Vegetarians - Your thoughts on them - General

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34679941]but to raise animals you have to grow even more crops and destroy even more land to feed the animals[/QUOTE] Maybe something like chickens, but cows sheep and other grazing animals just eat grass, so if the land naturally has lots of grass then you wouldn't need to alter it or grow more crops.

[QUOTE=CowThing;34679957]Maybe something like chickens, but cows sheep and other grazing animals just eat grass, so if the land naturally has lots of grass then you wouldn't need to alter it or grow more crops.[/QUOTE] you realize that a very very large majority of cows raised for meat / dairy do not get most of their food from grazing, right?

Sure, if they're raised as such (which they probably aren't, the majority of the time) the point is irrelevant. However it's still the substitution of your aims onto a victim.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34679878]The police officer example is a fun example for me because the whole monopoly of legitimate coercion that the state controls is positively vile. I fail to see how the whole world doesn't agree with me that there's a definite flouting of moral principles in statism in general, but that's a different topic altogether. I don't really see how the non-aggression principle would flat out condemn every instance of punishment, but to some extent, yes. Rules/laws should be replaced with negotiations to limit the power of individuals. Children are an interesting case because it brings intentionality, rationality, etc, into the forefront, and I haven't realllly came to any particularly strong conclusions in cases where those are lacking (in the case of children for example). However what I fundamentally believe is that any system of morals should be based on consent. The killing and consumption of another being fails to respect consent on any level. [editline]13th February 2012[/editline] And sure, sometimes suffering is beneficial; I have no issues with that assertion. However that doesn't make it morally permissible to deny a being their self-ownership.[/QUOTE] where do you draw the line between self ownership and non self ownership? I assume you wouldn't say an ant has self ownership. (please tell me if I'm wrong) I would say, at a minimum, that self awareness is required for self ownership.

[QUOTE=CowThing;34679957]Maybe something like chickens, but cows sheep and other grazing animals just eat grass, so if the land naturally has lots of grass then you wouldn't need to alter it or grow more crops.[/QUOTE] That's fairly rare though I mean you have the areas where the bison in the States were, but most of the world was forested. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Shadaez;34680060]you realize that a very very large majority of cows raised for meat / dairy do not get most of their food from grazing, right?[/QUOTE] In this country they do, and we're pretty big meat exporters.

[QUOTE=Contag;34682044]That's fairly rare though I mean you have the areas where the bison in the States were, but most of the world was forested. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] In this country they do, and we're pretty big meat exporters.[/QUOTE] no idea where you live

[QUOTE=Shadaez;34682197]no idea where you live[/QUOTE] Australia

They taste okay. But putting barbecue sauce on them works all the time.

Vegetarians are okay, since most of them aren't pushy about their views. Vegans on the other hand have a tendency to be elitist assholes.

[QUOTE=Irockz;34678845]So are you saying that animals exist to be eaten? That's pretty stupid. Infact, they existed long before humans. Then we came along and ruined the natural food chain completely. Why do you think we have sensitive skin? Why do we not have any sort of natural defense mechanism other than our wits? Because we're not meant to be at the top of the food chain.[/QUOTE] Every animal exists to be eaten. Including humans. There is no law but natural selection as to who and who isn't supposed to be on top of the food chain. If we weren't supposed to be on top of the food chain, we wouldn't be so goddamn good at being on top of the food chain. [editline]13th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;34683744]Vegetarians are okay, since most of them aren't pushy about their views. Vegans on the other hand have a tendency to be elitist assholes.[/QUOTE] I like vegetarians or vegans to choose to eat it because it's healthy or because they enjoy the taste better than meat. Vegetarians and vegans acting all "stop liking what I don't like" are total douchebags though. I also really hate the ones up on their high horses about how it's immoral to eat animals. [editline]13th February 2012[/editline] I also really hate horses, they are the only animal I would not mind being slaughtered in the most inhumane means possible.

[QUOTE=Simski;34684100]Every animal exists to be eaten. Including humans. There is no law but natural selection as to who and who isn't supposed to be on top of the food chain. If we weren't supposed to be on top of the food chain, we wouldn't be so goddamn good at being on top of the food chain. [/QUOTE] Yeah, so who says it has to be that way. your smart enough to know it's just about nutrition right. its about chemistry about getting the right chemistry to run your body and that obviously you can do that in alot of different ways and that nature is a dumb force. we're not obligated as intelligent beings who think we're better than animals for some reason we're better than them because we have some sophisticated intellegence and yet we're not intelligent enough to realise we don't have to be obedient to fucktarded traditions of nature?

I'm completely fine with vegetarians as long as they don't cram their beliefs down my throat, eat what you wanna eat.

[QUOTE=Billy Maize;34687443]I'm completely fine with vegetarians as long as they don't cram their beliefs down my throat, eat what you wanna eat.[/QUOTE] I will say vegetarianism isn't a belief but a rationale expressed by an awareness of principles that exist for the most part. Sometimes peoples noses sort of have to be rubbed in it to understand realisations.

[QUOTE=Daemon;34685292]Yeah, so who says it has to be that way. your smart enough to know it's just about nutrition right. its about chemistry about getting the right chemistry to run your body and that obviously you can do that in alot of different ways and that nature is a dumb force.[/QUOTE] One of the beautiful things of being an omnivore, is that you have a choice. [QUOTE=Daemon;34685292]we're not obligated as intelligent beings who think we're better than animals for some reason we're better than them because we have some sophisticated intellegence and yet we're not intelligent enough to realise we don't have to be obedient to fucktarded traditions of nature?[/QUOTE] I don't think of it as being a obedient fucktard to the traditions of nature, no more than I think of being a vegetarian as being a obedient fucktard of the rebellion against meat. I eat meat because I have the choice to eat meat, and I enjoy eating meat. I do not consider the laws of nature to be fucktarded, I consider it normal. I do not consider harming animals for the sake of food to be as morally wrong as harming another human, because our system of not harming other humans are the base of us being able to function as a civilized society where humans can cooperate and trust each other. Animals are not part of our society in the same way, and in reality the only reason humans have pets is because we at some point developed a respect for animals that other people claim is their property.

[QUOTE=Simski;34690654]One of the beautiful things of being an omnivore, is that you have a choice.[/QUOTE] Yeah well... there is no beauty in that choice, its just being barbaric for the sake of being barbaric. At least a beast of nature doesn't have a choice in that, where dietry dependcy required it to live in that way. [QUOTE=Simski;34690654] I don't think of it as being a obedient fucktard to the traditions of nature, no more than I think of being a vegetarian as being a obedient fucktard of the rebellion against meat. I eat meat because I have the choice to eat meat, and I enjoy eating meat. I do not consider the laws of nature to be fucktarded, I consider it normal. I do not consider harming animals for the sake of food to be as morally wrong as harming another human, because our system of not harming other humans are the base of us being able to function as a civilized society where humans can cooperate and trust each other. Animals are not part of our society in the same way, and in reality the only reason humans have pets is because we at some point developed a respect for animals that other people claim is their property.[/QUOTE] Yeah and you don't comprehend the reasons for why people rebel meat, like there isn't a justifiable cause, the opposite to any ignoramus who continues a dependcy that doesn't need to exist. You were conditioned into an enviroment that you consider normal, just like a cultural psychology thing tradition has given us a way of life within a frame work, a perspective. Don't you think you should step out of it? Well the fact that you aren't harming humans in the first place nulifies that argument because your using a 'moral' ground not to. DUURR Pets are conditioned and intergrated into our system not to be eaten so regardless of these lame excuses, i mean people treat their pets with the same individuality and respect that they do with humans. We understand their pain, comfort and happiness we relate to them in that term of value and i think that is a stupid acceptance to not account for, accepting it in a form of a constrictive, favourable bias.

[QUOTE=Daemon;34693027]Yeah well... there is no beauty in that choice, its just being barbaric for the sake of being barbaric. At least a beast of nature doesn't have a choice in that, where dietry dependcy required it to live in that way.[/QUOTE] Your view of eating meat as barbaric and beastlike is very subjective, an opinion, and an opinion I disagree with. Even so, if we by your previous statement aren't supposed to think that "for some reason we're better than them because we have some sophisticated intellegence", why should we feel ashamed of being beastlike? [QUOTE=Daemon;34693027]Yeah and you don't comprehend the reasons for why people rebel meat, like there isn't a justifiable cause, the opposite to any ignoramus who continues a dependcy that doesn't need to exist. You were conditioned into an enviroment that you consider normal, just like a cultural psychology thing tradition has given us a way of life within a frame work, a perspective. Don't you think you should step out of it?[/QUOTE] I comprehend the reasons people rebel meat, I just don't agree with them. We don't need vehicles, television, computers, phones, clothes, hygiene products or pets to live, we have them because they make our lives easier and more enjoyable. Meat as a product isn't just for enjoyment, but also as an easy to use product that provides protein and energy. I and many other people feel absolutely no need to "step out of it", because frankly I'm absolutely fine with it. This isn't the matrix. I also have gone from being a Christian to being an atheist, so it's not like I don't think about what I believe in. I have thought about why I eat meat, and I am perfectly fine with it. [QUOTE=Daemon;34693027]Well the fact that you aren't harming humans in the first place nulifies that argument because your using a 'moral' ground not to. DUURR[/QUOTE] I'm not harming humans, and I understand perfectly why we don't harm humans. I also eat meat, and I perfectly understand why most people with myself included think it's perfectly alright to eat animals. [QUOTE=Daemon;34693027]Pets are conditioned and intergrated into our system not to be eaten so regardless of these lame excuses, i mean people treat their pets with the same individuality and respect that they do with humans. We understand their pain, comfort and happiness we relate to them in that term of value and i think that is a stupid acceptance to not account for, when we accept it in humans.[/QUOTE] We did not always do this. Cats and dogs have not always been pets, there have been times they were have been mere pests or wild animals we cared nothing about. Pets have been gradually accepted into our daily life because we consider them our property and because we do not damage other peoples property. We perhaps think of them as much more individual than we did in the past, but the only reason they have been accepted into society as individuals with their own rights is because we have respect for what other humans consider their property. Human society has always been the center of our common moral system. In the end, animals only have rights because it makes humankind happy, not because we consider them our equals. If animals had the same level of sentience as humans, we would consider them our equals. They would suffer far greater than they do now from being raised as food, and it would be a lot more obvious that they do mind us eating them.

Plus most pets aren't the tastiest animals so we have no use for them as food.

I can't wait until a ruthless, greatly advanced creature visits us from another galaxy and elects to eat humans because we're so fucking tasty and people like Simski will have no choice but to resent their own silly arguments in favour of farming pitiful inferior lifeforms because they want to.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34693939]I can't wait until a ruthless, greatly advanced creature visits us from another galaxy and elects to eat humans because we're so fucking tasty and people like Simski will have no choice but to resent their own silly arguments in favour of farming pitiful inferior lifeforms because they want to.[/QUOTE] Seriously? And people wonder why vegetarians get no respect :rolleyes:

Well his argument seemed to say we're intellectually superior to animals therefore eating them is morally justified. So surely a creature vastly superior to us, intellectually, would be justified in eating us? Or do you just not approve of thought experiments? [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=mobrockers2;34693767]Plus most pets aren't the tastiest animals so we have no use for them as food.[/QUOTE] yeah the reason I don't eat my dog is because I don't think he'd taste very nice

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34693939]I can't wait until a ruthless, greatly advanced creature visits us from another galaxy and elects to eat humans because we're so fucking tasty and people like Simski will have no choice but to resent their own silly arguments in favour of farming pitiful inferior lifeforms because they want to.[/QUOTE] Then they would truly be much more barbaric than us, because we do not eat creatures with sentience enough to comprehend the situation they're in. So regardless my own view on eating other animals would not really feel wrong in any way, since I would not recognize the situation I'm in as equal to what meat production is doing to animals.

So your argument rests on the empirical claim that animals aren't intelligent enough to recognise they're being treated badly?

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34694042]So your argument rests on the empirical claim that animals aren't intelligent enough to recognise they're being [B][I]raised to be killed in the most humane way possible to serve as food products[/I][/B]?[/QUOTE] Yup.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34694042]So your argument rests on the empirical claim that animals aren't intelligent enough to recognise they're being treated badly?[/QUOTE] I would like for you to prove that the animals we eat are treated worse than when they would've been in the wild.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34694089]I would like for you to prove that the animals we eat are treated worse than when they would've been in the wild.[/QUOTE] Most animals would probably just have been eaten by other animals or died of starvation because they're not adapted to survive in the environments they live in. Instead they are given a safe life of regulated feeding, wellbeing and eventual death in preferably a quick and humane manner.

[QUOTE=Simski;34684100]Every animal exists to be eaten. Including humans. There is no law but natural selection as to who and who isn't supposed to be on top of the food chain. If we weren't supposed to be on top of the food chain, we wouldn't be so goddamn good at being on top of the food chain. [editline]13th February 2012[/editline] I like vegetarians or vegans to choose to eat it because it's healthy or because they enjoy the taste better than meat. Vegetarians and vegans acting all "stop liking what I don't like" are total douchebags though. I also really hate the ones up on their high horses about how it's immoral to eat animals. [editline]13th February 2012[/editline] I also really hate horses, they are the only animal I would not mind being slaughtered in the most inhumane means possible.[/QUOTE] Nincompoop. We're at the top of the food chain because we invent machines that mass slaughter. And we breed animals. Which isn't natural. Hell, I'd be better if we all hunted instead. You believe in natural selection? Then why don't you believe in acting the way we were intended to? Savage hunters? Instead of mass breeding and then murdering? The only thing that's good about eating meat is free range. [editline]14th February 2012[/editline] Horses are one of my favourite animals. Screw you.

[QUOTE=Irockz;34694557]Nincompoop. We're at the top of the food chain because we invent machines that mass slaughter. And we breed animals. Which isn't natural. [/QUOTE] Machines of mass slaughter? What? Flint spears 14,000 years ago? Breeding animals isn't natural? Wrong again. Natural selection is when an animal with a certain trait is able to reproduce instead of another animal without that trait. Humans simply chose the animal with the trait they wanted and then did not breed the animal without that desired trait. Over 14,000 years of breeding plants or animals, practically new species have been created by the hands of humans. And it is perfectly natural. The animals ADAPTED to new conditions. Those conditions were the ones that humans created. They evolved in order to survive and keep reproducing. If all humans ate plant matter only, then more or less all of those animals would die out as they would be unable to adapt in such a short space of time. Cattle and small dogs especially. Even then, humans would still be breeding plants and choosing the plant with the best traits for reproduction. Eating plants is no more natural than eating an animal. Even the use of the word natural has been corrupted. Natural originally meant "The physical Universe". Nature created humans, and humans bred animals created steam locomotives. Therefore nature bred animals and created steam locomotives.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34694737]Machines of mass slaughter? What? Flint spears 14,000 years ago? Breeding animals isn't natural? Wrong again. Natural selection is when an animal with a certain trait is able to reproduce instead of another animal without that trait. Humans simply chose the animal with the trait they wanted and then did not breed the animal without that desired trait. Over 14,000 years of breeding plants or animals, practically new species have been created by the hands of humans. And it is perfectly natural. The animals ADAPTED to new conditions. Those conditions were the ones that humans created. They evolved in order to survive and keep reproducing. If all humans ate plant matter only, then more or less all of those animals would die out as they would be unable to adapt in such a short space of time. Cattle and small dogs especially. Even then, humans would still be breeding plants and choosing the plant with the best traits for reproduction. Eating plants is no more natural than eating an animal. Even the use of the word natural has been corrupted. Natural originally meant "The physical Universe". Nature created humans, and humans bred animals created steam locomotives. Therefore nature bred animals and created steam locomotives.[/QUOTE] Harvesting. You insist that it isn't natural. Did dinosaurs capture multiple of the crocodile-like creatures and get them to breed? Do sharks get lions to breed? Natural Selection is, to quote wikipedia: "the gradual, nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers." This is similar to what you're implying, but not to the exact point. Do you believe I'm talking about pure breeding, anyway? If you do, you're wrong. I'm talking about breeding to eat. See what I said to Breeding Animals "being natural". You idiot. Adapt to not being murdered or captured by humans? That makes no sense. I'm not even talking about just breeding in general. I'm talking about breeding in purpose to murder. Have you seen a plant's anatomy? They don't have a brain. They don't have nerves. Natural is an adjective form of "nature". Nature is not cities. Nature is not man-made pollution. Nature IS the world. Not what humans placed there. So you're saying that if I were to have a child, and that child was a famous creator, then I was a famous creator?

[QUOTE=Irockz;34694867]Nature is not cities. Nature is not man-made pollution. Nature IS the world. Not what humans placed there.[/QUOTE] Nature is the physical universe and everything within it. [QUOTE=Irockz;34694867]Have you seen a plant's anatomy? They don't have a brain. They don't have nerves.[/QUOTE] It's still a form of life. Plants do feel pain too you know.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34695714] It's still a form of life. Plants do feel pain too you know.[/QUOTE] Wrong. To again, quote Wikipedia, on the subjet of Plant perception: "The tests were done by connecting plants to a polygraph galvanometer and employing actual and imagined harm upon the plants or upon others in the plant's vicinity. The galvanometer showed some kind of reaction about one third of the time. The experimenters, who were in the room with the plant, surmised that the vibrations of their actions or the room itself could have affected the polygraph. After isolating the plant the polygraph showed a response slightly less than one third of the time. Later experiments with an EEG failed to detect anything. When the presenters dropped eggs randomly into boiling water the plant had no reaction whatsoever. The show concluded that the theory was not true."