Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Dida, Dec 8, 2011.
Derailing Dida's thread into abortion isn't nice. For shame.
What if I eat the foetus? Then we're still technically on-topic.
The woman's uterus whom I eventually will invade, will have similar ideas about abortion.
Then you are a cannibal if you eat a foetus.
leftists do eat feotuses i knew it!
Things are valuable insofar as someone decides they are valuable. Most animals are not conscious of their physical or physchological state. This means there is no prima facie obligation not to damage their physical or physchological state. Animals don't make decisions about their lives, decisions are what confer value, therefore animals lack value and rights.
People might value them. This is why it is important that animals not unduly suffer pain and hardship where it is easy for them not to. It is not some naturalistic pain/pleasure based rubric that results in rights and duties. If people value cheap hamburgers over happy cows then the moral thing to do is respect those values, insofar as doing so does not limit the ability of other decision-making creatures to make important decisions about their lives. On that last point the environmental vegetarian might have a case.
I do believe being a Vegan is the most moral thing to do followed by vegetarian. Ideally I would like to be a vegetarian, but meat tastes so good, and I couldn't give it up. I went about 9 days without meat, and that was my limit. There are just too many foods I can't give up. It's like trying to give up masturbating. It's not going to happen.
I actually would like the government to outlaw meat, although I know that would never happen. I could give up meat if I was forced to. Although if the penalty wasn't severe, I might get black market meat .
I feel like giving up meat is the healthiest thing you can do. Meat is unhealthy in nearly every way. I'm certain we wouldn't have an obesity problem in the U.S. is no one ate meat.
Well, depends on what type of vegetarian. If you can still eat stuff like eggs and dairy, that means you can still eat cake, cheese, etc. etc. etc... Contrary to common belief, there is such thing as an obese vegetarian. But still. Important thing is to get the protein and all that.
I was wondering about that actually. In theory, there should be obese vegetarians, but I can't ever remember seeing one.
Many if not most become vegetarian for health reasons, and they will look out for their health regardless.
My opinion of them? GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!
Though they have no sense of humor...
My daughter, home from college, is a vegetarian/vegan - depending on who's buying. For her and her friends, drugs and alcohol are fine, so I don't take her moralizing so seriously. I myself love the taste of meat, from Angus steaks (rare) to sushi tuna, and having been raised on nature films I usually root for the predators.
It's a dog-eat-dog world. Big fish eat little fish. But we humans tend towards anthropomorphism. The lions are so cruel - that poor wildebeast is still alive - look at the terror in it's eyes!
We can't even relate between liberals and conservatives on these forums - but true die-in-the-wool Vegans seem quite seriously mentally ill to me.
I have never heard the joke used against a legitimately assertive vegetarian, but I have seen it used against meek and otherwise delightful people who also happened to be vegetarian. I'm sure the person who said it would not have been to pleased if I then said "For every sin you don't commit, I'll commit two. Ave in gloriosa nomine Satan!"
It's the weirdest thing to be militant about.
No no no, believe me. There are weirder.
Militant generally has negative connotations, even though that is not always the case with the meaning of it.
I sincerely have no idea what contradiction you're seeing here.
fast food. cheetah style.
we could learn lots from them.
I think militant vegans may be counterproductive to their cause but I do sympathize with their cause.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'conscious'. Only a few animals are self-conscious, but many, many animals are conscious of their physical and psychological states. They acutely feel 'negative emotions' at times similar to us: pain, fear, worry, etc.
Suffering is, by definition, bad. It might lead to a greater good, because of natural laws, but the suffering itself is a negative.
I learned everything I know about being a foster parent from male lions ...
Yes, we can learn from animals, but our intelligence and knowledge is vastly higher, and so it's perfectly acceptable to think through consequences that an animal cannot understand.
And, if we're learning from animals ...
Rats help cage-mates for personal benefit, for no material benefit, and often in lieu of personal benefit or selfish behaviour.
Lack of empathy on our part is a cultural phenomenon, a meme, that reduces our intelligence.
Finally, as mentioned upthread, meat is so much more environmentally destructive that it's worth forgoing just for that reason. We're trading future wealth for transient pleasures.
Suffering isn't bad by definition. That's an ethical claim and requires argument. There are actually many cultures and individuals who consider suffering to be morally important and meaningful. I don't dispute that animals have nervouse systems and can feel basic emotions and what-not. I mean that animals are not introspective and thus cannot ascribe values through the decisions they make. The vast majority lack this capacity. In the absence of any intellectual ability, I don't have a strong reason to respect animal rights nor reduce their suffering at cost to myself.
Separate names with a comma.