You need to come off your attitude and open your eyes to reality. I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU! You call me a spaciest only because i am not in moral parallel with your opinion. You say my views are discriminating, but you are being discriminating by projecting that your view and your view alone is the only correct view. If all living things could talk then yes they would all say that they wanted to live. That includes the broccoli and asparagus that was killed for your dinner. It is no more morally right for you to eat those things that were once alive then it is for me to eat that which was once alive if viewed from your moral viewpoint. If you say that a plant has lesser value then you are only trying to justify it so you are not subject to the same application as what you want in saying that killing animals is wrong. However you know that if you are going to apply morals to animals then you also have to apply them to any living thing.
You also call my attitude arrogant because I say that humans are superior to all other lifeforms. My attitude is correct and you ARE WRONG!
Do you think for one minute that you would be able to post a message on a website through the use of your computer if it had not been for humans? Show me any other animal that made that possible. You can't because no other animal has the intelligence as humans.
In your way of thinking you would say that if an animals such as a lion attacked a person then we should just let it do it's own thing and if we killed it we would be wrong. Your thinking is flawed! If it were normal then 95% of the world would agree with you and soon animal slaughter for food would be a thing of the past. Then and only then, morally or not will you ever be correct.
I called you a speciesist because you
are a speciesist -- look up the definition of speciesism, as well as "human supremacy" -- you will see that your views are indeed speciesist. You have said many times that humans are not on the same "level" as other animals, which is an asinine, speciesist attitude.
Also, stop treating broccoli as being morally equal to pigs, cows, and humans -- that is ridiculous. Broccoli does not have conscious and cannot feel pain/suffering.
Again,
you are wrong, not me. Humans
are equal to other animals (morally), and your attitude is asinine. The fact that humans made computers isn't relevant -- what is relevant is an animal's interests, such as an animal's interests in not being killed. Also, stop using intelligence as the criteria on which you judge things. People in comas and people in vegetative states are not intelligent -- so do you disregard their interests in the same way that you disregard animal interests?
(Or do you
do respect the interests of humans in a coma more than the interests of animals simply because they are human, in which case you are a speciesist). The reason I bring this up is because, by your logic, the interests of people who are in a coma (or in a vegetative state) can be disregarded because they are not
intelligent.
By the way, elephants and dolphins have intelligence that is comparable to humans, so stop being a "human supremacist" and realize that humans are not "superior" to other animals.
If a lion kills a human, it is not morally wrong (unfortunate, tragic, but not morally wrong). Stop arguing that just because a majority of people think something, it is right. Slavery was supported by a majority of people a long time ago, and that didn't make it right.
Ultimately, your thinking is flawed, irrational, and delusional. You, ArticWolf, UR20Z and HyperWoof all
do not have compassion for animals, because if you did, you would not eat meat. You are all callous people.
animalzrule said:
You're begging the question. Your claim literally has no structure to it. Stop spouting the same bullshit. You claim ALL animals have no morals and don't want to be eaten. You have zero proof to back any of this up.
You're the one who is full of bullshit, not me. Morality is a human concept -- if you really think that a bear can think morally in the same way that a human does, then you're crazy. Also, explain to me why murdering an animal is a justifiable action.
Black_Unicorn said:
I would love to have some real data on the effect of cattle eating plants compared to Vegans eating plants. An average cow can feed 100 humans and expels a certain amount of gas. 100 Vegans would expel much more gas than 1 cow. The problem of processing plant fibre is just being moved up the food chain.
This is complete bullshit. Being vegan is
far better for the environment than eating meat because it uses less resources.
SigmatoZeta said:
This does not really get us around the bottom-line, which is that purchasing a package of ground beef from the grocery store is not really something that bothers me whatsoever. It does not bother most other meat-eaters, either. There is not a syllogism in the world that is going to change this fact.
But it
should bother you, and the fact that it does not bother you means you are callous and do not have empathy for other living beings.
SigmatoZeta said:
For one thing, I have established ethics of my own, which really mean quite a lot to me.
Your morals make no sense. You claim to care about animals, but also eat meat, which makes you a moral hypocrite. (Because eating meat is the
opposite of caring for an animal).
SigmatoZeta said:
If you ask me why I would not approve of murder, I would point out that the reason why you don't murder is that most people find it to be a deeply distressing thing to happen to someone in their communities. It causes them to feel distrustful and afraid.
People ought to view the killing of non-human animals as deeply distressing, in the same way that people find the killing of a human deeply distressing. Also, the animal's feelings need to be taken into account -- it is distressing for
them to suffer and be butchered.
SigmatoZeta said:
You could take several different routes with that. You could prove to me that relatively inexpensive meat often does not actually come from sources that use humane techniques of slaughter, and even when humane slaughter actually is used, it is clearly stressful to the cattle to be taken away from the environment that is familiar to them and put into a sterile and cold industrial slaughterhouse.
Like is said earlier, there is
no such thing as "humane slaughter", because the slaughter itself is inhumane.
articwolf said:
If you claim to be a vegan then you are a hypocrite. That is right because you use animal products everyday in one form or the other.
Vegans, like all people, are not 100% perfect -- it's about making changes to one's lifestyle that one has the power to change. In other words, not eating meat is still better than eating meat. Also, there are vegan soaps and shampoos -- one just has to know which ones to buy. Some uses of animal products may be unavoidable, but it is still more ethical to try to eliminate as many animal things as possible from one's life.
knotinterested said:
The process used in slaughter houses for cattle involves the use of an air powered gun that shoots a kind of nail into the brain of the animal and then withdraws for use on the next animal The animals drop immediately and from my view it seemed as painless as possible.
If a human were killed, and the human were killed in the most painless way possible, it would still be considered unethical (with the possible exception of medically-assisted euthanasia). Similarly, if a non-human animal is killed in a slaughterhouse, the act of killing the animal
is itself unethical, even if no suffering occurs.
Also, stop treating animals such as cows as objects -- they are
living beings with a right to live. The way in which you talk about them being slaughtered is disturbing and callous. Stop thinking about a human's interests, and start thinking about the interests of other animal species. Slaughtering animals is not necessary.
Also, as
@SkawdtDawg said, a lot of times the slaughter process goes wrong, and the animals endure agony. Slaughter is inherently cruel and abusive, and it should be outlawed.
knotinterested said:
If you buy from them they will dress it completely giving you your roasts, and other cuts of meat all packaged and ready for your freezer.
Again, you are callously describing cows as though they are just objects, which is bullshit. You do not truly love animals, because if you did, you would not be talking like this. Cows, just like humans, are deserving of moral consideration.
SigmatoZeta said:
I simply have no vested interest in the supermarket shelves remaining focused on meat as a primary source of easy protein. I reach for the meat because it is easy to find, and it takes minutes to prepare. It provides amino acids that make me feel adequately nourished, and it is, thanks to some handy subsidies, cheap. It would be trivially easy for grocers to become more adept at fulfilling the same criteria with non-meat products, and that constitutes no skin off my back. I have told you precisely what would change my eating habits. I am very uncomplicated.
Your attitude is
very morally shallow -- you are only interested in trivial, superficial things, such as how "easy" something is to do, how cheap it is, etc. Really, it is pretty selfish. You ought to consider the ramifications of what you're doing (such as supporting the unethical slaughter industry).
HyperWoof said:
And yet it's hunters who make up the largest portion of conservation groups out there actively doing something useful, spending chairty money on conservation, being part of groups who go and clean up our beautiful land, funding studies to better understand wildlife needs.... those groups are majority hunters, fishers and even bird watchers. They are doing a hell of a lot more than these fruity vegans who don't buy meat and because of that think they are one level below God himself.
It doesn't matter how many hunters contribute to conservation -- the act of hunting itself is still immoral. If someone steals something, but then claims they are moral because they donate to conservation, the fact that they stole something is still immoral -- the conservation aspect
does not negate the fact that the theft is still immoral. As
@SkawdtDawg said, vegans don't eat meat because they respect animals and their interests, not because they believe they are "superior" to others.
HyperWoof said:
Then why don't you adhere to your same bullshit practices when it comes to human suffering?
You're the one with bullshit practices, not SkawdtDawg. You advocate and support the murder of animals (hunting and slaughter) -- these activities are inherently unethical, abusive, cruel, and unnecessary, yet you support them. And stop using arguments such as the phone argument -- that is just a red herring that is distracting from the main subject.
HyperWoof said:
No, you're a hypocrite. Go ahead and don't eat meat, that's fine. But don't come to me and spout your holier than thou bullshit when i've done more for these animals you talk about than any vegan in this chat.
Actually,
you're a hypocrite, because you say you care about animals, but also support murdering them (as well as support the cruel and abusive practice known as slaughter). It's not "holier than thou bullshit", it's a set of ethics that involves incorporating the interests of beings beyond just the human species.
Also, it doesn't matter how much you claim you've done good for animals -- if you kill animals, you are still behaving immorally.
knotinterested said:
Wrong those are crimes and there are laws against them. They are not opinions.
You're missing the point. Killing an animal
ought to be considered a crime, and it isn't considered one due to speciesism. Also, what a law says doesn't determine whether something is moral or not.
knotinterested said:
The things you mention are illegal and what I was obviously referring to is legal everywhere. There is no comparison and nobody should ever be judged for what they do legally to make a living.
Stop using the "slaughter is legal" argument as an argument in favor of slaughter -- that is a
bullshit argument. Slavery was legal, racial segregation was legal, torturous methods of capital punishment were legal in the middle ages, etc. Just because a law says something doesn't necessarily mean something is moral. So you are wrong -- the comparison
@SkawdtDawg made was a good one, and you are too selfish and speciesist to realize it.
Slaughter
ought to be a crime, because animals in slaughterhouses suffering agonizing deaths, because animals have a right to live, and because the interests of animals ought to be respected in the same way that human interests are respected.
knotinterested said:
You don't see the relevance in charitable contributions? Really?
As
@SkawdtDawg said, donating to charity is not relevant to this discussion; it is a red herring. In any case, like SkawdtDawg said, most of the money that goes to charity does not help animals anyway. And if one is not eating meat, and not using animal products, that is actually better than donating to charity in my opinion.
knotinterested said:
However with the right ingenuity you could help to change things and give the animals that are headed to slaughter a good as possibly life.
Stop this "having a better life" nonsense. If a human has a good life, and then is killed halfway through their life, most people would consider that to be immoral. Similarly, if an animal (such as a cow) has a good life, and then is killed halfway through their life, that should be viewed as immoral as well. Beings (humans, cows, etc.) have a right to live.
knotinteresed said:
And on a last note when you stop using plastic and ALL animal products then you can say you're a vegan, until then you are a hypocrite just as you call me one when I say I eat meat and I love animals.
A person who uses plastic bags and doesn't eat meat is still behaving in more moral way than a person who uses plastic bags AND eats meat. The fewer animal products are involved, the better. Stop this "all-or-nothing" nonsense -- your argument is that one has to be 100% perfect, and if they're not 100% perfect, they're a hypocrite -- this is bullshit.
HyperWoof said:
And you're full of shit lol.
This says a lot about you. You are an angry, disrespectful person who insults people, rather than arguing things. I can assure you,
@SkawdtDawg is
not full of shit, and what he said is far more rational than anything you've said.
knotinterested said:
I see no need to defend my position as I have the right to take any position so long as it is legal. No you do not have the right to criticize someone because they do not agree with what you have decided to be right for your own life.
Once again you are using the "legal" argument -- that just because something is "legal", it is also moral, which is complete bullshit. You have tried to defend your meat-eating practices, and your arguments are
not compelling. Slaughter is inherently cruel and unethical, and when you buy meat, you are supporting those who murder animals. Also, of course someone "has the right" to criticize someone who is doing something very unethical. If someone steals something from a store, someone has a right to criticize them.
When you say "right for your own life", that is a very selfish attitude. Stop thinking about what benefits you, and think about what benefits others ("others" = non-human animals).
HyperWoof said:
I eat meat, I use a cell phone, I wear whatever clothing is convenient. Because my idea of action isn't inaction. If I can make an impact on the world I do it, as I have done many times in the wildlife world as that is my passion... REAL action, not faux activism like avoiding honey. A phone makes my life a lot easier, so I use on. Sucks that people in china make pennies on the dollar to make them. But that's an issue caused by other peoples greed, not mine.
You just admitted don't have any interest in impoverished people in third world countries -- you only brought it up to play the "hypocrisy card", as SkawdtDawg said. You criticize SkawdtDawg for using a cell phone, yet you use a cell phone yourself -- pot calling the kettle black. (You are a hypocrite).
HyperWoof said:
Does it matter to the deer who it gets eaten by? Does it matter to conservation? A dead deer is a dead deer.
A deer has an interest in not dying, therefore a deer should not be killed.
HyperWoof said:
I am using your own logic against you. You claim I am supporting the cruelty of animals by hunting and eating meat. Well you're supporting slavery by buying cell phones and working for companies that save money by purchasing uniforms made by sweatshops. Either go on and mind your own business over what you and others eat, or accept that you're a proselytizing hypocrite
This is an ad hominem argument. You are criticizing the character of the person making the argument, rather than refuting his points. First of all, you do not have any interest in prevent slave labor yourself. Second, the whole issue of whether people buy cell phones (because said cell phones were made with slave labor) is
not relevant to the discussion of veganism -- it's just an attack on SkawdtDawg. If you disagree with SkawdtDawg, refute SkawdtDawg's central arguments, and don't bring up things that have nothing to do with veganism.
HyperWoof said:
congratulations, that makes you a brain dead retard.
Stop insulting people.
HyperWoof said:
You need a cell phone like I need meat. You can't tell me what I don't need if you're going to go on and on about how you N E E D a cell phone.
Wrong -- you do
not need to eat meat. There are plenty of vegan food options available. There are not options with regard to cell phones.
HyperWoof said:
If he says a goat is worth as much as a human child then he kind of deserves to be insulted
That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that that argument can be twisted in a number of ways. Like SkawdtDawg said, you could say, "a 45-year-old man and a 65-year-old woman are on a train track, a train is coming, and you only have time to save one of them. Who will it be?" So it's a loaded bullshit question.