Page 5 of 8 [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 2:47 pm

Omerik wrote:
It is not valid for me.
I'm against death penalty, and against violence overall.
If in some cases violence is a must, it's a special case.

Self-defense is okay - how is eating an animals self-defense?
So an animal kills another animal. Does that mean we can kill this animal as well?
If so, whenever your child acts violently - just use the same violence on him... It's okay, because he is also violent. That's the logic you're using, as I see it.

Well, I am not a pacifist.

I also don't have problems with spanking.

Thirdly, if the world really does work in a certain manner, then what's the point in acting against such issues? You won't get brownie points, and it might even be that you are the absurd one for taking such a stand.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 2:48 pm

Meadow wrote:
I do eat meat on rare occasions but when I do I experience quite a bit of conflict on many levels. I haven't crossed over completely but that doesn't mean I approve of the extremely poor treatment I see of animals by certain brutes known as "humans". I know a lot about health and nutrition but I don't know everything. I still eat eggs on occasion for health reasons and dairy because I love it but I don't feel good about that either because of the malpractice that takes place with raising and farming animals. I buy products as much as possible however from respectable, responsible sources when I do use those products. I do hope to see improvement in the ethical standards for farming, housing and slaughtering animals because I don't think it will ever be done away with. I prefer whole foods and lean more toward a vegetarian diet for the most part though I am not 100% as yet and I have gone the vegan route but found it a little extreme because you do have to know much more about nutrition if you're going to go that route but from the information I've gathered it appears it can be done though I have gotten conflicting information on that and haven't been able to weigh it up enough to know for sure. So anyway, that's where I stand. It's just very hard to relate to where you're coming from with the total, complete lack of sensitivity concerning animal cruelty and welfare.

I think meat is tasty. I am also a very insensitive seeming person.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

29 Jan 2010, 2:54 pm

Logically, insensitivity is a lack of emotion that can cloud judgment, just as hypersensitivity can cloud it.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 3:00 pm

Magnus wrote:
Logically, insensitivity is a lack of emotion that can cloud judgment, just as hypersensitivity can cloud it.

Hmm..... no. I don't think so. It is a lack of perspective that can cloud judgment, but the issue is the perspective and not the emotion.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

29 Jan 2010, 3:03 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Magnus wrote:
Logically, insensitivity is a lack of emotion that can cloud judgment, just as hypersensitivity can cloud it.

Hmm..... no. I don't think so. It is a lack of perspective that can cloud judgment, but the issue is the perspective and not the emotion.


If we had no emotion, then it would be logical to kill half of the people on the planet. Is it ethical? That is a philosophical question. We need to be balanced. Genius is found in the equilibrium of emotion meeting reason. If you have no emotion, your conclusions are unsound. If you have too many emotions, errors in logic occur.


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Markie
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

29 Jan 2010, 3:24 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Who holds the power? People do.

Exactly.
And what comes with power?
In case you truly don't know, it's... responsibility.
Responsibility to those without power.
To children, the disabled, the old, women, etc.
Or do you beat, rape and kill them too, just because you can?

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
That's why we kill all of the other creatures at our disposal.

Perhaps you do. I don't. Unless it's mosquitoes.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
We created the society. We hold the power.

Obviously. And what a great job we're doing, aren't we?
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, right?
So you're okay if I rob you, just because I'm stronger than you?
I mean if nobody sees it and you can't prove it, what "right" would you like to plead to to protect you? And what makes you think I wouldn't laugh at your pleading?


Awesomelyglorious wrote:
We own the animals. We've owned and eaten animals for generations.

Yea, we've owned human slaves for generations and cannibal tribes have eaten humans for generations.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I mean, there is no exact definition of a human society.

I'm glad you agree. :-)

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
In any case, though, you're not really presenting arguments now, are you?

Oh yes. I am. And I'm bugging you with them... ;-)

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Look, my position is simple.

I agree. ;-)

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Animals exist to be eaten or used by us.

Perhaps we exist to be eaten by others? Tigers, cannibals...

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
They cannot live autonomously in our society.

As said, YOU are not presenting any arguments.
Like children, mentally disabled, etc. could. Do we eat and experiment on them?


Awesomelyglorious wrote:
There is no reason to waste our land on free lands for them or our money on resources for them, as they have no right to it.

Yea, and maybe we should change that?

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
We've bred them for generations to be useless outside of what we've traditionally used them for, such as to be food objects. Their continued existence is solely dependent on how they please us, and how a good number of them please us is by allowing us to cheaply consume their bodies.

That is true, but again, you are not presenting an argument.
It's true what you say, but that in no way makes it right.
The Nazis gassed Jews. That is true. So does that mean that was right?
In your belief system it does.
I suggest you invest some time in beefing it up.
You've been left standing at the green light with a stalled motor!
;-)

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I think meat is tasty.

I agree. Even more so, we also need the protein.
That's why modern man invented tasty veggie meat replacements.
Want me to send you a picture of the smoked veggie sausages, steaks, etc. in my fridge?
I still love meat, just the kind which no animal was killed for.
It tastes double good, going down AND thinking about it... Ahhhh... :-)
Note: I'm not trying to convince you to do likewise, I'm presenting an argument here.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I am also a very insensitive seeming person.

That's O.K., just don't be it.
:-)



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 3:29 pm

Magnus wrote:
If we had no emotion, then it would be logical to kill half of the people on the planet. Is it ethical? That is a philosophical question. We need to be balanced. Genius is found in the equilibrium of emotion meeting reason. If you have no emotion, your conclusions are unsound. If you have too many emotions, errors in logic occur.

No, it probably wouldn't be logical to kill half of the planet. I mean, a big question is "who will do the killing?". I don't think we could ever have agreement on that matter. Too many fights would happen just in the effort, especially as some parties that we'd want peace with might actually believe that we'll come after them next. And it certainly isn't worth a fight between powers to get rid of the half we'd want to get rid of. An additional issue to worry about is the disruption of trade. Finally, an additional issue is whether it really is beneficial. Most halves of the world are good guinea pigs for some study.

Genius is not an equilibrium. Genius is genius, and it is the ability to revolutionize perspective, not a matter of emotion.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

29 Jan 2010, 3:51 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Magnus wrote:
If we had no emotion, then it would be logical to kill half of the people on the planet. Is it ethical? That is a philosophical question. We need to be balanced. Genius is found in the equilibrium of emotion meeting reason. If you have no emotion, your conclusions are unsound. If you have too many emotions, errors in logic occur.

No, it probably wouldn't be logical to kill half of the planet. I mean, a big question is "who will do the killing?". I don't think we could ever have agreement on that matter. Too many fights would happen just in the effort, especially as some parties that we'd want peace with might actually believe that we'll come after them next. And it certainly isn't worth a fight between powers to get rid of the half we'd want to get rid of. An additional issue to worry about is the disruption of trade. Finally, an additional issue is whether it really is beneficial. Most halves of the world are good guinea pigs for some study.

Genius is not an equilibrium. Genius is genius, and it is the ability to revolutionize perspective, not a matter of emotion.[/quote

Dogs are not like asparagus.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1X55b6t-UM&feature=related[/youtube]


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

29 Jan 2010, 3:52 pm

Dogs are nothing like asparagus.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiiG3-yU7k&NR=1&feature=fvwp[/youtube]


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 3:55 pm

Markie wrote:
Exactly.
And what comes with power?
In case you truly don't know, it's... responsibility.
Responsibility to those without power.
To children, the disabled, the old, women, etc.
Or do you beat, rape and kill them too, just because you can?

I don't really want to rape children and old people.

Not only that, but really, old people have more power than young people. Who votes more often? As for children, well, what constitutes a child? We already allow for abortions of fetuses in the womb, and from what I've heard, sometimes efforts to prevent young with genetic diseases(such as retardation) from making it on are promoted. Heck, it is actually the case that Peter Singer, a major animal rights activist would allow for the killing of newborns. There really isn't a consistency in this matter.

In any case though, no, there is no responsibility to the powerless. At most there is responsibility to promote efficiency, and killing animals to eat them is very efficient at the moment. There is no other way to get meat than to kill animals, and I am pretty sure people are willing to pay the premium for land and other resources to get meat.

Quote:
Perhaps you do. I don't. Unless it's mosquitoes.

Because mosquitoes are the evil animals?

Quote:
Obviously. And what a great job we're doing, aren't we?
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, right?
So you're okay if I rob you, just because I'm stronger than you?
I mean if nobody sees it and you can't prove it, what "right" would you like to plead to to protect you? And what makes you think I wouldn't laugh at your pleading?

That's why I believe in gun ownership. Who is stronger is more of an open question if one or more parties is holding a gun. In any case, that's also the reason why clarity on these matters is important. In any case though, society is always run by might making right, the issue is a question of who has the might? The more of a coalition it is, the more of an open question it is.

Quote:
Yea, we've owned human slaves for generations and cannibal tribes have eaten humans for generations.

Sure, the problem is that for most things, slaves aren't very efficient. The only exception is sex, and a lot of that is due to the legal issues. Cannibal tribes have eaten humans for generations, and unless they integrate with the modern world, they will continue to make these efforts. When they integrate though, it will be more important to get human flesh through more proper channels.

Quote:
Oh yes. I am. And I'm bugging you with them... ;-)

No, you are trying to mess with my ideas to see if they are consistent on some level.

Quote:
Quote:
Animals exist to be eaten or used by us.

Perhaps we exist to be eaten by others? Tigers, cannibals...

No, we have guns, they don't.

Quote:
As said, YOU are not presenting any arguments.
Like children, mentally disabled, etc. could. Do we eat and experiment on them?

Children are usually considered "pre-persons", they are in a special position because they have future personhood, and because they are considered to belong to the parents somewhat and to society as well. As for the mentally disabled... well... often they die. In the past we actually would sterilize them at times. I doubt we tend to eat them though simply because very few people want to do that. Experimenting on the mentally handicapped also has it's problems, but it could be viable if we really needed the resources.

Quote:
Yea, and maybe we should change that?

No, we obviously shouldn't. It's a waste.

Quote:
That is true, but again, you are not presenting an argument.
It's true what you say, but that in no way makes it right.
The Nazis gassed Jews. That is true. So does that mean that was right?
In your belief system it does.
I suggest you invest some time in beefing it up.
You've been left standing at the green light with a stalled motor!
;-)

I know, neither side has been presenting arguments. Neither side can. I may have said this here, but I know said this in one location.

Well, if the Nazis won then all of our textbooks would say that it was right and many of us today would agree. We'd even cite Hitler's arguments about Jewish conspiracies and so on to argue this case.

In any case, it was wrong. Why? We had more guns.

Quote:
I agree. Even more so, we also need the protein.
That's why modern man invented tasty veggie meat replacements.
Want me to send you a picture of the smoked veggie sausages, steaks, etc. in my fridge?
I still love meat, just the kind which no animal was killed for.
It tastes double good, going down AND thinking about it... Ahhhh... :-)
Note: I'm not trying to convince you to do likewise, I'm presenting an argument here.

No, you actually aren't presenting an argument. You are attempting to undercut one of my rationales. The issue is that fake meat often doesn't taste as good as real meat.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

29 Jan 2010, 3:57 pm

Can you hear me now?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L28CnhmeAD4&feature=related[/youtube]


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

29 Jan 2010, 4:01 pm

You're right, dogs are nothing like asparagus. Dogs are meat. Meat tends to be better tasting than asparagus.



Magnus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,372
Location: Claremont, California

29 Jan 2010, 4:05 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
You're right, dogs are nothing like asparagus. Dogs are meat. Meat tends to be better tasting than asparagus.


Another f*****g robot...


_________________
As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other.

-Pythagoras


Meadow
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Dec 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,067

29 Jan 2010, 5:43 pm

^^^ My cats are that smart too, all animals are, it's just people haven't taken the time to notice or figure it out, and I guess some or many will never care anyway.



Markie
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

29 Jan 2010, 5:46 pm

Awesomelyglorious:

Oh boy, you're a real "tough nut" aren't ya?
I think you're arguing here for the mere pleasure of arguing. Or boredom?
You fail to acknowledge when others make arguments, but insist instead that every argument they make is an effort to undercut your... what was it? your "rationales"...
Isn't that a little a biased, skewed and thus immature way of discussing?

Why is it, if we call arguments "rationales" instead of what they are, namely arguments, why is it that only your "rationales" are deemed "rationales", while all other people's are mere efforts to undercut yours?
Is it perhaps so that you can continue to be an ignorant egoist and so that you can uphold an image of others as lacking "rationales" (which you simply choose to call something else when they are made by anyone but you), in other words as being simply not "rational"?
How convenient. And immature. (not meant personally, just an analysis of your argumentation style)

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
The issue is that fake meat often doesn't taste as good as real meat.

I know when I provide an argument, you call that not an argument, but an effort to undercut your "rationales", but I'll still do it, and I'll call it an argument no matter how biased your view of communication between you and others seems to be:
Again, you spoke the truth: Often or even mostly, fake meat doesn't taste as good as real meat. But that's not the only quality fake meat has. Fake meat, unlike real meat has the quality that one knows that no animal suffered for it, was killed or treated without respect.
That quality might not mean anything to you, but it is a quality and my mentioning it is an argument. Mr. "undercutting my rationales"...

And in regards to you're belief in guns protecting you or making you equally strong as me if am stronger than you, what would you say if I hired 2-3 guys with machine guns to rob you?
Would you still whine about your right not to be robbed because you have a right to hold a gun, etc.? Or if I simply shot you from behind with a sniper rifle?
Where would YOUR rights, those which you deem so important, be then?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jan 2010, 6:26 pm

Tomasu wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights_movement#Terms

^^ Greetings everyone. The link above briefly explains the beliefs (many of them set out in Peter Singer's Animal Liberation) surrounding animal rights. I cannot understand why non-humans are viewed as inferior and less important than humans. These movements almost match my happy beliefs completely, however I disagree with some ways in which they put across their ideas, mainly those that involve violence such as arson. ^^ I believe I am rather curious of the views of individuals here, although I know many here eat meat. Sorry if I this causes any trouble.


Why should the fact that I eat meat cause trouble?

I don't eat anything I don't own or was not given to me as a gift.

ruveyn