|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted October 21, 2008 01:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ehm yeah the ability to digest meat and our teeth are designed to eat plants and meat. Those are the tools I mean. You don't get it do you? Nature designed us so that we could the consume meat. That's a fact oO.
Nature designed animals to eat human meat too, would you go and feed them with human meat? Or should we eat human meat? Nature designed us to eat that too.
Quote:
Quote:
Just because its been done in the past doesnt make it right for the now
Why don't you photosynthetize the bloody glucose you need????
Do you still breath time-worn oxygen?
Are you a cloth-wearer as your sinful ancestors?
You drink water?
You use electricity?
You study mathemetics?
You write with ink?
You love your mother?
You are planning to have children and take care of them?!
etc.
[/sarcasm]
Well some things might be good but the argument "because it has been done in the past" doesn't justify anything -- sure it doesn't mean it's WRONG but the argument itself has not much substance.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 01:59 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 14:01, 21 Oct 2008.
|
Quote:
Nature designed animals to eat human meat too, would you go and feed them with human meat? Or should we eat human meat? Nature designed us to eat that too.
1. It's not the point from where the meat comes the point is that we are designed to eat meat. Where it comes from is subject irrelevant. What's the point of your example?
2. Humans are not animals (atleast they can develop into something higher). So don't be ridicolous of course I wouldn't feed my fellow man a fellow man. Neither would I feed a animal with human meat (unless the person was dead of course and not rotting yet).
EDIT: SOYLENT GREEN IS HUMAN FLESH!!
haw? Anyone?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 02:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. It's not the point from where the meat comes the point is that we are designed to eat meat. Where it comes from is subject irrelevant. What's the point of your example?
We are designed to do many things by "nature" that we just don't do because... well you said it "we're different than animals". That was my point. If we were designed with a self-destruct nuclear mechanism, do you think we should use it because we were designed with it?
Quote:
2. Humans are not animals (atleast they can develop into something higher). So don't be ridicolous of course I wouldn't feed my fellow man a fellow man. Neither would I feed a animal with human meat (unless the person was dead of course and not rotting yet).
Thus you contradict your arguments. We might be designed to eat meat, but since we're not like animals, that falls apart.
|
|
lucky_dwarf
Promising
Supreme Hero
Visiting
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 02:11 PM |
|
|
its survival the fitest in the animal kingdom take it like this
imp is eaten by grifin
not
imp eats grifin
simple enough
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 02:32 PM |
|
|
Why is it okay to eat meat? Because it doesn't harm society.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 02:33 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 14:35, 21 Oct 2008.
|
Quote:
If we were designed with a self-destruct nuclear mechanism, do you think we should use it because we were designed with it?
Dude if we were designed with it there most certainly would be a reason for it. But that's outright irrelevant since it's never going to happen. We are talking about it being logical for humans to eat meat oO.
Quote:
Thus you contradict your arguments. We might be designed to eat meat, but since we're not like animals, that falls apart.
I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying we shouldn't eat humans that's not a contradiction. We shouldn't eat them because they are humans not because they are made of flesh, lol wasn't that obvious? And simply because we are not like animals it doesn't mean we should behave how nature designed us considering our eating equipment!
We have the teeth we have and the digestion we have because we are designed to be able to eat meat. All the reason I need to eat meat.
EDIT: All the reason to say that eating meat is completely logical.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 02:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Dude if we were designed with it there most certainly would be a reason for it. But that's outright irrelevant since it's never going to happen. We are talking about it being logical for humans to eat meat oO.
And that includes human meat. My point is this: you either use the "nature designed us to eat that, so it's ok" argument EVERYWHERE and make no exceptions, either don't. If you want an argument to stand out, you must not make exceptions.
Quote:
I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying we shouldn't eat humans that's not a contradiction. We shouldn't eat them because they are humans not because they are made of flesh, lol wasn't that obvious? And simply because we are not like animals it doesn't mean we should behave how nature designed us considering our eating equipment!
We have the teeth we have and the digestion we have because we are designed to be able to eat meat. All the reason I need to eat meat.
EDIT: All the reason to say that eating meat is completely logical.
Look, your argument is that nature designed us to eat meat, and we can, therefore that is the reason we eat meat right? If that is your argument, then the same argument can be used to eat human meat too -- we don't. That means the argument is not solid -- while it may not be necessarily wrong, it isn't solid since we don't apply it everywhere, so basically it has no substance.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We are designed to do many things by "nature" that we just don't do because... well you said it "we're different than animals".
You know what I don't understand Death? You said that we 'break' the nature's balance and animals don't. Why is this? Because we act differently, as you said above. Therefore it is better if we act like animals, like we were designed by nature, and this includes eating meat, but NOT humans, since animals don't eat their own species!
So eating meat is a step in the right direction
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 02:42 PM |
|
|
|
I'm afraid not because we do not have innocent minds and we can make a difference, they can't. They are not "better", they are "different" (read: innocent).
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 02:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Look, your argument is that nature designed us to eat meat, and we can, therefore that is the reason we eat meat right? If that is your argument, then the same argument can be used to eat human meat too -- we don't. That means the argument is not solid -- while it may not be necessarily wrong, it isn't solid since we don't apply it everywhere, so basically it has no substance.
What you don't seem to understand is what I already said earlier.
Yes it is logical to eat meat (meat just meat no matter whos) because we are designed by nature to do so. BUT we don't eat humans. Yes but we don't don't eat them because they are made of flesh but because they are humans. Technically we could eat humans of course but why eat your fellow man if you can breed animals? We don't eat humans because it's simply wrong and because we don't have to.
The argument is pretty solid if you ask me. You can apply it in both directions but simply because you can eat a human (human isn't just meat you know?) doesn't mean you eat him (in the nonsexual way ).
Unlike animals! We can eat animals.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 02:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What you don't seem to understand is what I already said earlier.
Yes it is logical to eat meat (meat just meat no matter whos) because we are designed by nature to do so. BUT we don't eat humans. Yes but we don't don't eat them because they are made of flesh but because they are humans. Technically we could eat humans of course but why eat your fellow man if you can breed animals? We don't eat humans because it's simply wrong and because we don't have to.
No it's not. You see with that argument we SHOULD be eating humans (if they are not helpful anyway, "survival of the fittest" is also nature's rule). If the reason it's ok to eat animals is because we are designed to eat meat, then that same reason can be applied to eating humans. We don't. It means that "reason" or argument is not solid.
Quote:
Unlike animals! We can eat animals.
And the argument for this is??? That we are designed to eat meat? That applies to humans too. The argument has no substance. That's my point. I don't know if I should go on, it's so obvious.
NOTE: I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, I'm saying that the argument has no substance. I'm only pointing out that good arguments are really hard to find in any discussion, and since this is the VW most probably I won't detail it.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 03:02 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 15:03, 21 Oct 2008.
|
Ok very simple:
Quote:
You see with that argument we SHOULD be eating humans
No the argument is for EATING MEAT. Not for "eating animals". It's for EATING MEAT.
The argument states that nature designed us to eat meat therefore it is ok to eat meat. The argument does not speficy the meat origin.
And now when it comes to meat we can choose between humans and animals. Obviously we pick the animals.
Clearer now? Still no substance?
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 03:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And now when it comes to meat we can choose between humans and animals. Obviously we pick the animals.
We can also pick neither.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 03:07 PM |
|
|
I get what you're saying but it doesn't really matter. The question was wether it is ok to eat meat. And I believe my argument is pretty damn logical and does have substance. If not I'd be happy if you'd point out as to how it still lacks substance.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 03:09 PM |
|
|
|
It's not ok because if there were only humans (no animals) you wouldn't say the same, because eating meat IMPLIES you have to "eat humans" (in this example), it's not like they aren't related...
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 04:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No it's not. You see with that argument we SHOULD be eating humans (if they are not helpful anyway, "survival of the fittest" is also nature's rule). If the reason it's ok to eat animals is because we are designed to eat meat, then that same reason can be applied to eating humans. We don't. It means that "reason" or argument is not solid.
The reason we don't eat each other is because we generally agree it's harmful to our species as a whole and we don't want to end up being the ones butchered ourselves. However from a strictly secular point of view, there is nothing bad about eating human meat. If a human died in a car accident or something and their body was intact, there would be no problem with cooking them up and eating them. This would be horrendous and gross to most people, but that's only because it's been brainwashed in them due to culture. There is no logical reason to not eat them if one chose to. In fact it would be efficient and resourceful. So it's actually illogical not to make use of their meat by eating it.
disclaimer: I'm not a cannibal.
|
|
B-E-T-A
Promising
Legendary Hero
Guess Who is Back?
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The main lack in a vegetarian diet is protein but that can easily be acquired from many sources.
I don't know if this is mentioned before(didn't read through it all), but we have just as big a rite to kill animals as animals have to kill plants and each other. Mabye you didn't think about it but plans IS ALSO LIVING! Just cause they don't usally move dosen't mean they don't live a good life, what right have we or other "animals"(we are also animals, and please don't come with the intellect thing) have to take away the lifes of the plants? Same consept.
Answer: It's the way of nature, get over it
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 04:40 PM |
|
|
Omg you people are bloodthirsty!
I eat meat myself - but I do agree that we are also animals and should respect our distant cousins (aka other animals).
Hunting animals is an evil act. Why cant you just go and buy your food like everybody else?
Just because other animals doesnt communicate the same like us etc doesnt mean they dont have feelings!
Saying that "hunted" meat tastes good is just selfish.
"Hi, I will go and kill a baby because it tastes good. Bye.".
And hunting is not needed. Its not like the Bears are going to form an army and storm all cities...
And if you are so scared that some other animals will attack you - then why even live in the forest or wilderness?
And hunting for fun is even more evil!
Where is the fun in killing other living creatures?
Of all people - hunters and "animal toturers" are the ones I most dislike.
I dont care about terrorists, mainly because im not affected by them and because the population of humans ARE TOO MANY!
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 04:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Answer: It's the way of nature, get over it
No, it was never "meant" that we would make almost all other animals extinct. It is not the way of nature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 21, 2008 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So it's actually illogical not to make use of their meat by eating it.
Illogical? I think it makes pretty much a lot of sense, illogical is when there's a fallacy, something FALSE, here it's obviously true and in fact, even reasonable. I'd advise people to be careful with their words especially regarding "logic" or "rationality" (latter being more subjective than you might think). Is that inconsistent? Nope, it's perfectly reasonable. Just because you find it "a waste" doesn't mean it's illogical. In fact, your statement is illogical, if I may so say
Quote:
disclaimer: I'm not a cannibal.
Doesn't that contradict your post?
Quote:
Answer: It's the way of nature, get over it
Survival of the Fittest is also the way of nature.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
