we humans are disgusting

[kiwimac]

And why vegetarians and vegans suffer from vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you think honor killings are "evil"? It certainly seems to me that the adjective "evil" implies some sort of moral wrong.

By my values (think libertarian), murder of one person to preserve a sense of honor in others is morally wrong.
To invoke & invert Spock....the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

I don't think I have used the word "morality". All I'm asking is that you specify whether you are referring to a proposition, a set of beliefs, a moral code, or a particular act or set of acts, when you use the word.

In the context of this thread, I use definitions 1, 4 & 5 from.....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality

Where did you see this? Can you provide a link? Did someone else (the narrator?) refer to this incident as "rape"?

I have no link.
If rape in animal societies is a novel thing to, then it would be beyond the scope of this thread to explore so vast a phenomenon.

Every lion mating I've seen, the female crouches down. I'm finding what you describe hard to imagine (even though I have a well-developed pornographic imagination).

It was clearly not the same as their normal mating practice.

Why do you wish that rapists should be caught, prosecuted and imprisoned--for doing something that, according to you, is not really wrong (except for silly social conventions).

A loaded question....I don't think social conventions which keep the peace are "silly".
While not objective, universal or absolute, they're important.

It is interesting to me that you seem to have a major issue about the "origins of morality" (whatever you mean by "morality" there), but haven't addressed my question about the origins of the fact that the Uncertainty Principle is about, or the fact proven by the Pythagorean theorem.

I don't know what you mean by "have an issue", or how geometry relates to morality.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What evidence are you talking about? Quote any evidence presented here from the scientific literature that has contradicted anything I've said.

Apparently you haven't bothered to read anyone else's posts in this thread. And, you still haven't provided any evidence of your own that says that humans should stop using and eating animals--the handful of quotes you provided state no such thing. You have expressed the OPINION that humans can and should, but no evidence to prove it--because you can't prove an opinion.

And, you haven't responded to my assertion that this isn't a debate about facts at all, but about VALUES. You believe there are absolute moral values, as you have claimed you are a moral realist: how do you know these? What is your source of objective, empirical evidence that your MORAL VALUES are in fact true?

 

[Nous]

And why vegetarians and vegans suffer from vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

Cite that evidence. Even if true, at least vitamin and mineral deficiencies among vegetarians and vegans is not so serious as to result in increased risks of various killer diseases or higher rates of mortality.

 

[Nous]

By my values (think libertarian), murder of one person to preserve a sense of honor in others is morally wrong.

Can you justify holding that "value" about someone murdering someone else? Why is your opinion more important than that of the murderer?

A loaded question....I don't think social conventions which keep the peace are "silly".

Even if it were true that catching, prosecuting and punishing rapists "keep the peace," why is that more important than allowing other people to do what they want to do? Other animals don't engage in such interference of another individual's behavior.

I don't know what you mean by "have an issue", or how geometry relates to morality.

One of the first things you said on the issue of moral facts concerned the "origins of morality". "Origins" seem to be a consideration for you.

I certainly didn't suggest that "geometry relates to morality." I only asked about your ideas or beliefs about "origins" of the fact that the Uncertainty Principle is about, and the fact proven by the Pythagorean theorem. It seems to that if "origins" is an important--perhaps even determinative--issue on one matter, it might be important or determinative on another issue.

 

[Nous]

Apparently you haven't bothered to read anyone else's posts in this thread.

I've read them all. The reason you cannot cite any evidence that I have ignored or that has contradicted anything I've said is because, again, your claim is just false: No evidence has been cited on this thread that I've ignored or that has contradicted anything I've said.

And, you haven't responded to my assertion that this isn't a debate about facts at all

Here are a few facts from the peer-reviewed literature and the UN by which to deduce that raising and using animals for human consumption is horribly detrimental to the environment and wasteful of finite resources, and is therefore unsustainable (besides being cruel), facts which you haven't addressed:

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.​

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf

Plant-based diets in comparison to diets rich in animal products are more sustainable because they use many fewer natural resources and are less taxing on the environment. Given the global population explosion and increase in wealth, there is an increased demand for foods of animal origin. Environmental data are rapidly accumulating on the unsustainability of current worldwide food consumption practices that are high in meat and dairy products. Natural nonrenewable resources are becoming scarce, and environmental degradation is rapidly increasing. At the current trends of food consumption and environmental changes, food security and food sustainability are on a collision course. Changing course (to avoid the collision) will require extreme downward shifts in meat and dairy consumption by large segments of the world's population.​

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/476S.long

The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. [. . .] Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2–3 billion people to be added to human population.​

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I've read them all. The reason you cannot cite any evidence that I have ignored or that has contradicted anything I've said is because, again, your claim is just false: No evidence has been cited on this thread that I've ignored or that has contradicted anything I've said.

Here are a few facts from the peer-reviewed literature and the UN by which to deduce that raising and using animals for human consumption is horribly detrimental to the environment and wasteful of finite resources, and is therefore unsustainable (besides being cruel), facts which you haven't addressed:

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.​

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf

Plant-based diets in comparison to diets rich in animal products are more sustainable because they use many fewer natural resources and are less taxing on the environment. Given the global population explosion and increase in wealth, there is an increased demand for foods of animal origin. Environmental data are rapidly accumulating on the unsustainability of current worldwide food consumption practices that are high in meat and dairy products. Natural nonrenewable resources are becoming scarce, and environmental degradation is rapidly increasing. At the current trends of food consumption and environmental changes, food security and food sustainability are on a collision course. Changing course (to avoid the collision) will require extreme downward shifts in meat and dairy consumption by large segments of the world's population.​

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/476S.long

The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. [. . .] Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2–3 billion people to be added to human population.​

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697

Exact same quotes from exact same sources. None of which endorse complete ban on using animals for labor or eating meat, which is what you are advocating. WHERE EXACTLY in these short excerpts, or in whole of the documents themselves for that matter, do these authors argue that humans should BAN ALL raising and use of livestock and eating of meat? I suggest you can't and don't point to it because no such recommendations exist.

And you continue to avoid the question of what is the source of your MORAL claim that humans should not eat meat? Such a conclusion is certainly NOT contained in these documents you excerpt. These documents only advocate for changing both the way we produce agricultural products (both meat and vegetable) and the way we process, distribute and consume food.

 

[Wirey]

I like meat so I eat it. If an animal doesn't want to wind up in my digestive tract, it better evolve and adapt before supper time. If you don't want to eat it, good for you. Butt out of my business.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you justify holding that "value" about someone murdering someone else? Why is your opinion more important than that of the murderer?

I cannot objectively justify my values.

Even if it were true that catching, prosecuting and punishing rapists "keep the peace," why is that more important than allowing other people to do what they want to do? Other animals don't engage in such interference of another individual's behavior.
One of the first things you said on the issue of moral facts concerned the "origins of morality". "Origins" seem to be a consideration for you.
I certainly didn't suggest that "geometry relates to morality." I only asked about your ideas or beliefs about "origins" of the fact that the Uncertainty Principle is about, and the fact proven by the Pythagorean theorem. It seems to that if "origins" is an important--perhaps even determinative--issue on one matter, it might be important or determinative on another issue.

All these questions & claims have been covered.

 

[Chakra]

And why vegetarians and vegans suffer from vitamin and mineral deficiencies.

Then they didn't eat properly. All necessary vitamins and minerals (don't bring up B12 because that has been settled to satisfaction) can be found in a plant based diet.

 

[Chakra]

Except that I did...

Do you not know what the words "you're in no position to say that" mean?

Ouch.
You really do need to go back and read the thread.
Try to not miss my posts this time....

I looked back at all your posts in this thread. None of them seemed to present any argument or refutation. If you think you made any reasonable post, then I'm down to discuss it.

I also took note that you said something along the lines of "What a bold empty claim!" around 6-7 times...7 comments that don't enhance the conversation.

I eat meat because I like to eat meat.

And surely you are not claiming that this is some sort of an argument, yes? I

Is it your claim that eating meat when one does not "need" to eat meat is what makes eating meat immoral?

Yes, of course. Just like how it is immoral to kill prisoners when the war has ended, killing animals unnecessary is immoral. Try to look without your anthropocentric glasses on.

Do you also apply the same logic to killing innocent plants?

No, because plants are not sentient. Unless you can prove to me that plants can feel pain and have consciousness, there are no moral qualms about eating plants.
But I appreciate your concern for plants though. If only you directed your concern to animals, entities that can actually suffer and feel pain. Even if you did care about plants, you'd be a vegan because a majority of plants are fed to animals instead of humans directly. More people would get fed if we fed humans the plants directly.

Looks to me like a blatant double standard.

It is not, for the reasons mentioned above. The only double standard is when you guys say it is okay for humans to kill animals (for pleasure), but it is wrong for humans to kill other humans (for pleasure). We are all animals, are we not?

 

[illykitty]

It's amazing how logic is magically thrown out of the window when people's dietary choices are put into question...

 

[McBell]

Do you not know what the words "you're in no position to say that" mean?

Yes.
Do you?

I looked back at all your posts in this thread. None of them seemed to present any argument or refutation. If you think you made any reasonable post, then I'm down to discuss it.

I also took note that you said something along the lines of "What a bold empty claim!" around 6-7 times...7 comments that don't enhance the conversation.

Yet here you are conversing with me...
Strange that.

And surely you are not claiming that this is some sort of an argument, yes?

As A matter of fact, I am not claiming it as an argument.

Yes, of course. Just like how it is immoral to kill prisoners when the war has ended, killing animals unnecessary is immoral.

So you see no difference between humans and animals?

Try to look without your anthropocentric glasses on.

and there goes your alleged moral high ground.

No, because plants are not sentient. Unless you can prove to me that plants can feel pain and have consciousness, there are no moral qualms about eating plants.
But I appreciate your concern for plants though. If only you directed your concern to animals, entities that can actually suffer and feel pain. Even if you did care about plants, you'd be a vegan because a majority of plants are fed to animals instead of humans directly. More people would get fed if we fed humans the plants directly.

You draw an imaginary line at sentience then declare yourself better than those who don't share your line?

It is not, for the reasons mentioned above.

The only double standard is when you guys say it is okay for humans to kill animals (for pleasure), but it is wrong for humans to kill other humans (for pleasure).

Please point out where I have made this claim.
Fact is, you can't.
Because I never made any such claim.


As a reminder, you jumped onto me because I dared to point out that Lyndon's blatant hypocrisy in this thread.
Perhaps you would like to address that now?
Or is your sermon not over?

 

[Lyndon]

So still no evidence presented to support your case........Except you believe plants have feelings, that really adds to your positions credibility!

 

[YmirGF]

We kill animals because they have no voice to speak for themselves.

Oddly, we don't seem to have any problem killing other human animals who are quite able to speak for themselves.

 

[McBell]

So still no evidence presented to support your case........

What do you think my "case" is?

When are YOU going to present something other than bold empty claims?
Your hypocrisy is most entertaining.

Except you believe plants have feelings, that really adds to your positions credibility!

Now you feel the need to lie then whine about my credibility?
Does your dishonesty know no bounds?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I am curious where, in the observation that humans CAN live on a vegan diet, is the moral imperative that not only we SHOULD, but MUST do so?
Where, in the observation that animals are sentient (still a debatable point for many species--are worms sentient, for example? Mosquitoes?), is the moral imperative that not only SHOULD we avoid using and killing and eating animals, but we MUST do so?

So far, I see that several people here believe those assertions to be true. But as far as I can see, those are assertions of values, your preferences for how the world SHOULD be. Several of you keep asking for facts, but where in facts is there a moral imperative for anything?

 

[Revoltingest]

Oddly, we don't seem to have any problem killing other human animals who are quite able to speak for themselves.

The big difference, of course, is that we kill tasty animals.

In the distant future, we'll be so advanced that animals will voluntarily kill themselves for our benefit.

 

[Chakra]

Yes.
Do you?

You don't, because you said, "Except that I did." Was that supposed to be a witty comeback?

Yet here you are conversing with me...
Strange that.

Well, you're the one who told me to "not miss" your posts. Am I missing anything?

As A matter of fact, I am not claiming it as an argument.

In that case, lay out your arguments for eating meat.

So you see no difference between humans and animals?

Not any difference that would allow humans to believe that they are superior to animals or that their desires outweigh the desires of other animals. We all suffer, feel pain, feel happiness, etc.

and there goes your alleged moral high ground.

Instead of blabbering about moral high grounds, why don't you actually respond to what I said? Do you think it is moral to kill prisoners of war when a war has ended?

You draw an imaginary line at sentience then declare yourself better than those who don't share your line?

"Imaginary line", how so? Do you know what sentience is? I wrote a fairly rational response about your comment on my "double standard" when it comes to plants and animals. What you just wrote is not a response at all; you just cherry-pick parts of my response that you want to comment on and ignore everything else. Your posts are as vague as the person in your profile picture.

Please point out where I have made this claim.
Fact is, you can't.
Because I never made any such claim.

Okay, here are some questions.

1) Do you think humans should be allowed to kill animals for pleasure?
2) Do you think humans should be allowed to kill humans for pleasure?
I am sorry if I misquoted you. When you answer these questions, I'll get a better understanding of your position.

As a reminder, you jumped onto me because I dared to point out that Lyndon's blatant hypocrisy in this thread.
Perhaps you would like to address that now?

I jumped onto you because of your hypocrisy. You said that Lyndon was making bold empty claims (which he was not, but you only think so because you haven't done any research), when you have done the same. And why would I want to respond to Lyndon, I have nothing against his claims.

Or is your sermon not over?

Nice appeal to ridicule mate.

And this time, actually respond to the important parts of my response without pulling a straw man.

 

[Covellite]

Oddly, we don't seem to have any problem killing other human animals who are quite able to speak for themselves.

Human animals - I guess you mean: worst criminals and death penalty.
There are pros and cons of that controversial subject. I am personally strongly against death penalty.
And, again, most of them cannot speak for themselves because they cannot afford good attorney.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.