win Internet arguments. Hence, you try to find some "objective" reasons why eating meat is OK, but these fail.
"Humans are just one more species of animal, just like bears or lions." "Plants have feelings, too!" "Humans need vitamin B12."
Ask youselves, is any of this the actual reason you eat meat? Or was the conclusion already set in stone and you had to poke some holes in the opponent's worldview to win an Internet argument? Are you using reasons like these generally to justify moral decisions or are they ad hoc? "We're just animals" could be used to justify just about anything that is motivated to some primal desire. Likewise, almost everyone I know cares for the feelings of at least some animals while I've never met anyone who seriously cares for the "feelings" of a plant. The last is the most superficially convincing, but even it can't be the real reason. If health was the only good reason to kill animals for food and it would otherwise be bad, all animal products above the bare minimum to stay healthy (which, let's be real, most people in the West, including probably most here, are exceeding) would still be murder.
This is not meant to be judgemental to anyone, I just think that being honest to oneself is generally a good thing.
Lastly, I have to express some admiration for the general philosophy of vegans. Nearly every (ethical) vegans has at some point questioned their consumption behavior. Anti-vegans almost never do so. Considering the state of our environment, I'm no big fan of discouraging those who try to change their consumption by scrutinizing them for the smallest flaws.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 29, 2019 1:57:37 GMT 5
|
|