Peta does it again

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

PETA explicitly states in it's opening paragraph that when deciding the proper treatment of other creatures, the first circumstance to be considered is that creature's capacity for suffering.

http://www.peta.org/about/WhyAnimalRights.asp



The lack of central nervous system hence capacity for suffering exempts plantlife from this consideration.

Good conversation though. I agree with you, really, and will continue to eat meat, as will you, but I hope that some people who previously wrote off PETA as loonies and never gave a second thought to the fact that their hamburger was once a loving, feeling creature of God, might be thinking a little deeper after reading our conversation.

Aye.

One last note on the subject of plants and 'animals'... we could return to my point of the cattle's ability to feel pain in that a death through a bolt to the skull would not incur any suffering and thus it wouldn't have suffered in death.

Simply to cast aside one species due to a lack of ability to feel pain seems somewhat hypocratic to me... as I mentioned early, plants seem to react to things such as music, or interation. Is that no feeling in some form? If I man loses all feeling in a limb and it goes useless, does that part cease to be part of the man and in essence human? It remains attached to him but is void of feeling... but it is still a part of that man.

The point I want to make is that it would be wrong to condemn some for eating meat, while they make an excuse (not truly a void one) so they can eat plants, a living being? For in all truth, would the demise not be the same in both cases? To make a burger a cattle perishes. To make a salad a plant(s) vanish. A PETA memeber would surely argue my logic but in a way does it not merit a high moral standard?

Great... someones know gonna go found the PETS (People for Eating Tasty Salads! Catchy Name) and I'll be the start of it all. I need to shut up!

 

[m4gill4]

Aye.

One last note on the subject of plants and 'animals'... we could return to my point of the cattle's ability to feel pain in that a death through a bolt to the skull would not incur any suffering and thus it wouldn't have suffered in death.

Simply to cast aside one species due to a lack of ability to feel pain seems somewhat hypocratic to me... as I mentioned early, plants seem to react to things such as music, or interation. Is that no feeling in some form? If I man loses all feeling in a limb and it goes useless, does that part cease to be part of the man and in essence human? It remains attached to him but is void of feeling... but it is still a part of that man.

The point I want to make is that it would be wrong to condemn some for eating meat, while they make an excuse (not truly a void one) so they can eat plants, a living being? For in all truth, would the demise not be the same in both cases? To make a burger a cattle perishes. To make a salad a plant(s) vanish. A PETA memeber would surely argue my logic but in a way does it not merit a high moral standard?

Great... someones know gonna go found the PETS (People for Eating Tasty Salads! Catchy Name) and I'll be the start of it all. I need to shut up!

Well, if you take PETA's logic to it's full conclusion as you have done, you may legitimately come to the conclusion that it's wrong to eat anything at all!

How's that for the ultimate moralist? The earth is too good to be consumed by me, so I'll just starve.

Fortunately for them, I don't think they've taken it that far, I think that the lack of an ability to "feel" (i.e. sensation i.e. with nerves) prevents any "suffering" from taking place, thus takes them off the hook as far as plantlife goes, and that's good enough for me.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Well, if you take PETA's logic to it's full conclusion as you have done, you may legitimately come to the conclusion that it's wrong to eat anything at all!

Fortunately for them, I don't think they've taken it that far, I think that the lack of an ability to "feel" (i.e. sensation i.e. with nerves) prevents any "suffering" from taking place, thus takes them off the hook as far as plantlife goes, and that's good enough for me.

Very well... PETA can go on and complaining of Meat Eating and such, I'll be happy to disagree. However, I'll also continue to pretty much hate the hypocracy of it!!! But thats just me.

Oh, and BTW... if you ever get into a heated debate with a PETA member, do not offer to discuss if over a steak dinner... She will hurt you!

Down There...

 

[JohnRM]

I guess we could go back to the old days when we used spears and arrows to hunt, or do like the big cats and other predators and bite them in the neck and let them slowly bleed to death.

This is dumb. I am leaving for work 15 minutes early so I can get a burger on the way.

Cheers!

 

[m4gill4]

I guess we could go back to the old days when we used spears and arrows to hunt, or do like the big cats and other predators and bite them in the neck and let them slowly bleed to death.

This is dumb. I am leaving for work 15 minutes early so I can get a burger on the way.

Cheers!

We don't murder them as brutally as we used to, so it must be ok!

So it's ok if I kill and eat your dog/cat/goldfish, as long as I kill it quickly? OK! Here poochie poochie!

 

[bhsup]

So it's ok if I kill and eat your dog/cat/goldfish, as long as I kill it quickly? OK! Here poochie poochie!

No, that's a personal family pet. If some Joe Schmo tried to kill my dog or cats, I'd protect their lives as if they were my own (and let's not forget that brings the 2nd amendment into the equation), so I don't suggest that. Now if you want to go eat some feral dog, I may think it's rather disgusting, but knock yourself out.

 

[m4gill4]

No, that's a personal family pet. If some Joe Schmo tried to kill my dog or cats, I'd protect their lives as if they were my own (and let's not forget that brings the 2nd amendment into the equation), so I don't suggest that. Now if you want to go eat some feral dog, I may think it's rather disgusting, but knock yourself out.

Tell me though, why is it YOUR pets have more right to life than any other dog? Do animals have no purpose on this earth besides YOUR pleasure?

Does any other animal feel less pain than your dog?

Personal ownership and sentimental attachments aside, why is it wrong to eat YOUR dog, but its dandy to eat other animals which have the same capacity for suffering?

If I have a plate of rice in front of me, is it wrong to go and stab a goat to death anyway just because I like goat better? What if the goat is someone's pet?

What if you are starving and I have a pet goat? Is it wrong for you to murder my goat?

There are many gray areas to be considered on this issue. Glibly dismissing it all as nonsense and lunacy doesn't make anybody any wiser.

My favorite is when a conservative "Pro-life" person goes on and on about the sanctity of life blah blah while doesn't think twice about eating meat.

Isn't anyone on this forum going to take the position that animals have rights and dignity unto themselves which is separate from their usefulness to humans?

 

[bhsup]

Tell me though, why is it YOUR pets have more right to life than any other dog? Do animals have no purpose on this earth besides YOUR pleasure?

Well, now that you bring it up...

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

So that takes care of that.

Does any other animal feel less pain than your dog?

No, but the others are not my pets.

Personal ownership and sentimental attachments aside, why is it wrong to eat YOUR dog, but its dandy to eat other animals which have the same capacity for suffering?

Personal ownership and sentimental attachments aside, nothing is different. Personal ownership and sentiment are the very reason why my dog is more important to me than a feral/wild dog.

 

[JollyRoger]

No, that's a personal family pet. If some Joe Schmo tried to kill my dog or cats, I'd protect their lives as if they were my own (and let's not forget that brings the 2nd amendment into the equation), so I don't suggest that. Now if you want to go eat some feral dog, I may think it's rather disgusting, but knock yourself out.

2nd Amendment? Kind of taking the activist judge approach to reading the Constitution there. Where in its text does the 2nd Amendment say anything about self-defense, much less the defense of others or property?

 

[bhsup]

It doesn't. I simply meant that I have a gun.

 

[m4gill4]

Genesis 9:3 is contradicted by the passages in Leviticus forbidding split-hoofed meat, shellfish, etc.

Also, doesn't the whole "My interpretation of my pastor's interpretation of this book which says god says it's ok to kill and eat flesh so I don't have to think about it any further" seem like a bit of a cop-out?

Do you think everything in the Bible is moral and ethical? Including the slavery, genocide, and rape? Only if "GOD" says so, right?

 

[bhsup]

I would call it refined more than contradicted. The Israelites as a people did not yet exist, and many of the laws in later books are solely for them.

As far as it being a cop-out, not at all. It is simply the reality of the world we live in. God gave us dominion over the animals, not vice versa.

 

[bigdog5994]

im ok with eating my dog/cat/goldfish if its necessary they are animals after all

how come peta doesn't raise a stink about other animals killing other animals?

 

[m4gill4]

Giving us dominion over them is not exactly the same as encouraging us to kill and eat them once there are viable alternatives to this practice.

Saying it's ok to eat them is a far cry from saying we should eat them if other alternatives are available.

Allow me to catalogue the arguments in favor of meat eating I've seen so far on this thread:

Other people do it
Our forefathers did it
Animals do it
Some interpretations of some translations of the Bible say it's ok
I like meat it is teh yum

I would like to point out to everyone that these are not arguments. They are excuses. Nobody has said anything about why eating meat is morally better than not doing so. I think everyone deep down knows that there is no such argument. These are just reasons why we will continue to eat meat despite the fact that it involves murder. None of these excuses even attempts to make the case that meat eating is morally superior to veganism.

Lets take two identical twins who are identical in every way except one eats meat and the other does not. A person could say that the vegetarian twin is morally superior. He may or may not be right, but at least there is an argument to be made.

Will anyone here say that the meat eating twin is the morally superior one? Is there any way to arrive at that conclusion? I can't see it.

how come peta doesn't raise a stink about other animals killing other animals?

Other animals don't know better, and other animals don't have the choice or ability to forgo meat. It is only by choice, not necessity that humans continue to consume meat. There are plenty of veggies to go around, and if meat were abolished, there would be so many veggies to go around that world hunger could be significantly reduced.

 

[bhsup]

Lets take two identical twins who are identical in every way except one eats meat and the other does not. A person could say that the vegetarian twin is morally superior. He may or may not be right, but at least there is an argument to be made.

No, there is no argument to be made. It is perfectly moral to eat meat. To not eat meat is not morally superior. To claim otherwise is simply in error and I dismiss any such claim out of hand. I cannot state it any plainer than that.

Let's move on, however, to PETA's hypocricy. Like how they put animals to sleep and how their bigwig takes medication developed via animal testing.

 

[m4gill4]

You dodge my question. In what way is the meat eating twin morally SUPERIOR to the vegetarian twin?

I don't want you to excuse his behavior, I want you to explain why he is morally SUPERIOR to his brother.

I can make an argument that the vegan brother is morally superior. You don't have to be persuaded by it, but I can still make a salient argument.

You don't seem to be able to do so for the meat eating brother. All you can do is "dismiss it hout of hand typical. Why is that?

lol. Can't argue the point so dismiss it quick and change the subject? Textbook fundie move, cute but I can't let it slide.

 

[bhsup]

I have never claimed that eating meat is morally superior, but rather that it is perfectly acceptable and that refusing to eat meat NOT morally superior.

 

[m4gill4]

I have never claimed that eating meat is morally superior

exactly. exactly. and why can't you claim that?

I can claim all day that veganism is morally superior; it doesn't involve killing! see, it's easy?
You don't have to be persuaded but at least its an argument.


Can anyone even begin to claim that meat eating is the superior choice?

 

[bigdog5994]

Other animals don't know better, and other animals don't have the choice or ability to forgo meat. It is only by choice, not necessity that humans continue to consume meat. There are plenty of veggies to go around, and if meat were abolished, there would be so many veggies to go around that world hunger could be significantly reduced.

ive seen plenty of animals go out of ther way to kill other animals

 

[bhsup]

exactly. exactly. and why can't you claim that?

Because it wouldn't be true?

I can claim all day that veganism is morally superior; it doesn't involve killing! see, it's easy? You don't have to be persuaded but at least its an argument.

Not really. I suppose I could say all Kansans should be enslaved because they're horrible drivers and call it an argument, but it would be an argument with no legitimacy, so actually not really an argument at all.

Can anyone even begin to claim that meat eating is the superior choice?

Why are you asking that? Nobody has ever claimed that so I cannot figure out why you are trying to make it an issue. it's almost as if you are trying to create a false issue just to tear it down and proclaim some sort of victory.