Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Space

[Completed] Meating eat is morally wrong

Recommended Posts

You keep saying that many boundaries are arbitrary but it's gotten to the point that I genuinely don't believe you know what that word means. We all live in a society and culture that dictates things differently, due to our differing histories. The animals we choose to kill and eat, heavily fluxuate depending upon which culture you are apart of, and majority of the time it's quite a simple concept. Is the animal bred to be eaten? Then eat it. Is the animal not bred to be eaten? Then don't eat it, unless of course it's very sick. Your arguments seem odd and quite forced, so far I see 'Animals bred are good? Well slaves bred for slaves do slavery good!' to which is a very- Odd argument, because you are taking a perspective from foreign place and shoving it into our face as if to say that because another culture does it, that our culture too must agree with it but clearly we don't, because we don't have slaves. The other argument is 'If you would skin a cow, you would skin a dog' to which I say, yes and no. You don't eat anything that gives you benefits, you don't bite the hand which feeds you and for milenia animal companions (such as dogs, cats, etc) have been bred to be household pets and many studies show they actually benefit the person mentally. At the end of it, it's all about one's culture and where they see the line drawn, it's not arbitrarily drawn in the sand just '**** it', but done out of experiences and what the culture needs to do to survive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Space said:

A toddler cannot consent to a sexual relationship like an adult can.

No see that's just a random axiom that you haven't given any explanation for. The actual reasoning is that kids are thick stupid, we judge them as being incapable of making important decisions for themselves so parental consent is required for basically everything. So we're making a biological distinction, we realise that we cannot treat kids and adults the exact same because they are biologically very different and it wouldn't make any sense to. Therefore it doesn't stand that we should treat animals the same as humans and say that everything that is immoral when done to humans is also immoral when done to animals. An adult human and an adult cow are leagues farther apart than an adult and a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sky said:

You keep saying that many boundaries are arbitrary but it's gotten to the point that I genuinely don't believe you know what that word means. We all live in a society and culture that dictates things differently, due to our differing histories. The animals we choose to kill and eat, heavily fluxuate depending upon which culture you are apart of, and majority of the time it's quite a simple concept. Is the animal bred to be eaten? Then eat it. Is the animal not bred to be eaten? Then don't eat it, unless of course it's very sick. Your arguments seem odd and quite forced, so far I see 'Animals bred are good? Well slaves bred for slaves do slavery good!' to which is a very- Odd argument, because you are taking a perspective from foreign place and shoving it into our face as if to say that because another culture does it, that our culture too must agree with it but clearly we don't, because we don't have slaves. The other argument is 'If you would skin a cow, you would skin a dog' to which I say, yes and no. You don't eat anything that gives you benefits, you don't bite the hand which feeds you and for milenia animal companions (such as dogs, cats, etc) have been bred to be household pets and many studies show they actually benefit the person mentally. At the end of it, it's all about one's culture and where they see the line drawn, it's not arbitrarily drawn in the sand just '**** it', but done out of experiences and what the culture needs to do to survive. 

0
 

 

This is completely besides the point. I am not arguing whether it was justified for certain societies to eat meat. We are talking about whether we can justify eating meat in current society. You need a better justification than 'this is what is normally done' because that can be applied to many different things i.e. stigmatizing sexual fetishes.

 

I am using arbitrary properly, I believe; Not justified based on reason. The line between human and animal is arbitrary because there is no justification other than 'things look different.' A justification would be 'humans are capable of more complex thoughts' or something like that.

 

1 minute ago, James2k said:

No see that's just a random axiom that you haven't given any explanation for. The actual reasoning is that kids are thick stupid, we judge them as being incapable of making important decisions for themselves so parental consent is required for basically everything. So we're making a biological distinction, we realise that we cannot treat kids and adults the exact same because they are biologically very different and it wouldn't make any sense to. Therefore it doesn't stand that we should treat animals the same as humans and say that everything that is immoral when done to humans is also immoral when done to animals. An adult human and an adult cow are leagues farther apart than an adult and a child.

0
 

 

I guess the axiom this relies on is that personal liberty is important. But a different way of justifying it I suppose:

 

I was once a child -> I wouldn't want to be sexually assaulted -> Children shouldn't be sexually assaulted

 

Where is the axiomatic belief there? I don't have the greatest understanding of philosophy and moral justifications, but that seems like a pretty common justification for why things shouldn't happen. Sorta the golden rule.

 

And we don't treat children humans and adult humans different in this manner, in the first place. We value consent for both

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Space said:

The line between human and animal is arbitrary because there is no justification other than 'things look different.' A justification would be 'humans are capable of more complex thoughts' or something like that.

It's not only that a human is capable of more complex thought. You argue something along the lines of 'why should we go with what's natural' in some of your points, and to that I raise you: Why should we not go with what's natural? We live in a society where eating meat is no longer necessary. Yeah, that's true. We live in a society where people walk around with little computer brains in their pockets that can locate their position on the earth from a bigger computer brain in space. Why bother?

 

We should all just be cavemen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Star Platinum said:

It's not only that a human is capable of more complex thought. You argue something along the lines of 'why should we go with what's natural' in some of your points, and to that I raise you: Why should we not go with what's natural? We live in a society where eating meat is no longer necessary. Yeah, that's true. We live in a society where people walk around with little computer brains in their pockets that can locate their position on the earth from a bigger computer brain in space. Why bother?

 

We should all just be cavemen again.

0
 

 

It's not that we shouldn't every do anything that is natural, or we should always do unnatural things, but rather you need further justification. There are many things that are natural that we do not engage with because it would be harmful.

 

If your view is that we should be able to do ANYTHING that is deemed 'natural' than sure dude I can't touch you but when someone steals from you you have nothing to say because, **** dude, survival of the fittest is natural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Space said:

I guess the axiom this relies on is that personal liberty is important. But a different way of justifying it I suppose:

What's liberal about statutory rape laws? They prevent people from doing something that both sides give consent to, on the grounds that one side is literally too stupid to consent. Your axiom depends on the opposite, that personal liberty is not important, if anything. If you're gonna try and paint me as an evil authoritarian stamping on people's rights, you should really make sure it can't be spun back at you.

 

Quote

I was once a child -> I wouldn't want to be sexually assaulted -> Children shouldn't be sexually assaulted

We hear about teachers being arrested every day for having consensual sex with students. When you were once 15 you'd have been happy to **** your hot teacher, or at least most 15 year olds would've been, yet it's illegal anyway. So your logic doesn't stand here. If we were all to adopt your line of reasoning, statutory consent laws would be gotten rid of.

 

Quote

And we don't treat children humans and adult humans different in this manner, in the first place. We value consent for both.

No we don't. It's parental consent that's asked for. What kids want is often overridden by their parents. They don't want to eat their vegetables? Too bad. They don't want to go to school? Too bad. And when schools want to take them on a trip or whatever, they send the note home to the parents. The child's consent may be taken into account, but it's constantly ignored.

 

9 minutes ago, Space said:

If your view is that we should be able to do ANYTHING that is deemed 'natural' than sure dude I can't touch you but when someone steals from you you have nothing to say because, **** dude, survival of the fittest is natural.

We do whatever is useful and most advantageous for us. Agreeing not to steal from each other and having rules in place to punish those that break said agreement is advantageous as it means we don't have to constantly guard our stuff. It's not about what's natural and what isn't, it's about what's useful for us and society as a whole(and we value the latter because of the former). Breeding livestock and eating meat is a hell of a lot easier, more efficient, healthier, etc. than relying solely on non-meat forms of protein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, James2k said:

What's liberal about statutory rape laws? They prevent people from doing something that both sides give consent to, on the grounds that one side is literally too stupid to consent. Your axiom depends on the opposite, that personal liberty is not important, if anything. If you're gonna try and paint me as an evil authoritarian stamping on people's rights, you should really make sure it can't be spun back at you.

 

We hear about teachers being arrested every day for having consensual sex with students. When you were once 15 you'd have been happy to **** your hot teacher, or at least most 15 year old would've been, yet it's illegal anyway. So your logic doesn't stand here. If we were all to adopt your line of reasoning, statutory consent laws would be gotten rid of.

 

No we don't. It's parental consent that's asked for. What kids want is often overridden by their parents. They don't want to eat their vegetables? Too bad. They don't want to go to school? Too bad. And when schools want to take them on a trip or whatever, they send the note home to the parents. The child's consent may be taken into account, but it's constantly ignored.

0
 

 

I have no idea what the relevance of this is to the vegan topic. Are you trying to argue about what is important?

 

No, they wouldn't?

 

Yes we take a certain level of freedom away from children, but if you are trying to compare this to taking freedom away from animals I think making kids go to school when they might not want to (which is beneficial in most circumstances) to enslavement and murder, they are obviously very different things.

 

And we still do value consent. If a parent says that your 5 year old can have sex that's still illegal. We say 'at 18 a person is usually capable of giving consent.' At 5 they cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SJWs are devolved human beings. Vegans are SJWs, making your argument that we have 'evolved' invalid. An example of this is @Niccum, the riblord. Eating meat isn't bad at all and in fact is helpful with getting hella swole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Space said:

I have no idea what the relevance of this is to the vegan topic. Are you trying to argue about what is important?

You said that I don't value personal liberty for disagreeing with you. I showed how your position didn't value personal liberty either.

 

Quote

No, they wouldn't?

What, are you asexual? You wouldn't have fucked teacher at 15 if she was hot and if you had the chance? Well regardless of what you'd do, the kids in all those stories did. In fact, most of the time they get caught because the kid boasts about it to his friends. Even though they consented, it was still illegal. That's what statutory rape means, the kid consented but it doesn't count.

 

Quote

Yes we take a certain level of freedom away from children, but if you are trying to compare this to taking freedom away from animals I think making kids go to school when they might not want to (which is beneficial in most circumstances) to enslavement and murder, they are obviously very different things.

And kids and animals are very different things.

 

Quote

And we still do value consent. If a parent says that your 5 year old can have sex that's still illegal. We say 'at 18 a person is usually capable of giving consent.' At 5 they cannot.

And if the kid gives consent it still counts as statutory rape, so again, no we don't value their consent. And yes I know the ******* axiom, the one you gave and I explained for you. Saying that a 5 year old can't give consent alone means nothing. You have to back it up. I justified the axiom(and the general principle that kids' consent barely matters) by the biological differences between kids and adults, and extended that to justify not applying morality regarding humans to animals also.

 

You have so far given no reasoning for the axiom yourself, and just keep mindlessly repeating, which is exactly what you accused me of doing a few posts back. "If you want to justify a boundary between human and other animal, by all means do, but the only way to do that that I've seen is some sort of moral axiom."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, James2k said:

You said that I don't value personal liberty for disagreeing with you. I showed how your position didn't value personal liberty either.

 

What, are you asexual? You wouldn't have fucked teacher at 15 if she was hot and if you had the chance? Well regardless of what you'd do, the kids in all those stories did. In fact, most of the time they get caught because the kid boasts about it to his friends. Even though they consented, it was still illegal. That's what statutory rape means, the kid consented but it doesn't count.

 

And kids and animals are very different things.

 

And if the kid gives consent it still counts as statutory rape, so again, no we don't value their consent. And yes I know the ******* axiom, the one you gave and I explained for you. Saying that a 5 year old can't give consent alone means nothing. You have to back it up. I justified the axiom(and the general principle that kid's consent barely matters) by the biological differences between kids and adults, and extended that to justify not applying morality regarding humans to animals also.

 

You have so far given no reasoning for the axiom yourself, and just keep mindlessly repeating, which is exactly what you accused me of doing a few posts back. "If you want to justify a boundary between human and other animal, by all means do, but the only way to do that that I've seen is some sort of moral axiom."

0
 

abcabcabc

 

1. I didn't mean to, if I did. I never tried to assume your belief.

 

2. I was talking about statutory rape laws being abolished- They wouldn't need to be.

 

3. In what way?

 

4. We do value their consent, they are just incapable of giving consent.

 

5. I think I gave it in the first post, didn't I?

 

'Main argument: Humans are on a level where eating meat is not necessary for surivval. Therefore, we should move off of it, to stop causing/support harm to animals. There lies no distinction between animals and humans that doesn't either include all humans and some animals or not all humans and some animals. Therefore, if you support treating humans well (not killing them, respecting their right to existence) you need to support that for animals.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Space said:

2. I was talking about statutory rape laws being abolished- They wouldn't need to be.

The only reason you gave for why statutory rape was wrong is because as a kid you wouldn't want to be, but statutory rape is by definition consensual. So by your logic, statutory rape laws have no grounds and should be abolished.

 

1 minute ago, Space said:

3. In what way?

In what way are kids and animals different? Animals aren't the same species as us, are a lot dumber than even the smallest of children, and livestock are of no inherent use to us other than as food, whereas kids are extremely valuable as the continuation of our species and society. If we were to all go full vegan, then livestock would be of no use and would just become trespassing pests on our land. They'd be driven into the wilds and go extinct very quickly. 

 

1 minute ago, Space said:

4. We do value their consent, they are just incapable of giving consent.

Their consent is rarely counted at all and is constantly overriden, and you still haven't given your contesting reason for why they're incapable of giving consent.

 

1 minute ago, Space said:

5. I think I gave it in the first post, didn't I?

 

'Main argument: Humans are on a level where eating meat is not necessary for surivval. Therefore, we should move off of it, to stop causing/support harm to animals. There lies no distinction between animals and humans that doesn't either include all humans and some animals or not all humans and some animals. Therefore, if you support treating humans well (not killing them, respecting their right to existence) you need to support that for animals.'

That doesn't explain why kids are incapable of giving consent. I've given my reasoning for it, and you're dismissing it without giving any contesting explanation for the axiom. You can't just try moral axioms around without explaining them, as you said so yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Space said:

 

4. Beans, lentils, soya, tofu, are all things that have protein that are vegan

But none of those are complete proteins. Also, tofu is bad for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading back to the first thing that made sense is what space said "Is it possible to have a vegan world"

 

Yeah, it totally is at this point. It would totally be possible. If everyone was growing their own food in say a nice little hydroponic towers (theoretically since I am basing this on the assumption that this sort of technology would be available within the next decade or so) then yes, everyone go vegan and we wouldn't need to eat animals.

 

But to hit the moral point, yes you are killing an animal for consumption of its flesh. Let us disregard nutrition for a moment and just get into the gristle (see what I did there) of the issue. Many people eat meat because it tastes good, for chefs, there is a lot you can do with meat and really turn it into a piece of art. But that sounds weird doesn't it? Using the cooked flesh of another living thing to make art? Sounds like something out of Borderlands. Like making meat bicycles. 

 

As you said in your previous post, "According to most societies morals, eating meat is wrong." And you are correct, it is wrong. It is completely and utterly wrong to eat meat. You are killing another living, SENTIENT Being. But then we get into, what defines a living being, and is it wrong to eat another living being? Plants are living beings, where do you draw the boundary? Where is the line that says, "This is okay to eat because it doesn't scream out loud vs This isn't okay to eat because it does." Shellfish doesn't make a sound when you kill it, are we talking all meat or seafood as well then?

 

I think it comes down to necessity. Yes it is morally wrong to consume another living thing, but necessity dictates we need to eat other living things to survive. Without our REASONING, we are still just animals. So we're still predators, and sometimes prey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I should add in that my household pets, i.e. dogs and cats, all serve a purpose around my rural home. Dogs keep the big rodents and birds away and cats keep the small rodents away. I assume it is morally acceptable for them to do such as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the human race can not sustain itself with lettuce and berries, meat makes up a heavy part of a healthy diet as well as helps feed impoverished areas. we still have poverty and hunger crisis's that goes on quite often across the world, does your measly little peanut brain really think the world can sustain itself on vegan sh1t? you'll just increase the world hunger problem, or heavily decrease the human population by trying to force everyone to stop eating meat

 

 

i chose humanity over animals any day. we do not have the tech to feed every single person with a meatless diet. we physically can not sustain ourselves well with a vegan diet either, you literally become sick. 

 

vegan argument is trash, go home hillary clinton supporter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...