Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2012, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2012 08:15 PM by Antirepublican.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(30-04-2012 02:59 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  And for,the record, regardless of your individual experience, the vast majority have never witnessed, first hand, how their meat is slaughtered.
Yes most people these days don't.
However, that wasn't the case just a few decades ago, and it didn't seem to slow people down much if at all.

Besides slaughtering animals isn't necessarily a painful process.

(30-04-2012 03:26 PM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  
(30-04-2012 02:59 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  I get the sweeping generalization that people haven't seen animals being slaughtered inhumanely because most people haven't! If you think I,m talking about some PETA video, it shows your ignorance.

Really, if I have to hold your hand and walk you through every word for you to understand, it's just not worth it. You won't be able to admit you jumped to your own conclusions anyways.
Noah, I hear what you're saying, but it's not that I'm missing the fact that people are on the defensive because of NSVs style, it,s that I'm saying to look past his style, and take into account his points. Maybe they're valid, maybe not, but they are not getting the scrutiny they deserve precisely because people are on the defensive.

Look, I'm not on any side of this debate. At least not in this particular forum. My experience with it, however is deeper than most. I know how emotionally charged it can get. (I slaughter my chickens, at home, and was once accosted by a person making a delivery in my very own driveway with a dead chicken in my hand. Trust me, I've seen it get far more heated than this) But that gets in the way, especially when someone comes,along and has a "style" that others find offensive.


And for,the record, regardless of your individual experience, the vast majority have never witnessed, first hand, how their meat is slaughtered.
I have debated Vacuous' points. But yes, I did so zealously because of his initial offense. My more recent rebuttal (two or three ago?) was turned down a few degrees. He still responded with a shit ton of arrogance in every single reply of his.

He's under the constant assumption that I'm trying to use the nature argument to "justify" the continual consumption of meat. I am doing no such thing. After all, I personally don't believe that consuming meat requires justification. Going against our deep rooted nature by becoming a vegan is what requires an explanation. His morality angle is good enough for me. I even acknowledged that it could be the "moral highroad". In the end however, the subject of morality is a highly subjective matter.

Vacuous argues like this is a matter of fact. Actually, like it's a matter of HIS fact.

My main refute was towards the original topic of this thread...

Veganism CANNOT be the moral baseline. To claim this is to suggest that meat eaters are immoral no matter their situation or class.

With that in mind, if in fact veganism is the moral baseline, then I'm happy that I don't partake in that arrogant morality.
I agree, if that's his definition of morality, then I am pleased to be immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 07:27 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Don't you people get it! It's a slippery slope. Today we allow meat eating and then tomorrow someone's gonna eat a person, or have sex with a yak or something.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
30-04-2012, 10:01 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(30-04-2012 07:27 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Don't you people get it! It's a slippery slope. Today we allow meat eating and then tomorrow someone's gonna eat a person, or have sex with a yak or something.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I am not sure if he has changed his position or not, but philosopher and animal rights advocate Peter Singer claimed that sex with consenting animals was permissable.

New Zealand sheep farmers have been the brunt of unkind jokes for years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 05:54 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I say we allow it. It will reduce meat eating. Cuz if you can eat a sheep after you had sex with it, you, uh... you got issues.





Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
01-05-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(30-04-2012 02:51 PM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  
(30-04-2012 01:19 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Ugh! You read what you wanted to see, not what I wrote. Try again.

I didn't accuse someone of claiming animals felt no pain. I suggested that some people should gain this knowledge first hand. See it. Hear it. If you witness it, you will know. If you are going to depend on a scientist to tell you, that's fine, but knowing because you gained the knowledge for yourself will give a perspective to the debate that you can't have otherwise. You just can't comprehend the suffering without seeing it.

But hey, congratulations on proving my point exactly.

Oh, and you can put your sarcasm in the same place as your scientific study.
Who says we haven't seen animals in pain? It's highly plausible that anyone that has owned a pet for the duration of its life has seen it suffer in pain.
Either you have contradicted yourself, or I misunderstood this quote:

(30-04-2012 10:59 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  
(30-04-2012 10:25 AM)nach_in Wrote:  NSV, would you please elaborate on why not killing animals for food causes less suffering than doing so? If you manage to do that you might have an actual point instead of just a moral intuition about meat
How can he when he doesn't even know for sure whether or not the animals actually suffer during the killing process? This is the huge problem with his debate style on this subject. He assumes his opinions are factual.
Just wanted to point that out. Also I am going to answer Nach's question that Noah has quoted right here.

Nach, there is an estimated 70-80 billion animals being farmed for meat at the moment. We caused the populations of these animals to be this high. If we could cut out about 60 billion or more animals from this equation, that is only 20 billion--or less--suffering of natural causes and being hunted by predators.

Simple put, subtract the farming of animals for meat. Means 60-70 billion less animals with the only the sole purpose of to inevitably die. Versus something like 10-20 billion. And the math goes on.

If anyone here has a nihilist view about animal suffering, that it does not exist, then we have nothing to discuss. You are obviously segregated from reality. This wasn't directed at anyone specifically. But you know if it was you.

I have work today, I will try to start back on page 16 and pick up where I left off on answering questions.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NotSoVacuous's post
01-05-2012, 10:47 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(01-05-2012 10:10 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(30-04-2012 02:51 PM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  Who says we haven't seen animals in pain? It's highly plausible that anyone that has owned a pet for the duration of its life has seen it suffer in pain.
Either you have contradicted yourself, or I misunderstood this quote:

(30-04-2012 10:59 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  How can he when he doesn't even know for sure whether or not the animals actually suffer during the killing process? This is the huge problem with his debate style on this subject. He assumes his opinions are factual.
Just wanted to point that out. Also I am going to answer Nach's question that Noah has quoted right here.

Nach, there is an estimated 70-80 billion animals being farmed for meat at the moment. We caused the populations of these animals to be this high. If we could cut out about 60 billion or more animals from this equation, that is only 20 billion--or less--suffering of natural causes and being hunted by predators.

Simple put, subtract the farming of animals for meat. Means 60-70 billion less animals with the only the sole purpose of to inevitably die. Versus something like 10-20 billion. And the math goes on.

If anyone here has a nihilist view about animal suffering, that it does not exist, then we have nothing to discuss. You are obviously segregated from reality. This wasn't directed at anyone specifically. But you know if it was you.

I have work today, I will try to start back on page 16 and pick up where I left off on answering questions.
It's not the comments that you misunderstood, it's the context of how they were used in reply to others' comments.

I dare not even attempt to say that animals don't feel pain and suffering.

In my comment about how you can never know if an animal really suffers during the killing process, that is true. But keep in mind, I already stated that I exclude the farms that blatantly do cause suffering to animals from the very beginning. I'm talking about the farms that humanely kill (I acknowledge that there might be no such thing as humanely killing anything) animals.

So with that in mind, my comment should not be contradictory.

Example: Kobe beef. The farms that do it real way treat the cows like kings. They give them massages, feed them the "finest" herbs and grass. And give them beer... alright, alright, the beer thing can become a subject of debate as well...

And when it comes time to slaughter, it's a quick process. This is where my point comes in. If you are talking about animal suffering and pain, what do you say in the Kobe Beef scenario.

Let's just say the scenario is 100% accurate in that the cows are genuinely very happy. I know that this might not be the actual case... which is pretty much why I said it's near impossible to know for sure since we aren't the cow.

So in that situation, the subject of animal suffering and pain is a non-issue. It is now solely an issue of how we as humans feel about raising animals for the sole purpose of slaughter and clothing. It is this part I have no justification for, but that does not mean that I believe it requires more justification other than humans like to consume meat and it's a natural thing.

I have 0 issues with you feeling that it's immoral to do so. I have 0 issues with you feeling that you have taken the higher road than me. What I have issue with is you implying that I am an immoral person for eating meat.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 11:56 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
See my user title. I'm a meat eater. I'm not sure what you mean by nihilism and animal rights though.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 12:55 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(01-05-2012 11:56 AM)germanyt Wrote:  See my user title. I'm a meat eater. I'm not sure what you mean by nihilism and animal rights though.
You know, I that reminds me of the cultural aspect of consuming meat. If I refused to eat meat growing up, my grandmother and parents probably would have crucified me for being picky. I remember my father constantly talked about how much of a luxury it is to have meat so readily available and that I should be thankful that I can eat it.

Yes, still not a justification for the continual consumption of meat since I'm independent now. Just an anecdote.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 01:39 PM (This post was last modified: 01-05-2012 01:43 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(01-05-2012 10:10 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  Nach, there is an estimated 70-80 billion animals being farmed for meat at the moment. We caused the populations of these animals to be this high. If we could cut out about 60 billion or more animals from this equation, that is only 20 billion--or less--suffering of natural causes and being hunted by predators.
So life itself is suffering...that is a gloomy view.

You sound very depressed, and its probably due to your poor diet. You aren't consuming enough animal fat, and your brain is not a happy camper. I recommend going out and getting a nice big steak, and some chili fries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2012, 05:47 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Well if you throw God out the window you have to get rid of the silliness of absolutism as well. So using our brains, lets see where we end up on this question:

1.) Did we evolve to eat meat? Yes.
2.) Are animals self aware? No.
3.) Do we see other predation in nature? Constantly.
4.) Given the biological and psychological drive to eat meat, are you ever going to get people to stop it? Probably not.

Look if you want to have a discussion about humane treatment in farms, and some of the dangers of our factory farming methods fine. However, you really do not have ANY ground to stand on from a purely factual standpoint to argue that killing animals to eat them is fundamentally morally wrong. You can BELIEVE it is wrong all you want, but then again that's what the religious do........
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Superluminal's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: