|
| Thread: Meet your Meat |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted March 07, 2011 03:17 PM |
|
|
While you certainly did do a good job to bring all this together, it can fairly easily be reduced to a couple of points.
Quote:
So you just said jews are mentally ill people or you completely missed out the relevant part of my example? It was not ONLY jews, it was all "sub races", such a jypsies and the slavics in general.
And there you are wrong. They wanted to exterminate the jews as the evil of the world. Period. Then they wanted to shut out things from the "Aryan" gene pool they deemed "unhealthy. It's called "Social Darwinism", and it was called "lifeunworthy" life for them. Homosexuals are a somewhat irrational part of this, gypsies were somewhat a mix of both. Slavics were - as subhumans - to be displaced behind the Urals and used as forced labor (which was in fact done with Russian prisoners of war in Germany (not in KZs)).
You should see the difference - they decided to EXTERMINATE certain humans - it has nothing to do with killing people, but with eradicating them. Rooting them out because they were either - ironically- deemed evil or detrimental to the superiority of the Master Race.
Slaughterhouses, however, don't have the purpose to EXTERMATE pigs or something.
Now for the main point:
{quote]
Quote:
Cattle is bred and, if the farmers keep the standards, have a normal life on a nice pasture, are free to wander around - until they are killed. They don't know that they will end in some slaughterhouse, not being allowed to live their natural span of time.
You couldn't do this with humans.
Mentaaaaally disableeeed. You could. You just replace farm with institution.
So your point is that mentally ill people wouldn't propbably realize what was happening to them - probably HAVEN'T realized what the Nazis did to them -, IF that WOULD happen to them? Well, OF COURSE not. CHILDREN wouldn't realize it either, IF they were sufficiently well lied to - think about Hänsel and Gretel, the famous fairy tale.
The point was, that for an animal it doesn't matter whether it's final purpose is landing in a slaughetrhouse, because it has no understanding and imagination of it - it just lives its life based on the PRESENT. It's fate is in no way detrimental to its life as long as it lasts. Which means that animals are NOT humans, since for humans this is different.
However, animals are not slaughtered BECAUSE of the fact that their life doesn't suffer from their final fate. (If it was, this would justify saying, ok, in that case why not slaughter mentally ill humans who cannot grasp the idea of ending in a slaughterhouse as well? However, slaughtering HUMANS isn't on the menu, so-to-speak.)
Because we still make a difference between humans and animals, because we believe there are some differences, while you and a couple of others CLAIM, that there is no difference, where it matters.
Which brings us to:
Quote:
Quote:
That, however, has nothing to do with the question whether it's right or not to kill and eat animals at all.
Exactly.
Quote:
I haven't seen any point so far that would support why it is wrong in general.
I haven't stated it's wrong to eat meat. I have stated that I find it wrong to kill. Anything alive. I find it superior not to eat meat.
So we know now that you find it superior to eat no meat because ou find it wrong to kill anything alive, but we do not know why you DO find it wrong to kill anything alive. After all, we all exist only because we did - and do.
So what I'm INFERRING is that you ASSUME some level of existance where living beings are equal - they live - and that it is wrong for HUMANS (mind the difference) to end ANY life (because of that level of equality) - which is paradox, except when you demand that it is generally wrong to end a life, for animals as well, which is obviously absurd, since animals do what they do by instinct.
The paradox is, that a VITAL difference is assumed between humans and animals, allowing humans to discern that it is wrong to take ANY life, but allowing animals to kill since they don't have the capacity for moral thought.
Question: Why would humans elevate the preservation of ALL life to highest priority (which is implicitely done when demanding this), when all living species except humans do not? I mean, what would that gain?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 03:54 PM |
|
|
@Skrentyz
Quote:
I, for one, DO look down at people who eat meat,
Am I wrong or did you previously claim yourself to be unemotional? Do you not realize that contempt is an emotional response, and a particularly ugly one at that?
This is what I mean by "no emotional restraint", which (at the risk of provoking your ire - another emotion  ) is rather indicative of intellectual and rhetorical immaturity. All humans use emotions to form opinions and make judgments - but we err when we try to pass them off as a component of the analytical portion of decision making.
If you wish to make decisions based primarily on logic, you need to learn to suppress such emotions and not let them cloud your judgment. Furthermore, if you truly believe your position is the correct one, and wish to convince other people of this fact, then you need to avoid statements such as that quoted above. Statements of emotional belief will only provoke similar statements in response, a cycle that will undoubtedly escalate until nothing can be heard above the noise.
Stick to the facts and stick to logic. We will all be better off. I may very well think that all vegetarians are self-important, naive boobs - but coloring my post with such language isn't very productive and isn't the route to thought-provoking discussion. I'd rather dedicate my time to pointing out the problems with their arguments than painting them with overly broad, insulting brush-strokes.
But that's just me.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 04:29 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 16:36, 07 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
So now I'll come back to the part, which Fauch quoted and the next statement arrived from. I've marked it with blue, to make the quote easy to find. Here you argue how animals can have a good life before they're killed, without getting any emotional distress.
Again, probably true, again completely irrelevant, as this is about killing.
In any case, Fauch is smart enough to show you, that this comparision can be done with humans as well. Humans that have no imagination, humans who may not even know they live. In other words, people within a range of mental trauma and illness.
actually, I was rather thinking about something like voluntary servitude. which doesn't require people to be more deficient than the average.
corribus :
it's better to keep a good balance of emotions. if you are too emotionnal, it could be a problem, but also if you aren't emotionnal enough, then you might harm other people without feeling anything wrong about it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 04:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Exterminate, erradicate, kill... You may find it relevant for the analogy that the farmers wants to breed a new generation of cattle. While killing people in any given settings, this most likely have not been the case.
I however don't find it relevant for the analogy at all. The point is, what you wrote, it works with humans. Does it mean humans have no value then?
What has it got do do with VALUE? Cattle obviously has a lot of value. What you are talking about is LIFE, and you are STILL silently making no difference between humans and animals.
It seems to me that you are unable to see the wrong conclusion you are making - I repeat, animals are not killed BECAUSE they do not suffer under negative impressions or the knowledge where it leads to - it's just negating the suffering point. It's completely irrelevant that there are some humans who MIGHt not suffer either, because humans don't eat themselves, whether they would suffer or not.
Quote:
Because one have no knowledge, or even concept, of the future, does not mean one will not once meet that future.
So what?
Quote:
Quote:
but we do not know why you DO find it wrong to kill anything alive.
Fine, I'll find it for you. We actually had this exact discussion before.
I find it wrong to kill anything, because life is always better than death. Here's the thread that explains why I think so, where you'll find yourself not able to understand my point anyhow:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=32923&pagenumber=1
I already mentioned - I think - that if that is your point it's illogical. You said that life/death is better than not existing at all, if I remember right - which is exactly what is happening with cattle. So what are you complaining? Each life ends anyway, eventually.
Quote:
Quote:
and that it is wrong for HUMANS[ANYONE]
Quote:
which is obviously absurd, since animals do what they do by instinct.
There's a difference between preventing and explaining.
I'm at a loss what that is supposed to mean. There is a difference, right. Where is the connection?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 04:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I believe Fauchs post was to make you aware that the way you were describing animals, at least in the quoted part, was equivalent to how, e.g. mentally ill persons were threated in Germany during WWII.
Depending on the illness, the analogy could in principle fit rather good.
Do I need to remind you that what was in Germany was common around the world? The only difference is that they did the govermental version instead of hiding them everywhere.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
I'm at a loss what that is supposed to mean. There is a difference, right. Where is the connection?
The point is. I don't force my morals down on other. I make my own decisions from them, I don't decide for anyone else.
But you comment on the "morals" of others, when they are different from yours, and you try to "debate" them. You announce what you think is superior - I still don't see the connection with the paradox I mentioned.
Quote:
Quote:
You said that life/death is better than not existing at all, if I remember right - which is exactly what is happening with cattle. So what are you complaining? Each life ends anyway, eventually.
There's a risk death is equivalent to nothing at all. We don't know.
We don't know if there's any limitiation of the amount of states that defines being alive.
So? In which way is this negating the fact that according to you a life/death cycle would be better than non-existance - which is exactly the case with cattle?
Quote:
So even with no imagination. No concent of the future. The future still happens. It becomes the present, eventually. Then the past.
The animal is still killed.
We are talking about the point ov view of the animal, and since the animal is living exclusively in the present its POSSIBLE (it cannot know its future) is of no consequence. One moment it was on the pasture, the next it's dead - but doesn't know it is. It makes no sense to lament every life that has been lost what you would define as premature on the planet and will be lost - that is too abstract.
Quote:
Quote:
and you are STILL silently making no difference between humans and animals.
silently?
Okay to make it obvious.
There are three groups I put everyone in.
#1 Those I love and care about.
#2 Everything alive.
#3 Everything not alive.
You can make as many groups as you want, but you cannot expect people to agree with you. In fact you must expect contradiction when you state tzhat your ideas are "superior" which you did.
I don't think they are.
Quote:
Quote:
It seems to me that you are unable to see the wrong conclusion you are making
What conclusions are you refering to?
Quote:
it's just negating the suffering point.
I know. That was also the only intention of statement 2.
Don't you see that would be true only if I supported your division into groups which I don't, AND animals and people would be killed BECAUSE they didn't suffer from it.
How someone can conclude that I support eradicating mentally ill people because I invalidate the suffering argument with animals is beyond me. YOu may think mentally ill people are like cattle. I do not. You may think cattle has no value for me. That is wrong. You may think mentally ill people have no value for me either. That is wrong as well.
However, I don't worship life either. Dying is part of living, and killing may be an act of mercy or self-defence. Life is vulnerable and may end in many unpleasant or unexpected ways, and there is no way to avoid that. On one hand there is the multitude of teeming life, on the other individuality - for humans - who struggle with the idea that the individual may die.
Life, that is fairly obvious, doesn't care for the individual. HUMANS do. Caring for life other than the little ones is something only humans do - as far as I know. Are other species helping their sick and wounded? Even the sick and wounded of other species? I don't think so.
So, FOR ME, this justifies a separate category for humans.
And here we are back at the paradox I mentioned.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 07:37 PM |
|
|
Ohfor:
This is your statement:
Quote:
Statement 2: In my perspective, JJ comes off as someone who supports extermination of mentally ill people.
That is, why do I come off as someone like that? Because *I* write something about cattle are not suffering in any way, but are only killed when their time has come.
Then Fauch says, you can do the same with humams and starts with Nazi gassing camps - as if that would invalidate the fact that cattle are not suffering. See, with concentration camps, whether mentally ill or a Jew, it doesn't matter whether they suffer or not, because it's wrong no matter what.
With animals, one point because it is SUPPOSED to be wrong, is the suffering of the animal - which I contradicted.
For your sake I hope you see the difference, and that there is no connection.
Which is the last thing I have to say to this.
Now for the paradox:
This is what I wrote:
Quote:
So what I'm INFERRING is that you ASSUME some level of existance where living beings are equal - they live - and that it is wrong for HUMANS (mind the difference) to end ANY life (because of that level of equality)
Now, YOU crossed out HUMANS, by ANYONE. So this means:
Quote:
- which is paradox, except when you demand that it is generally wrong to end a life, for animals as well, which is obviously absurd, since animals do what they do by instinct.
So what we have is not a paradox, but something absurd, because animals follow their instinct and have no choice. A predator will kill by instinct - it lives of it. Others will live from the cadaver. How can that be wrong?
So you can pick between absurd (predators are doing something wrong) and paradox (humans are supposed to be equal with animals, but should behave differently because they ARE different; they are either equal or different).
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 07:50 PM |
|
|
@Ohffs
Quote:
I don't see the connection between 3 and 4. 3 is immoral, but 4? I don't understand. Unless it's eating the animal that kills it.
Note, this isn't my argument.
It's actually divided into two separate IF,THEN statements.
(1)
IF killing an animal is equivlanet to killing a human
AND
IF killing a human is immoral,
THEN killing an animal is immoral.
(2)
IF killing an animal is immoral
AND
IF you MUST kill an animal in order to eat it,
THEN eating an animal is immoral.
Clearer now?
There is no problem with this logic. However, as I stated earlier, I contest the validity of several of the "IF" statements.
By the way, I think it's a great exercise for anyone who holds any belief to write out said belief using very clear IF,THEN statements. For one thing, it will help to find problems with your logic. For another, it will really help you to see what assumptions and premises your beliefs are based upon - and make them easier for you to question or justify when called upon to do so.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 07:55 PM |
|
|
Yes it's much clearer. I know it's not your statement, it's skrentzys, I've read the thread.
One more question though. Isn't this only applied for a single person? What if someone else kills the animal?
I mean, if I stumble upon a dead animal on the road I had nothing to do with and eats it, it wouldn't mean I'd killed it (which is the immoral action I believe).
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 08:09 PM |
|
|
@ohffs
Quote:
I mean, if I stumble upon a dead animal on the road I had nothing to do with and eats it, it wouldn't mean I'd killed it (which is the immoral action I believe).
Well, that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of. What is the central point of immorality here? The killing, the eating, what? I guess we'll have to wait for Skrentyz to clarify his position.
|
|
SkrentyzMienty
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 09:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@griffin-guy:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that terrible?
Yes it is!
Should such treatment be allow?
Never and nowhere on this planet!
Should Humans eat meat or drink milk?
Yes they should if they so wish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should rapists rape?
-Yes if they so wish.
Should child molestors molest kids?
-Yes if they so wish.
Should serial killers slaughter people?
-Yes if they so wish.
Should suicide bombers detonate themselves in highly populated areas?
-Yes if they so wish.
Sould Muslim men have the right to flush their wives faces with acid?
-Yes if they so wish.
Sould I blow your head off?
-Yes if I so wish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with those are that where the first is not in any way limiting the freedom of something alive through force, all the rest are.
Keeping animals (cows for example) on slaughter farms for their entire lives isn't limiting their freedom and against their will? Inseminating them to keep them perpetually pregnant and produce milk is not against their freedom? Isn't sticking metal tubes into their stomachs and shoving food directly through it? Isn't killing newborn pigs that are ill/small by smacking them head-down on pavement? What about forcing them to spend their lives in isolated cages and away from others preventing socialising? Should I keep going?
Freedom and abuse in prison are mutually exclusive ideas...
|
|
SkrentyzMienty
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 09:36 PM |
|
|
It has all to do with eating the animal once it's slaughtered, because it is only having all that inflicted on it and eventually killed SO you can eat it then.
In other words, if there was no demand from meat consumers, no animals would be killed, you don't suppose people slaughter animals for fun and flush their corpses down the toilet afterwards do you?
Claiming it has nothing to do with eating the animal afterwards, is like a necrophilic-pedophile saying raping a dead child has nothing to do with them being previously killed by him.
Are you saying this nonsense to test my ability to respond and justify my statements, or are you actually serious?
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 09:40 PM |
|
|
The things you wrote were limiting the freedom of said animals.
However, the actual eating of the animal can't limit the freedom of the animal.
Because something that's not alive, at least in this world, have no freedom over the body that's left within this world.
About your whole, if we didn't eat it, it wouldn't be slaugthered, read earlier posts, it's no way certain. Animals are slaughtered for other reasons than to be eaten, even non productive "safety" reasons, or plain economical reasons.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 09:47 PM |
|
|
@Skrentyz
Quote:
Claiming it has nothing to do with eating the animal afterwards, is like a necrophilic-pedophile saying raping a dead child has nothing to do with them being previously killed by him. Are you saying this nonsense to test my ability to respond and justify my statements, or are you actually serious?
This is a flawed analogy.
If nothing else, you still haven't adequately justified (as I earlier requested) the assertion that animal and human life are functionally equivalent, quantitatively or qualitatively.
Seriously, your stance so far is resting on fallacious appeals to emotion. You haven't really justified any of your statements; rather it's more of a 'I feel this is so, therefore it is so' type of argument. That might work for you, of course. But everyone has their own sets of emotions, so if you want to get at some fundamental TRUTH, you're going to have to go deeper than that.
|
|
SkrentyzMienty
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 10:15 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 10:57 PM |
|
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted March 07, 2011 11:36 PM |
|
|
@ Griff dude: Have you ever been on an actual farm? With animals (such as cows)? Let me go through something with you here, please.
Quote:
Keeping animals (cows for example) on slaughter farms for their entire lives isn't limiting their freedom and against their will?[/quote
They honestly don't seem to care. Ever.
Quote:
Inseminating them to keep them perpetually pregnant and produce milk is not against their freedom?
? I'm pretty certain that they are given a break at some time. Logic and stories of running the farm from my grand father dictate that they would need a break if only to keep themselves from dieing from mal-nutrition.
Quote:
Isn't sticking metal tubes into their stomachs and shoving food directly through it?
Two things wrong with this one...
1) What kind of farmer would ever do this on a mass scale for an animal not on the verge of death? (The equipment needed to do this is expensive.)
2) Are you saying that it is morally wrong to do the exact same thing with humans who are on death's door (IE: 3rd degree burn victims, people who have been suffering from malnutrition, people in comas) Quote:
Isn't killing newborn pigs that are ill/small by smacking them head-down on pavement?
... You live in a developed country, right?
Quote:
What about forcing them to spend their lives in isolated cages and away from others preventing socialising?
Again, ever been on a real farm? Cows are never separated. Neither are pigs, goats, chickens and any other animal raised for food unless the animal is sick. Also, another human example *Disclaimer: None of this example should be taken with any seriousness*, you could say that the same principal can be almost applied to office jobs. You get your cubical, you get your assignment and then you sit down and work all day without talking to anyone because you don't get to go outside your cubical. 
Quote:
Should I keep going?
Should I?
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted March 08, 2011 01:02 AM |
|
|
Regarding the morality of eating meat, life consumes life to sustain itself.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 08, 2011 06:48 AM |
|
|
There is nothing wrong with eating meat.
From a theistic point of view, God gifted man with the world to use responsibly as he sees fit. Animals and plants were specificly named as food sources in the Bible.
I can hardly see why an atheist would object to people eating meat. It is the natural order of things.
I suppose PETA considers lions and sharks to be murderers.
I have chosen to be a vegetarian personally.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted March 08, 2011 12:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Regarding the morality of eating meat, life consumes life to sustain itself.
no offense at all and i do point out a majority holds this view in a communal affirmed social acceptance way....
but it should not need to be explained the fine points in the response that entire lives based on filling ones bellow for a partial of one day should at the least encourage the majority to take more actions and attempts to reduce suffering.
|
| |
|
|
