we humans are disgusting

[YmirGF]

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.

You missed the mark. I always mean "human animal(s)" as referring to all humans to preserve the understanding that we are, in fact, rather clever animals. Many human animals these day don't like to think of themselves as mere animals.

 

[Lyndon]

Most cows can't afford to hire a lawyer before they go to slaughter. And yes I am totally against the death penalty and war in general.

 

[Lyndon]

Funny thing is no one wants to eat meat eating animals, just the vegetarian ones!!

 

[McBell]

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

I do not need an argument for eating meat.
That is the whole point.

Instead of blabbering about moral high grounds, why don't you actually respond to what I said?

Rather off the tangent topic is it not?
Or is this merely an attempt to move the goal posts?
My issue was with Lyndon's bold empty claims.
He has not made a single argument in this thread.
He has merely declared his beliefs about morality.
Yet was running his mouth about no arguments being presented by others.

Do you think it is moral to kill prisoners of war when a war has ended?

Under most circumstances, no.

"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.

Your imaginary line is sentience.
That is where you draw the line from it being moral/immoral.
Or is it I am mistaken and sentience is not where you draw your line between moral/immoral?

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.

1) yes, with some exceptions.
2) No, with some exceptions

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),

He is making bold empty claims.
Unless of course you are so arrogant as to think everyone should be bound to your ideas of morality?

when you have done the same. And why would I want to respond to Lyndon, I have nothing against his claims.

And there is the thick and the thin of it.
You agree with his bold empty claims therefore you think his claims are not bold or empty.

Nice appeal to ridicule mate.

Do not dish it out if you do not want it given back

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

Yet here we are discussing your strawmen.
Ironic, don't you think?

 

[McBell]

Funny thing is no one wants to eat meat eating animals, just the vegetarian ones!!

Ignorance or dishonesty?
Difficult to tell the difference with you.

BTW, are you ever going to answer post #352 or are you content demonstrating the very "tactic" you constantly accuse me of?

 

[Nous]

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.

Obviously you cannot show that I've said anything erroneous on this thread. In contrast, your claims about the sustainability and environmental benefit of raising and using animals for human consumption, and that humans evolved to "have" a diet consisting of 30-60% animal protein and fat are ignorant and false, contradicted by the scientific literature.

 

[Nous]

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?

The moral and rational imperative of veganism is deduced from the facts of the damage to the environment and climate and the unsustainability of raising and using animals for human consumption compared to a plant diet, the unjustifiability of causing billions upon billions of animals to suffer needlessly and without benefit to anyone or anything, and the harm to human health as a result of meat-eating.

 

[Nous]

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

There certainly hasn't been any such argument presented on this thread.

Obviously there is no argument that justifies humans raising, using, killing and eating animals.

 

[Nous]

I cannot objectively justify my values.

Yeah, moral relativism and nihilism are just non-starters.

All these questions & claims have been covered.

You answered my question about the "origin" of the fact stated by the Uncertainty Principle and the fact proven by the Pythagorean theorem?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Obviously you cannot show that I've said anything erroneous on this thread. In contrast, your claims about the sustainability and environmental benefit of raising and using animals for human consumption, and that humans evolved to "have" a diet consisting of 30-60% animal protein and fat are ignorant and false, contradicted by the scientific literature.

So, first, by refusing to respond to my observations, you admit that in YOUR OWN SOURCES there is NO BASIS for drawing a conclusion that there should be a complete ban on the use or consumption of animals.

Second, that rather that showing any evidence that anything I've said is incorrect, you simply ridicule it. If the facts are so clear and so obvious in support of your position, you should be able to provide evidence that I'm wrong, since you are the one insisting that facts are important to this case of values.

The moral and rational imperative of veganism is deduced from the facts of the damage to the environment and climate and the unsustainability of raising and using animals for human consumption compared to a plant diet, the unjustifiability of causing billions upon billions of animals to suffer needlessly and without benefit to anyone or anything, and the harm to human health as a result of meat-eating.

"..is deduced..." = Not a moral fact, but a moral preference.

Clearly, reducing and changing current practices and consumption patterns can reduce those negative impacts. I'm all for ending the current industrial agricultural practices and even reducing the amount of meat produced and consumed, which would result in a great reduction in the harms cited. But the jump to total ban represents a preference, a value, not a fact. All you have provided is your OPINION that is the case.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Obviously there is no argument that justifies humans raising, using, killing and eating animals.

Sure there's an argument that justifies humans do these things: it's the PREFERENCE of people to do so. Just as it's YOUR PREFERENCE that humans stop raising, using, killing and eating animals.

Moral values, like any other kind of values, are based in human preferences about the state of the world, which are rooted in a number of biological and social/cultural origins--despite your claim of moral realism, there is no objective empirical basis for moral values. If there was, you'd be able to point to it and everyone would agree; the only agreement you're getting is people who share your moral values.

The science of economics and in fact our economic system is based on this understanding of values and preferences. And psychology strongly supports the biological and social/cultural origins of values.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, moral relativism and nihilism are just non-starters.

Mine starts just fine.

 

[kiwimac]

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.

You are entitled to your opinion and / or religious beliefs; what you are NOT entitled to do is to attempt to make your paradigm mine.

 

[Lyndon]

Chakras statement is not an opinion but a fact, all the vitamins and minerals you need can be had by eating a healthy vegetarian diet.

 

[Chakra]

You are entitled to your opinion and / or religious beliefs; what you are NOT entitled to do is to attempt to make your paradigm mine.

Prove me wrong then.

 

[Aquitaine]

That isn't an argument. An argument is where a deduction is derived. For instance:

P1: Food sources that contribute to risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancers in humans are irrational to produce for human consumption.
P2: Animal products are food sources that contribute to risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancers in humans.1
C: Therefore, animal products are irrational to produce for human consumption.
M = P
S = M
Therefore, S = P

P1: Food sources that provide no unique element or nutrient essential to human health and whose production contributes significantly to water depletion and pollution are irrational and immoral to produce for human consumption.
P2: Animal products are food sources that provide no unique element or nutrient essential to human health and whose production contributes significantly to water depletion and pollution.2
C: Therefore, animal products are irrational and immoral to produce for human consumption.
M = P
S = M
Therefore, S = P

P1: Food sources that provide no unique element or nutrient essential to human health and whose production contributes a significant portion of anthropogenic CO2e emissions to the atmosphere are irrational and immoral to produce for human consumption.
P2: Animal products are a food source that provides no unique element or nutrient essential to human health and who production contributes a significant portion of anthropogenic CO2e emissions to the atmosphere.3
C: Therefore, animal products are irrational and immoral to produce for human consumption.
M = P
S = M
Therefore, S = P

1. "Animal products . . . are the primary source of saturated fat responsible for higher risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and some cancers. Meat itself is also associated with increased risk of some cancers 6–12."
http://vegetarian.procon.org/source...ations_of_meat_production_and_consumption.pdf

2. Chapter 4: Livestock’s Role in Water Depletion and Pollution ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf See especially 4.5 Summary of the Impact of Livestock on Water, p. 167.

3. "Livestock are already well-known to contribute to GHG emissions. Livestock’s Long Shadow, the widely-cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), estimates that 7,516 million metric tons per year of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), or 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions, are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, horses, pigs, and poultry. That amount would easily qualify livestock for a hard look indeed in the search for ways to address climate change. But our analysis shows that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32,564 million tons of CO2e per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions." http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf

I take it you're also against personal ownership of cars, and you don't own anything manufactured in China?

 

[MountainPine]

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

...and that's why I'm a vegan.

 

[MountainPine]

Veganism is not exactly a "personal choice." It's more like an appeal to conscience. Eating meat is not a "personal choice" because the animals you are eating did not have a choice in the matter. That's just like saying that raping women is your personal choice because you enjoy it.

 

[McBell]

Eating meat is not a "personal choice" because the animals you are eating did not have a choice in the matter. That's just like saying that raping women is your personal choice because you enjoy it.

huh?
Are you claiming that rapists have no choice but to rape?
If not, your post makes no sense.

 

[MountainPine]

huh?
Are you claiming that rapists have no choice but to rape?
If not, your post makes no sense.

Of course it does. You're assuming that people who eat meat have no choice but to eat meat, which makes no sense.