Log in:  

Register

Veganism

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Eshnar, Irondan, King Boonen, Red Rick, Pricey_sky

Veganism

20 Sep 2014 15:51

Mod note: Posts originally posted in thread "Pros & Cons of a Vegan Diet for Weight Loss & Cycling Performance?" Moved to new thread.

kingjr wrote:Eating animals tastes better than food supplements though.


Vegans are not taking supplements instead of eating food, you know... That's why they are called supplements. Besides, one can easily find B12 fortified vegan food, especially soy milk, which allows to easily reach the recomended daily intake of said vitamin without supplements.

B12 is produced by bacteria, not animals, and there will come the time when soils are so polluted, meat-eaters will have to take supplements too. In fact, every person above the age of 50, vegan or not, is recomended to take B12 supplements. Those animals you talk about though, they have an interest in living, they feel pain and experience subjectivity. To place taste over that...
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,352
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

20 Sep 2014 16:05

BigMac wrote:Vegans are not taking supplements instead of eating food, you know... That's why they are called supplements. Besides, one can easily find B12 fortified vegan food, especially soy milk, which allows to easily reach the recomended daily intake of said vitamin without supplements.

B12 is produced by bacteria, not animals, and there will come the time when soils are so polluted, meat-eaters will have to take supplements too. In fact, every person above the age of 50, vegan or not, is recomended to take B12 supplements. Those animals you talk about though, they have an interest in living, they feel pain and experience subjectivity. To place taste over that...

what then :confused: These animals probably would have never been born in the first place if they wouldn't be eaten.
Only proper cycling fans appreciate flat sprint stages - Strawberry_jams
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,575
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

20 Sep 2014 16:19

kingjr wrote:what then :confused: These animals probably would have never been born in the first place if they wouldn't be eaten.


That doesn't make any sence. Any. Of course they would have never been born. Would you be thankful to be given life just to be eaten after? I mean, if it wasn't for you to be eaten, you would have never been born in the first place. If they weren't born, they could never desire life. There's no discussion here. Do you think animals are keen on being exploited and then killed as a form of gratitude for their mothers being artificially impregnated by humans?
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,352
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

20 Sep 2014 16:51

BigMac wrote:That doesn't make any sence. Any. Of course they would have never been born. Would you be thankful to be given life just to be eaten after? I mean, if it wasn't for you to be eaten, you would have never been born in the first place. If they weren't born, they could never desire life. There's no discussion here. Do you think animals are keen on being exploited and then killed as a form of gratitude for their mothers being artificially impregnated by humans?


Would I be thankful? Depends on the life I've had up to that point.


And you're right, there's no discussion. Either you feel bad about eating animals or you don't. I don't, you do. And that's the end of it. And now I'll keep looking forward to that excellent, juicy venison steak I'm gonna eat in Austria next summer.
Only proper cycling fans appreciate flat sprint stages - Strawberry_jams
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,575
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

20 Sep 2014 17:03

kingjr wrote:Would I be thankful? Depends on the life I've had up to that point.


So depending on the life you had up to that point, you could be thankful that some men artificially impregnated your mother so they could eat you once you were a few years old or milk you til you were five and eventually send you to slaughterhouse. Really sounds like something to be thankful.

And you're right, there's no discussion. Either you feel bad about eating animals or you don't. I don't, you do. And that's the end of it. And now I'll keep looking forward to that excellent, juicy venison steak I'm gonna eat in Austria next summer.


Mister and Missus We Hate Blacks once said, ''either you feel bad about owning slaves or you don't. We don't, you do. And that's the end of it.''
To the underlined, people complain about vegans, but I am still to meet the meat-eater who engages in discussion with me and doesn't write this sort of sad mockery.

This is going off topic, so If we could go back to the B12 nonsense, everyone would appreciate.
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,352
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

20 Sep 2014 18:14

BigMac wrote:So depending on the life you had up to that point, you could be thankful that some men artificially impregnated your mother so they could eat you once you were a few years old or milk you til you were five and eventually send you to slaughterhouse. Really sounds like something to be thankful.

It's better than nothing I'd say.

BigMac wrote:Mister and Missus We Hate Blacks once said, ''either you feel bad about owning slaves or you don't. We don't, you do. And that's the end of it.''
To the underlined, people complain about vegans, but I am still to meet the meat-eater who engages in discussion with me and doesn't write this sort of sad mockery.

There is nothing to discuss.

And last time I checked black people were humans and not animals.
Only proper cycling fans appreciate flat sprint stages - Strawberry_jams
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,575
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

20 Sep 2014 18:42

kingjr wrote:It's better than nothing I'd say.


No it's not better than nothing. No one in their right mind would choose to be born just to live a life of suffering. These animals are born with death sentence. Would you say that's better than nothing? If it was you, would you be thankful and say that ''well at least I lived a few years, about 1/4 of my natural longevity, now I'm coing to be slaughtered and eaten''? No you wouldn't, you would wish you were never born. Because if you were never born, you would have no desire for life as you wouldn't even know what that is. You think you're doing those animals a favour by artificially inseminating them, exploiting them, torturing and then killing them? Well you couldn't be further away from reality.

There is nothing to discuss.

And last time I checked black people were humans and not animals.


Let me rephrase that. From the meat-eaters who engaged in discussion with me (including you), I am still to meet one who doesn't write such sad mockery as you did.

And point is, they [animals] suffer (shocker !) as much as you do. As humans do. What makes you think that they are not entitled to a life without suffering? Both are sentient. To quote Jeremy Bentham:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,352
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

20 Sep 2014 23:07

BigMac wrote:No it's not better than nothing. No one in their right mind would choose to be born just to live a life of suffering. These animals are born with death sentence. Would you say that's better than nothing? If it was you, would you be thankful and say that ''well at least I lived a few years, about 1/4 of my natural longevity, now I'm coing to be slaughtered and eaten''? No you wouldn't, you would wish you were never born. Because if you were never born, you would have no desire for life as you wouldn't even know what that is. You think you're doing those animals a favour by artificially inseminating them, exploiting them, torturing and then killing them? Well you couldn't be further away from reality.

I would like to ask animals if they would prefer to have never lived instead of being eaten, i doubt I'd get an answer. You can make assumptions all you want but don't fool yourself into thinking that you know what goes on in their minds. And again, you ask me whether I would be thankful for having lived 1/4 of my natural longevitiy and again I say it depends on the quality of life up to that point.

BigMac wrote:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse?
But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?



It's not a relevant question to me. Black people are humans. Animals are animals and therefore potential food, if they're edible. Naturally it's preferable if they're killed quickly.

Maybe plants feel pain too in a way.
Only proper cycling fans appreciate flat sprint stages - Strawberry_jams
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,575
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

21 Sep 2014 02:23

BigMac wrote:No it's not better than nothing. No one in their right mind would choose to be born just to live a life of suffering. These animals are born with death sentence. Would you say that's better than nothing? If it was you, would you be thankful and say that ''well at least I lived a few years, about 1/4 of my natural longevity, now I'm coing to be slaughtered and eaten''? No you wouldn't, you would wish you were never born. Because if you were never born, you would have no desire for life as you wouldn't even know what that is. You think you're doing those animals a favour by artificially inseminating them, exploiting them, torturing and then killing them? Well you couldn't be further away from reality.



Let me rephrase that. From the meat-eaters who engaged in discussion with me (including you), I am still to meet one who doesn't write such sad mockery as you did.

And point is, they [animals] suffer (shocker !) as much as you do. As humans do. What makes you think that they are not entitled to a life without suffering? Both are sentient. To quote Jeremy Bentham:


We shouldn't cause animals to suffer, I agree to a point. BUT. There is a fundamental difference between animals and humans. It doesn't make the local news every time someone kills a chicken....it generally does when someone kills another human. I think there is a reason for that. It is because (for the most part) humans understand that human life is more precious than animals. Animals are not humans (most would disagree with me on this point :), But I would say it is because animals don't have souls. They are not made in the image of God.) Animals have been given to us to enjoy, to help us with work (in our modern society this reason is used far less), and to eat. There is nothing morally wrong with eating animals. It is wrong to make an animal suffer for no reason - Dog fighting and some of the terrible stuff that happens along those lines. While they are alive we should treat them with care. But there is nothing wrong with quickly killing an animal for food. It is wrong to eat human flesh. :)
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,541
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

21 Sep 2014 13:21

kingjr wrote:I would like to ask animals if they would prefer to have never lived instead of being eaten, i doubt I'd get an answer. You can make assumptions all you want but don't fool yourself into thinking that you know what goes on in their minds. And again, you ask me whether I would be thankful for having lived 1/4 of my natural longevitiy and again I say it depends on the quality of life up to that point.


You don't get it. If they were not born, they could never desire life. They wouldn't be aware of their existence. These animals are brought to life with the sole purpose of being killed. This animals don't get a choice for living their natural lives, they are born with death sentence. As a human, would you be thankful that someone brought you up to life with the sole purpose of killing you once you were a few years old, or would you wish you were never born? Because if you were never born, you would have no desire for life. There is no such thing as quality of life for this animals.


It's not a relevant question to me. Black people are humans. Animals are animals and therefore potential food, if they're edible. Naturally it's preferable if they're killed quickly.


What is it then that gives you a moral justification to place human suffering above other animals sufering since they feel the exact same amount (perhaps more) of, say, pain? Is it our intellectual capacity? What about the retard or the new-born who have much less cognitive capacities than a grown animal? The fact alone that we're humans doesn't give a moral justification to treat other animals as property or to ignore their basic rights. That's speciesism and it's a form of discrimination as bad as all others.

Maybe plants feel pain too in a way.


No, they do not. It's impossible. Plants lack the physical attributes required for the perception of pain. That is a CNS.

Jspear wrote:We shouldn't cause animals to suffer, I agree to a point. BUT. There is a fundamental difference between animals and humans. It doesn't make the local news every time someone kills a chicken....it generally does when someone kills another human. I think there is a reason for that. It is because (for the most part) humans understand that human life is more precious than animals.


They suffer, want it or not. They suffer when being killed. They suffer during their crap lifes of torture and mistreatment. Of course it doesn't make the local news when someone kills a chicken, the same way no one gave a fly back when owning slaves was allowed. It makes the news now. Human rights are older than animal rights, they always came first, and there will come the time when it [killing an animal for whatever ourpose] will make the news. Because it doesn't make the news now, it doesn't mean it's correct to do it. It doesn't make the news now because it is a practice of the majority, but the mejority is not always right, as history, experience and common sense tell us. To claim otherwise is a fallacious argumentum ad populum, or appeal to the majority, or bandwagon fallacy. The point of veganism is not to put animal and human life on the same level, it's irrelevant if people think human life is more precious. It is to give animals their most basic rights, which is to live, and live without suffering.

Animals are not humans (most would disagree with me on this point :), But I would say it is because animals don't have souls. They are not made in the image of God.) Animals have been given to us to enjoy, to help us with work (in our modern society this reason is used far less), and to eat. There is nothing morally wrong with eating animals. It is wrong to make an animal suffer for no reason - Dog fighting and some of the terrible stuff that happens along those lines. While they are alive we should treat them with care. But there is nothing wrong with quickly killing an animal for food. It is wrong to eat human flesh. :)


First, no one would disagree with you that animals are not humans. No one claims that, it's idiotic. Of course they're not. And it would be nice if you didn't bring metaphysics to the discussion. In the name of God, you can claim whatever you want and be sheltered from any possible counter argument. You shouldn't do it, for the sake of reason. I'm sure you don't practice other bizarre things the NT has written in it, so please don't use it as an argument only for what's convenient. You write that it is wrong to make an animal suffer for no reason, but that's exactly what you (the animal industry) do. Humans have no dietary need for meat or any other animal products, so to kill them an eat them is, ultimately, for no reason other than taste - which clearly doesn't serve as a valid moral justification. If you don't find it wrong, then you shouldn't find dog and bullfighting wrong as well, because it keeps people entertained. Taste is no better justification than entertainment. To the last part, I'm sorry to inform you that animals are not treated well while they are alive. They are seen as products. From industrial animal farms to ''green'' framing, you find the same. Torture, rape, death. There's not such thing as care when this things are the norm. That's just dishonesty, utopic thinking to fit your narrative and ignore the actual reality. And do you know how animals are killed? Watch documentary called 'Earthlings'' if you want to know. After you have a clue, then you can talk about it.

Take care.

ps: hope you read it in a friendly tone. Or at least not agressive.
ps2: This thread is about health, and I fear it's going off-topic. I may consider creating a thread about it on the Café.
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,352
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

21 Sep 2014 15:41

BigMac wrote:You don't get it. If they were not born, they could never desire life. They wouldn't be aware of their existence. These animals are brought to life with the sole purpose of being killed. This animals don't get a choice for living their natural lives, they are born with death sentence. As a human, would you be thankful that someone brought you up to life with the sole purpose of killing you once you were a few years old, or would you wish you were never born? Because if you were never born, you would have no desire for life.There is no such thing as quality of life for this animals.


You don't get it. You keep asking me what I would feel, and I give you an honest answer and you reply with this: There is no such thing as quality of life for these animals.
Of course there is. They're not aware they're being born with a death sentence.
My answer remains the same.

BigMac wrote:What is it then that gives you a moral justification to place human suffering above other animals sufering since they feel the exact same amount (perhaps more) of, say, pain? Is it our intellectual capacity? What about the retard or the new-born who have much less cognitive capacities than a grown animal? The fact alone that we're humans doesn't give a moral justification to treat other animals as property or to ignore their basic rights. That's speciesism and it's a form of discrimination as bad as all others.

Intellectual capacity has nothing to do with it. They're animals, which means they are potential food. I don't care about how smart they are.
Call me a speciesist if it makes you feel better, it certainly won't make me feel bad.

BigMac wrote:No, they do not. It's impossible. Plants lack the physical attributes required for the perception of pain. That is a CNS.




wiki wrote:The presence of pain in an animal cannot be known for certain, but it can be inferred through physical and behavioral reactions.[117] Specialists currently believe that all vertebrates can feel pain, and that certain invertebrates, like the octopus, might too.[114][118][119] As for other animals, plants, or other entities, their ability to feel physical pain is at present a question beyond scientific reach, since no mechanism is known by which they could have such a feeling. In particular, there are no known nociceptors in groups such as plants, fungi, and most insects,[120] except for instance in fruit flies.[121]


I'm glad to hear that you have no problem with killing and eating other living things as long as they don't suffer or feel pain. So let's work towards that shall we?
Only proper cycling fans appreciate flat sprint stages - Strawberry_jams
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,575
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

21 Sep 2014 16:10

kingjr wrote:You don't get it. You keep asking me what I would feel, and I give you an honest answer and you reply with this: There is no such thing as quality of life for these animals.
Of course there is. They're not aware they're being born with a death sentence.
My answer remains the same.


Ok, so, depending on the life you had up to that point, you would be thankful that someone raped your mother to give birth to you with the sole purpose of killing you and eating you once you were a few years old? Is that it? Assuming you are being honest, all I can say is that I never met a sadist like you. And following your logic, you're saying that there is quality of life for some boys and girls in the middle-east used as suicide bombers at the age of 10? That they should be thankful they are blown up, depending on the life they had up to that point? Those children are not aware they are born with a death sentence either. Are you glad they were born or do you wish they were never born, for their own sake? The animal case is worse, as animals, by the time they are born, they are already certain to be killed.

Intellectual capacity has nothing to do with it. They're animals, which means they are potential food. I don't care about how smart they are.
Call me a speciesist if it makes you feel better, it certainly won't make me feel bad.


Humans are also animals and potential food. If you don't care how smart we are, what is it that prevents you from killing and eating humans? Is it just the law? What is it that drives you to ignore animal suffering, considering you have absolutely no need to support it? Animals are not food, they are sentient living beings with an interest in living. They feel pain and experience subjectivity. They are conscious and aware of the envirionment. What is your justification for this? Taste, tradition and convenience are not justfications. It's not about making me feel better or making you feel bad, it's about the word that fits your thinking. That is the word. You don't have a moral justification to ignore animal suffering or to feel entitled to own and exploit them.


I'm glad to hear that you have no problem with killing and eating other living things as long as they don't suffer or feel pain. So let's work towards that shall we?


I hope you realize what you quoted supports what I said. There's nothing scientific or logical to support the idea that plants feel pain, whereas there is plenty that animals do (it's certain, no one among the scientific community denies this). Starting with the fact that they are sentient, have a central nervous system and nociceptors. Nociception, the nervous activity, is found among all major animal taxa. It's an objective and observable physiological process and it usually involves the transmission of a signal along a chain of nerve fibers from the site of a noxious stimulus at the periphery to the spinal cord and brain. This process may evoke a reflex response generated at the spinal cord and not involving the brain, such as flinching or withdrawal of a limb, and it may also involve brain activity, such as registering the location, intensity, quality and unpleasantness of the stimulus in various parts of the brain. This is how humans feel pain. This is how animals feel pain. Be it from a scientific observation point of view, from a creationist point of view, from an evolutionary point of view, there's no reason to even consider plants feeling pain. It is impossible.
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,352
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

21 Sep 2014 16:10

BigMac, the "Code noir" invoked by Bentham was not what sparked slavery in the French West Indies, it just "filled a political vacuum", in order to give some sort of protection for the slaves without reforming the system. Slavery had been practiced de facto by the settlers since they settled there, away from the French monarchy's law.

I'm not saying the "Code noir" was a great thing, of course but one thing we should bear in mind: the French monarchy NEVER permitted any form of slavery on its own soil (on the Continent, I mean) in all its history (and I think it was also the case for other monarchies in Europe). There was slavery in Caraibbeans, far away, that is true and many French made their fortune out of it, that is true (including Voltaire, the inspiration of the Revolution) but on its own territory, slavery was not tolerated, neither for the Whites, nor for the Blacks, nor for the Arabs, or whatever. The people wouldn't tolerate it. Actually the French people has nothing to do with the Slave Trade.

There had been several cases of Masters coming back to France from the colonies, with their slaves. Once these slaves were on the continent, they would escape, sue their masters and be enfranchised straightway because slavery was never tolerated on the French soil. the cases of Gabriel Pampy & Amynthe Julienne is a well-known case. :)


Well I'm not taking a stance here on vegetarianism. Just wanted to make those claims, as I have sympathies for the old monarchies and the people in the time of the monarchy. Besides I don't like Bentham's philosophy at all. He claimed that we are here on earth for pleasure and comfort. I don't think so. We are here to serve. So pain, suffering is an integral part of our lives, for us humans too, to a certain extent, of course.
Echoes
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,021
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:57

21 Sep 2014 16:32

Echoes wrote:BigMac, the "Code noir" invoked by Bentham was not what sparked slavery in the French West Indies, it just "filled a political vacuum", in order to give some sort of protection for the slaves without reforming the system. Slavery had been practiced de facto by the settlers since they settled there, away from the French monarchy's law.

I'm not saying the "Code noir" was a great thing, of course but one thing we should bear in mind: the French monarchy NEVER permitted any form of slavery on its own soil (on the Continent, I mean) in all its history (and I think it was also the case for other monarchies in Europe). There was slavery in Caraibbeans, far away, that is true and many French made their fortune out of it, that is true (including Voltaire, the inspiration of the Revolution) but on its own territory, slavery was not tolerated, neither for the Whites, nor for the Blacks, nor for the Arabs, or whatever. The people wouldn't tolerate it. Actually the French people has nothing to do with the Slave Trade.

There had been several cases of Masters coming back to France from the colonies, with their slaves. Once these slaves were on the continent, they would escape, sue their masters and be enfranchised straightway because slavery was never tolerated on the French soil. the cases of Gabriel Pampy & Amynthe Julienne is a well-known case. :)


Well I'm not taking a stance here on vegetarianism. Just wanted to make those claims, as I have sympathies for the old monarchies and the people in the time of the monarchy. Besides I don't like Bentham's philosophy at all. He claimed that we are here on earth for pleasure and comfort. I don't think so. We are here to serve. So pain, suffering is an integral part of our lives, for us humans too, to a certain extent, of course.


Thanks for that Echoes. Nice read and piece of history, I didn't know about that. However, I think I was misunderstood there, though. Bentham invoked the Code Noir as a partially good thing, I think, to a certain extent. (I'm not very familiarized with it)

I understand your views on Bentham's philosophy, I don't agree with many of his views myself. Mainly his existencial phylosophy. There are some things of the utilitarian perspective which I agree with, though.

Again, thanks. :)
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,352
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

21 Sep 2014 18:09

BigMac wrote:Ok, so, depending on the life you had up to that point, you would be thankful that someone raped your mother to give birth to you with the sole purpose of killing you and eating you once you were a few years old? Is that it? Assuming you are being honest, all I can say is that I never met a sadist like you.

Makes no sense. A sadist is someone who enjoys inflicting pain and suffering.
Maybe masochist is the word you're looking for.

And following your logic


That's exactly what you are not doing

Humans are also animals and potential food. If you don't care how smart we are, what is it that prevents you from killing and eating humans? Is it just the law?

No, it's simply the fact that they're humans. I've made that point about 3 times now.

What is it that drives you to ignore animal suffering, considering you have absolutely no need to support it?

Oh, I don't ignore animal suffering. To mention a few examples, if I see a beetle lying on it's back I turn it around, I brake for turtles, and I try to avoid riding over slugs with my bike.
Animals are not food, they are sentient living beings with an interest in living. They feel pain and experience subjectivity. They are conscious and aware of the envirionment.

The two aren't opposites. Yes they are conscious, and yes they have an interest in living. They're still potential food.
What is your justification for this? Taste, tradition and convenience are not justfications. It's not about making me feel better or making you feel bad, it's about the word that fits your thinking. That is the word. You don't have a moral justification to ignore animal suffering or to feel entitled to own and exploit them.


I do not require a moral justification to eat them.
I hope you realize what you quoted supports what I said.


No, it doesn't. You said 'impossible', and what I quoted does not support that.
Only proper cycling fans appreciate flat sprint stages - Strawberry_jams
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,575
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

21 Sep 2014 18:25

Hi BigMac would you consider eating meat if it came from a free and natural animal that lived a normal animal life (filled with suffering)?
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,997
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

21 Sep 2014 18:28

BigMac wrote: They suffer, want it or not. They suffer when being killed. They suffer during their crap lifes of torture and mistreatment. Of course it doesn't make the local news when someone kills a chicken, the same way no one gave a fly back when owning slaves was allowed. It makes the news now. Human rights are older than animal rights, they always came first, and there will come the time when it [killing an animal for whatever ourpose] will make the news. Because it doesn't make the news now, it doesn't mean it's correct to do it. It doesn't make the news now because it is a practice of the majority, but the mejority is not always right, as history, experience and common sense tell us. To claim otherwise is a fallacious argumentum ad populum, or appeal to the majority, or bandwagon fallacy. The point of veganism is not to put animal and human life on the same level, it's irrelevant if people think human life is more precious. It is to give animals their most basic rights, which is to live, and live without suffering.


But that is the inevitable consequence if you take this view. Animals do not have as much value as humans. Period. It is morally fine to eat animals. It is not abuse to kill an animal for the purpose of eating it.

BigMac wrote:First, no one would disagree with you that animals are not humans. No one claims that, it's idiotic. Of course they're not. And it would be nice if you didn't bring metaphysics to the discussion. In the name of God, you can claim whatever you want and be sheltered from any possible counter argument. You shouldn't do it, for the sake of reason. I'm sure you don't practice other bizarre things the NT has written in it, so please don't use it as an argument only for what's convenient.


I won't rebuttal this paragraph in this thread. I'll just say you can't just "do anything" in the name of the God of the bible. To think you can just means you have a miss understanding....

I would ask though: by what standard do you think it is wrong to eat animals? Am I right in assuming you think it is morally wrong?

BigMac wrote:Take care.

ps: hope you read it in a friendly tone. Or at least not agressive.
ps2: This thread is about health, and I fear it's going off-topic. I may consider creating a thread about it on the Café.


No offense taken. :)
I understand people have different views.
Skyline Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPjM6rZ4pN0
_____________________________________________________________________________
Canton Ave Climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C90ZPlbEfmU
User avatar Jspear
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,541
Joined: 23 Feb 2014 03:50
Location: N. VA, USA

21 Sep 2014 20:37

kingjr wrote:Makes no sense. A sadist is someone who enjoys inflicting pain and suffering.
Maybe masochist is the word you're looking for.


That must be it. You haven't answered what you quoted, though. Or at least you haven't acknowledged if that's in fact what you meant: ''you would be thankful that someone raped your mother to give birth to you with the sole purpose of killing you and eating you once you were a few years old? Is that it?'' A simple yes or no.

That's exactly what you are not doing


Again, a vague response. So you acknowledge this: ''you're saying that there is quality of life for some boys and girls in the middle-east used as suicide bombers at the age of 10? That they should be thankful they are blown up, depending on the life they had up to that point? Those children are not aware they are born with a death sentence either. Are you glad they were born or do you wish they were never born, for their own sake? The animal case is worse, as animals, by the time they are born, they are already certain to be killed.'' Because that's exactly what your logic suggests. A simple yes or no.

No, it's simply the fact that they're humans. I've made that point about 3 times now.


Okay, thanks. So you have no reasonable justification as to why you differentiate animal suffering from yours, even though they are the same.

Oh, I don't ignore animal suffering. To mention a few examples, if I see a beetle lying on it's back I turn it around, I brake for turtles, and I try to avoid riding over slugs with my bike.


Yes you do. You ignore it when it's convenient to do so, otherwise you wouldn't support animal killing, even if for food. Since you don't need it. That's like those persons who say they care for animals because they own a countless amount of pets and feed them with the best gourmet food around, but eat cow, pig, or chicken corpse for dinner.

The two aren't opposites. Yes they are conscious, and yes they have an interest in living. They're still potential food.


Point is you don't have to eat them. Human animals are conscious and have an interest in living, then they are also potential food. Why do you place taste and convenience above a life of a sentient being? Knowing they suffered for you to be able to feast on their corpse?

I do not require a moral justification to eat them.


Because there is none. There are plenty of moral justifications as to why you shouldn't eat them. ;-)

No, it doesn't. You said 'impossible', and what I quoted does not support that.


It is impossible. No one among the scientific community considers plant sentience or pain. You can find that only in pseudo-science communities. That is a nonissue. Plants lack all the physical attributes by which an organism can feel pain, which is a central nervous system and nociceptors to percieve it. That bit you quoted says ''beyond scientific reach'', but it is completely nonsensical and irrational to even consider it (that's why no one does) as it is a physical impossibility.

Image

No one ever presented (nor ever will) a theory or anything scientific to prove plant sentience. It simply doesn't exist.

Netserk wrote:Hi BigMac would you consider eating meat if it came from a free and natural animal that lived a normal animal life (filled with suffering)?


Hi Netserk, do you mean filled with suffering or without suffering? If the first, the answer is obviously no. If the latter, well, that's impossible, unless you mean it lived all it's life naturally (to full longevity). The answer would still be no, as I have no need to eat it. :)

Jspear wrote:But that is the inevitable consequence if you take this view. Animals do not have as much value as humans. Period. It is morally fine to eat animals. It is not abuse to kill an animal for the purpose of eating it.


No, no. One things has nothing to do with the other. No one asks you to give animals the same value as humans, all it's asked is to give them their basic, fundamental rights. If faced with the dillema, no one asks you to put animal life at the same level as human. You think that you have to kill animals for humans to be at a higher degree of importance? No. Makes no sence at all. I have lots of friends who are religious and vegan. Catholic, adventist, you name it. They don't put both animal and human life at the same level. They, live a life without infliting suffering. That ''periord'' doesn't fit very well there. You ignored the fundamental part of my paragraph, but I will copy it nevertheless ;-) : ''You write that it is wrong to make an animal suffer for no reason, but that's exactly what you (the animal industry) do. Humans have no dietary need for meat or any other animal products, so to kill them an eat them is, ultimately, for no reason other than taste - which clearly doesn't serve as a valid moral justification. If you don't find it wrong, then you shouldn't find dog and bullfighting wrong as well, because it keeps people entertained. Taste is no better justification than entertainment.''. So why is dog fighting wrong to you and eating animals is not? Is it just because God says we can? That doesn't mean we must, though.

I won't rebuttal this paragraph in this thread. I'll just say you can't just "do anything" in the name of the God of the bible. To think you can just means you have a miss understanding....


First, if you read what you quoted again, you will see that I wrote ''claim'' and not ''do'' anything in the name of God. And second, I was obviously referring to what's in The Book. You won't deny that you use the verses of the Bible as a justification for many of your claims, afterall it's your morality and truth source. Point is, there's no argument against you if you choose to use the word of God as one, then you will be sheltered from any rebuttal.

I would ask though: by what standard do you think it is wrong to eat animals? Am I right in assuming you think it is morally wrong?


From a caring, darwinian and scientific point of view, yes, I think it is morally wrong to kill and eat animals. That is not the only basis for veganism, though, considering, as I said, all the religious vegans out there. I know few atheists in real life, I know plenty of vegans. But indeed, this should go on another thread. The G&R or a Veganism thread, considering this one is about health.

No offense taken. :)
I understand people have different views.


Cheers. :)
''The battle between Démare and Bouhanni for being France's best sprinter is decided: it's Coquard.'' - BBB
User avatar BigMac
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,352
Joined: 10 Jun 2013 22:10
Location: Estoril, Portugal

21 Sep 2014 23:03

First off, congratulations to all that can take part in this discussion and be respectful to others view and not be an utter fool. I refrain from these discussions because people can be just so ignorant on both sides of the subject in their beliefs. It is nice if people can discuss their beliefs in a calm manner. I won't say logical because that is entirely up to each individual what their logic is. If we can converse in a respectful manner then that is good. And we won't have to agree all the time, or even ever but be respectful of others ideas and feelings.
I have been vegan for 35 years, I am now 59. It works for me for both moral and health reasons. I worked in meat packing houses from teens to early twenties and then the horse race track for years also. What changed me is being able to look into an animals eyes and see their pain and suffering. It is very real and touching. I simply can't take part in any of that.
I am also healthier for it. Win, win. For me. I won't disrespect others for their viewpoint. But if they want to talk I am always available.
I do take part in protests and demonstrations against circuses and race tracks though. It is very close to my heart seeing how I was involved with them and saw first hand the pain and suffering.
I want to congratulate all that can take part in what can be a very emotionally charged discussion as this and be respectful of others opinions and feelings. There are a lot of hunters and fisherman in my family and though we totally disagree on the subject we are always respectful of each other. I have some friends that can't do that with their family and it is very sad.
Like I said, I rarely get involved in discussions like this because there can be so much venom and nothing gets accomplished but to escalate the hate.
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,486
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

22 Sep 2014 07:03

Netserk wrote:Hi BigMac would you consider eating meat if it came from a free and natural animal that lived a normal animal life (filled with suffering)?


Very good point, many vegans seem to forget about the fact that animal lives are full of suffering. We keep pigs etc in a relatively safe environment as a food supply. In the wild they'd get slaughtered by wolves and foxes and hit by cars.
I hate seeing animals suffer. But suffering is part of an animal's life. I love watching documentaries about nature but hate seeing the kill scenes. There's a scene in Life(?) about pelicans eating another bird's chicks that continues to haunt me.
Us humans are natural omnivores but I understand and respect that some people can't bring themselves to eat meat. (I personally always try to buy the more animal-friendly meat but sadly that is also a lot more expensive. :eek: )
User avatar LaFlorecita
Veteran
 
Posts: 30,594
Joined: 15 May 2011 09:53
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Back to top