Vegetarians - Your thoughts on them - General

[QUOTE=Simski;34884626]Nope. The ethics are still a matter of opinion.[/QUOTE] Anyone else hate this kind of response with an absolute burning passion? Just because it's heavily contested, moreso than other schools, it doesn't mean it's subjective. It's not fucking subjective, or at least you can't say it is without a fucking immense amount of philosophical argument (because by saying it's subjective, you're essentially disagreeing with 95% of ethicists).

[QUOTE=Simski;34884193]You keep talking about the abolition of the meat consumption, but you never provide any answers to how the flying fuck that would be possible. What the hell are we supposed to do with all the animals that would be more humane than what we do now? What I do, is make the best out of a bad situation. Rather, what I do is make the best out of the only situation we'll ever have. There won't be an end to it, ever. There is no reasonable alternative, what we have now is the only situation that works for their survival and our benefit. Either way, there is nothing that says I have to think of every species as equal to mine as an Epicurean. Who the fuck but Buddhists and PETA does that anyway? I think of what's best for myself, and for humanity. I enjoy life, and I enjoy it with a nice big juicy steak and a glass of milk.[/QUOTE] Reduction is what you would be realistically looking for and you know the point is just to give people a reason to give a damn. Some statement, some image, more importantly some logic that'll make them for a moment think their life has a price to exist, it is not in favour of something else. It's not just to do with what you eat but it becomes a decisive realism on what we do in expense of achieving this enjoyment that we take for granted. You enjoy life because you are in a position to enjoy it. Enjoyment is highly subjective to yourself. I have my own sensibilities and you have your own sensibilities and anyone elses besides mine is going to seem wrong, irritating and annoying rather than satisfying my needs for enjoyment. Secondly, you must know that society can't achieve anything under laws of freedom which is just another fancy term for being an uncontrollable nation. How is there no reasonable alternative i do not know how you people come to this conclusion..

Honestly there's no point not to eat meat. Sure, some people might think that by not eating meat they're somehow helping to "save the animals" but in the end they change nothing.

[QUOTE=JustGman;34897085]Honestly there's no point not to eat meat. Sure, some people might think that by not eating meat they're somehow helping to "save the animals" but in the end they change nothing.[/QUOTE] Points have been clearly made arguing against eating meat. Maybe you should argue your reasons for why we aren't doing the animals any favour as much as your reasons for 'saving the species'.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34897473]Those who dont eat meat purely because they think they're "saving the animals" are fucking retarded.[/QUOTE] As an individual, sure. They're not really making an impact at all. But the point is that together they can potentially make an impact.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34897473]Those who dont eat meat purely because they think they're "saving the animals" are fucking retarded. Its nothing but a bunch of self-righteous nonsense - so they can have the right to call you a murderer and themselves 'progressive'. Those who simply dont like meat (pretty retarded imo) are fine.[/QUOTE] Well whatever. It's authorizing murder isn't it. How else do you excuse killing something else. I'm not really for those little whatever cliche phrases but it defends the idea. Your gonna call what your doing, 'Oh, i'm just killing and eating. We are not doing anything else we're just killing and eating'. No, your doing more than that asshole. I mean, it's a word thats used to describe a circumstance as well so people when they say meat is murder, they are not saying ok technically there is a law against what your doing and you've commit a crime against the law and its called murder. No, they're not doing that. There saying that as a practical sense what you're doing is commit the same kind of act as a murderer your going out finding a victim and exploiting them for your benefit for your selfish intent, your taking from them for yourself.

Like it or not, we're supposed to eat meat. I've read stories of people who switched to vegan or vegetarian diets, and they have not been pretty. All sorts of health problems. I don't think eating meat is murder either. Why don't we prosecute cheetahs and lions for eating zebras? Why aren't people labeled murderers for killing spiders? Where do we draw the line? I don't see the reasoning in the whole "meat is murder" debate because then you're saying cheetahs and lions are criminals for doing what they need to do to survive. I'd argue that the way we make our meat is even more humane than the brutal gutting of animals in the wild.

[QUOTE=Daemon;34897717]Well whatever. It's authorizing murder isn't it. How else do you define killing something else. I'm not really for those little whatever cliche phrases but it defends the idea. Your gonna call what your doing, 'Oh, i'm just killing and eating. We are not doing anything else we're just killing and eating'. No, your doing more than that asshole. I mean, it's a word thats used to describe a circumstance as well so people when they say meat is murder, they are not saying ok technically there is a law against what your doing and you've commit a crime against the law and its called murder. No, they're not doing that. There saying that as a practical sense what you're doing is commit the same kind of act as a murderer your going out finding a victim and exploiting them for your benefit for your selfish intent, your taking from them for yourself.[/QUOTE] Every time I see this type of argument I immediately want to argue against it, but I always come to a point where I realize that the argument is completely true. But maybe in not such a harsh way. Using myself as an example, I could have chosen to buy a veggie samosa instead of a chicken samosa. But damn, chicken is delicious. So the only reasons I had to eat the chicken samosa over a veggie samosa was because chicken tastes good. I don't even know if the chicken was kept in good health at a decent free range farm; for all I know the chicken could have been raised from birth in one of those awful small cages. But anyways, it is a morally dubious act in the first place even if the chicken was raised well. I essentially supported killing an animal just for my own, minor, taste preference. I was going to write about how it's not [b]always[/b] morally wrong to eat animals, but I'm running late for class. I'll continue when I get back.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34897944]Like it or not, we're supposed to eat meat. I've read stories of people who switched to vegan or vegetarian diets, and they have not been pretty. All sorts of health problems. I don't think eating meat is murder either. Why don't we prosecute cheetahs and lions for eating zebras? Why aren't people labeled murderers for killing spiders? Where do we draw the line? I don't see the reasoning in the whole "meat is murder" debate because then you're saying cheetahs and lions are criminals for doing what they need to do to survive. I'd argue that the way we make our meat is even more humane than the brutal gutting of animals in the wild.[/QUOTE] Come on i said already it's nothing to do with a jurisdiction but a comparative act. That's what they mean when they say it.

[QUOTE=Daemon;34897998]Come on i said already it's nothing to do with a jurisdiction but a comparative act. That's what they mean when they say it.[/QUOTE] So then why is it murder when we do it and not when a cheetah does it? It's both for survival, really.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34898089]I dont get this. Other animals eat other animals, are they murderers too? Are we not animals as well?[/QUOTE] Exactly. The whole point for survival is to live as long as possible. Don't vegetarians have like a 10 year reduced lifespan? That makes the meat-eaters better at survival. I'm sorry if my preference for meat upsets people, but eating meat is an easy, delicious way to get necessary nutrients so I can live a long, full life.

Well i can just say the cheetah murdered the gazelle for it's own benefit. Does it matter how you phrase it?

[QUOTE=Daemon;34898144]Well i can just say the cheetah murdered the gazelle for it's own benefit. Does it matter how you phrase it?[/QUOTE] So somebody murdered a chicken for my benefit. Is that not how nature works? Why is the cheetah murdering the gazelle different from some farmer killing a chicken for his benefit, or mine?

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34898161]So basically your entire argument is that nature is selfish? No shit sherlock.[/QUOTE] Thats funny. Complain that people call you a selfish murdering asshole but obviously from your arrogant perspective of life we are here to not care about anything. Piss off out of here.

[QUOTE=Daemon;34898231]Thats funny. Complain that people call you a selfish murdering asshole but obviously from your arrogant perspective of life we are here to not care about anything. Piss off out of here.[/QUOTE] So the cheetah should not kill the gazelle because it should care about things. Listen, I understand that we're taking lives for our benefit. But [I]that's just the reality of what is necessary to survive.[/I] If you really opposed the murder of animals - you wouldn't use anything with glue in it. Lots of plastic bags. Car tires. Fuel. Even soap is made with animal byproducts. So if you really oppose the murder of animals - stop typing on the keyboard, and stop using your monitor, too. Take your shoes off, disconnect electricity from your home. So on and so forth.

[QUOTE=Daemon;34898144]Well i can just say the cheetah murdered the gazelle for it's own benefit. Does it matter how you phrase it?[/QUOTE] Eh, I don't think of it as murder. [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] Also, I'm eating bacon, and it's delicious ~

I'm trying to respond with the flow of questions bare with me.

[QUOTE=Daemon;34898539]I'm trying to respond with the flow of questions bare with me.[/QUOTE] Good luck. It's hard to dispute a need for survival.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34898577]Good luck. It's hard to dispute a need for survival.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's also questionable to understand our need for survival.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34898682]i sat here for like 3 minutes trying to figure out what the fuck you just said[/QUOTE] You and me both. I mean, the whole argument against murdering animals... life would be so much different if we didn't murder animals.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34898278]Nature being selfish is a fact. Its not "my perspective". Its a universal perspective. Just take a look outside. The entire ecosystem is based upon shit killing out shit and consuming it. We just got a bit better at it than most species.[/QUOTE] Yeah is that what you're gonna do? Is that the circle, is that your god. Nature? At least god delusionist have a god that at least is supposed to be intelligent enough to come up with golden roads and pearly gates and stuff at least they had something going and and your god is what, a dna molocule. A god damn molocule. So you say the molocule knows best. We should just do what the molocule says natural selection 4 billion years of evolution. That has more brains than us. we shouldn't apply our judgement to this circumstance no, we should just do what nature does. We should immitate the fucktarded molocule yeah, great advice. Great explination. Its the nature of nature and therefore we should naturally do the natural thing. is that it? So yes, lets all be obidient to a molocule right so then why dont we take this whole brain thing and just flush it down the toilet metaphorically.

[QUOTE=Daemon;34898805]Yeah is that what you're gonna do? Is that the circle, is that your god. Nature? At least god delusionist have a god that at least is supposed to be intelligent enough to come up with golden roads and pearly gates and stuff at least they had something going and and your god is what, a dna molocule. A god damn molocule. So you say the molocule knows best. We should just do what the molocule says natural selection 4 billion years of evolution. That has more brains than us. we shouldn't apply our judgement to this circumstance no, we should just do what nature does. We should immitate the fucktarded molocule yeah, great advice. Great explination. Its the nature of nature and therefore we should naturally do the natural thing. is that it? So yes, lets all be obidient to a molocule right so then why dont we take this whole brain thing and just flush it down the toilet metaphorically.[/QUOTE] Not only did you ignore 90% of what was said, you put words in the mouths of others and twisted it into something nonsensical and what does make sense of it is far from anything that's ever been said. So, if you want the perspective of the brain? The brain said, "Let's stop hunting animals. Let's put them in a place where we can raise them to be killed for food so that we don't mess up the ecosystem anymore. This way, we still get our meat, but we aren't hurting anything but the animals, which we kill more humanely than any other creature on earth." The fucktarded molecule absorbs other fucktarded molecules because it has to. There's a reason we're classified as omnivores and not herbivores or carnivores. It's because we eat meat because we have to.

To build on the above point that we are following nature - why did none of the cavemen stand up and say, "We shouldn't be eating meat?" If it was really a moral problem we would have stopped long ago, and to be honest the only thing that has changed between now and then is how it is done. It's a lot better now.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34898976]Not only did you ignore 90% of what was said, you put words in the mouths of others and twisted it into something nonsensical and what does make sense of it is far from anything that's ever been said. So, if you want the perspective of the brain? The brain said, "Let's stop hunting animals. Let's put them in a place where we can raise them to be killed for food so that we don't mess up the ecosystem anymore. This way, we still get our meat, but we aren't hurting anything but the animals, which we kill more humanely than any other creature on earth." The fucktarded molecule absorbs other fucktarded molecules because it has to. There's a reason we're classified as omnivores and not herbivores or carnivores. It's because we eat meat because we have to.[/QUOTE] Yeah... nature is selfish but what else am i ignoring? Is there something wrong with arguing that nature presumably hasn't got our best intentions in mind? I was replying on a basis that marbalos thinks because nature is selfish and cruel we have to be in that frame of mind to achieve whatever he thinks life is worth surviving for. [cant comprehend next sentence] I have gone over this many times about this pain thing, the dying process that goes into the state of killing, displeasure is a fact and arguably at the expense of a non-necessity just boggles the mind of why people accept it at all. Again, 'because we eat meat because we have to'. Criticizable so why bother posting it for the 400th time.

I don't think nature has any intentions, it just is. Shit happens, no reason why, no reason why not. [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] Nothing is set in stone, how to live and treat others is a mere opinion.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;34898987]Okay then man, lets play by your rules. Lets stop eating meat all together, and spend billions of billions of dollars to come up with an alternative, [/QUOTE] I'd be happy to. Or you could just do the more sensible thing and just reduce that amount. [QUOTE=Marbalo;34898987]because we cant live off broccoli and oranges no matter how badly you want to believe we can,[/QUOTE] bleeh. [QUOTE=Marbalo;34898987](they are also living things by the way, and we 'kill' them for our own pleasure. that's selfish as well - ever thought of that?).[/QUOTE] Brocolli is void of sensations that a sentient being has. Therefore, i recognize that there is a bigger consequence to pay for the result of carrying out that selfish desire. [QUOTE=Marbalo;34898987]Lets spend billions of dollars that could go towards eradicating poverty or to further finance the medicine industry just so some poor cows could live in peace. That makes a lot of sense.[/QUOTE] Yeah well them billions have just come out of your ass. I didn't know that the transition from cows to corn costs us billions of dollars. Your the one financing whatever your giving these companies. Them multi billion dollar private companies that produce that food and they somehow have something to do with the medical industry or they are literally giving their food away right now with the extra billion dollars they currently have. [QUOTE=Marbalo;34898987]Now lets drift slowly back to reality - we cant not adhere to our nature. We cant just ignore our instincs and our own cravings for meat. Its not just about the taste, we physically need it to be healthy. Comprehend this. Just because we are aware of such a thing as nature, and are able to study it, does not mean we are immune to it. Because after all, we are part of it.[/QUOTE] So we do have some instinctive behaviours that we follow. It should be in our best interest to understand whether such behaviours validate any progress of productivity at the expense of any sentient creature. That does include ourselves. There is obviously areas that still are left to be discussed one of them being diety dependency. I think that should be a focus that needs more attention than some of the issues discussed here. [QUOTE=Marbalo;34898987]I seriously do not know what point you were trying to make, but I suggest you simply give up. [/QUOTE] Whatever no relevence. [QUOTE=Simski;34899877]I don't think nature has any intentions, it just is. Shit happens, no reason why, no reason why not. Edited: Nothing is set in stone, how to live and treat others is a mere opinion. [/QUOTE] I'm not in the frame of mind to treat anyone badly are you? I don't give someone a miserable experience when there is a relevence not to do it.

But you compare animals to humans. And therein lies the flaw of your argument. If we are like animals, then its fine for us to kill other animals. If animals were like us, they wouldn't hunt to survive because they, too, would factor in the emotions of their prey. So is our sentience really a basis for not killing animals? Or do you think its possible you're looking too deeply into it?

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34901017]But you compare animals to humans. And therein lies the flaw of your argument. If we are like animals, then its fine for us to kill other animals. If animals were like us, they wouldn't hunt to survive because they, too, would factor in the emotions of their prey. So is our sentience really a basis for not killing animals? Or do you think its possible you're looking too deeply into it?[/QUOTE] I don't believe in living in the context of what you believe in, that some how we aren't in some way. We have technology and the other part we have is our philisophical understanding. It certainly does go into depths of how we can describe our circumstance and how honest we can be about it and how accurate we can do it in terms of understanding where we are and what were doing here. How we can function and what the solutions are. I would argue that its just inevitable that this negative, selfish perception is gonna have to be the winner in the end because its the truth. The universe is cold and based upon chemical reactions, it's just matter doing its thing. And in this little part of space where we have a little bit of protection, this happened. All this 'chemistry' has been manufactured to consume, reproduce cannibalise through a mechanism of want. A mechanic of passion that compells us. Not reason, not logic and not the intelligence. The intelligence can only really be a slave to our addiction in terms of having a functionality. If we weren't making a problem intelligence would have nothing to do. The best part of intelligence is figuring out how to do something to satisfy and comfort the inflicted and just by weird circumstance, we are able to step out of the maze because we have this intelligence, to look at it and to survey the circumstance and to say is this a game worth playing. Certainly to say is it ethical to force somebody else to play it. I don't think so because theres nothing to be gained. Nothing to be gained to drag somebody out of nowhere and throw them into this poorly constructed somewhere. It's not good enough, it can't be good enough because the only thing it feeds on is this competition. It's this gratisfication through consumption and the only way to consume to satisfy an ego is usually at something elses expense. Our origin is not a good. What life is doing in the real world, the natural world isn't good. And the easiest solution is to quit imposing it, quit creating new victims. I can't defend vegetarianism anymore so i'm out. Marbalo you can enter a discussion but don't be a dick all your life.

I think you don't want to defend vegetarianism anymore. It's a stupid concept and there's plenty of scientific proof that says, "Hey, you need a balanced diet." [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] Did I mention the whole theory about "saving an animal's life" goes against the... well, everything that is natural? It really does. If we stopped to think about the lives of animals all the time, we'd go nowhere. That's just the reality.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34902638]I think you don't want to defend vegetarianism anymore. It's a stupid concept and there's plenty of scientific proof that says, "Hey, you need a balanced diet." [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] Did I mention the whole theory about "saving an animal's life" goes against the... well, everything that is natural? It really does. If we stopped to think about the lives of animals all the time, we'd go nowhere. That's just the reality.[/QUOTE] No i am vegetarian and will continue to be that way supporting it with my life view. I will argue that we are quite animal depenent in our diet, but i think there is a question on how dependent you actually need to be. Vegetarianism has it's potential to do something at least in my view it has it's role to play in what could be a more suitable reality but i'm going deep into it again. I don't want to save the animals in a sense. It's a cliche term that i don't use although you could say i just don't like the idea of bringing an animal of sentient into this world. I think it was a point i needed to make because you can't explain the necessity for something such as survival if you don't know what your surviving for. It had to be questioned in that manner.