Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2012, 10:39 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
PETA-type Vegans piss me off. All this concern about living organisms down to fish incapable of even feeling pain...

If you want to be THAT type of Vegan, I would posit that you're being cruel to plants as they are living organisms incapable of feeling pain as well. Basically put, shut yo PETA mouth and let me murder this porterhouse that a cow died for.

I love meat (that's what she said) and cannot imagine not having the luxury to eat it. Blah, no good way to say that last sentence haha.

It's perfectly natural. Humans aren't herbivores... we are omnivores. The beauty is that we have a choice in the matter... you know, that whole free-will schpeel. If you are a vegan because you believe it's the healthiest lifestyle, then more power to you and your cabinet full of vitamin supplements. If you are a vegan because you love animals too much, then more power to you and your baby pandas. If you are a vegan because you like PETA (read trendy)... fuck off.

In any case, just don't bother me with any of that. Keep your veganism to yourself and out of my science classes... oh wait, different subject.

Remember, every time that Sarah Mclaughlin commercial comes on TV, there are millions and millions of children and adults being just as abused and just as starved as those poor over-populated puppies and kitties.

Sorry, I absolutely love animals, but priorities here people.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes NoahsFarce's post
25-04-2012, 11:33 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25/apn...e-promise/

The movement by U.S. food corporations toward more humane treatment of animals experienced a whopper of a shift Wednesday when Burger King announced that all of its eggs and pork will come from cage-free chickens and pigs by 2017.
The decision by the world's second-biggest fast-food restaurant raises the bar for other companies seeking to appeal to the rising consumer demand for more humanely produced fare.
"So many tens of thousands of animals will now be in better living conditions," said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, which has been pushing Burger King and other corporations to consider animal welfare in purchasing policies. "Numerically this is significant because Burger King is such a big purchaser of these products."
The decision by Burger King, which uses hundreds of millions of eggs and tens of millions of pounds of pork annually, could represent a game-change in the egg and pork supply business as a huge new market has opened up for humanely raised food animals. Already 9 percent of the company's eggs and 20 percent of its pork are cage-free.
The Miami-based company steadily has been increasing its use of cage-free eggs and pork as the industry has become better able to meet demand, said Jonathan Fitzpatrick, chief brand and operations officer. He said the decision is part of the company's social responsibility policy.
"We believe this decision will allow us to leverage our purchasing power to ensure the appropriate and proper treatment of animals by our vendors and suppliers," he said.
Earlier this year, McDonalds and Wendy's announced that they have asked their pork suppliers to outline their plans for elimination of gestation crates without setting a timetable.
The issue of the treatment of pigs raised for pork has recently developed. This year, Smithfield Farms and Hormel committed to ending the use of gestation crates by 2017.
"This is an issue that just four to five months ago was not on the food industry's radar," said Paul Shapiro, vice president for farm animal protection at the humane society. "Now it's firmly cemented into the mainstream in a way that I think few people would have imagined."
Last month, the pork industry's trade magazine editorialized for an end to the practice saying "on the issue of gestation-sow stalls, at least, it's increasingly apparent that you will lose the battle."
HSUS has been pushing for more than a decade for large-scale purchasers of animal products to ensure that they are raised humanely. The organization owns stock in 52 companies that use animal products so that it can attend shareholder meetings and submit proposals for improved animal welfare policy.
It also has used undercover operations to show the conditions some food animals endure.
Conventionally raised eggs come from hens confined in battery cages that give them roughly the same footprint as a sheet of standard notebook paper. Most pork comes from sows that are confined during their four-month pregnancies in narrow crates.
"For every cage-free egg or piece of bacon from a gestation-free pork system that Burger King sells, animals have been spared lifelong confinement in a cage so small they can barely even move," said Matthew Prescott, the HSUS food policy director.
In 2007, Burger King became the first major fast-food restaurant chain to incorporate animal welfare issues into its purchasing policies when it began sourcing at least some of its pork and eggs from cage-free suppliers. The hens are still housed in a barn, but they have room to roam, and perches and nesting boxes.
While some companies have been responding to consumer demand by incorporating some percentages of cage-free eggs into their purchase orders, the landslide passage by voters in 2008 of California's Proposition 2, which will ban chicken cages and gestation crates by 2015, caused buyers and suppliers nationwide to take notice. Since then, studies have shown that shoppers are willing to pay more for products they believe are produced to higher animal protection standards.
Since then, Wal-Mart and Costco have transitioned their private-label eggs to 100 percent cage-free. Unilever, which uses 350 million eggs a year in its Hellmann's mayonnaise brand, is switching to 100 percent cage-free, and others such as Sonic, Subway, Ruby Tuesday chain restaurants, and manufacturers such as Kraft Food and ConAgra Foods are incorporating some percentage of cage-free eggs in their products.
Egg and pork producers have argued that easing confinement standards for animals raises production costs and makes those who adjust their practices less competitive. That prompted the egg industry's largest trade association, the United Egg Producers, to team with HSUS in seeking federal legislation this year that would double the size of the cages in which 90 percent of the nation's 280 million laying hens are confined.
Industry officials who have argued against cage-free eggs say hens are safer and eggs are less likely to be diseased in a cage system of hen housing.
"Our attitude is our producers believe in consumer choice and if that's what their consumers want to buy, they'll produce cage-free eggs for the marketplace provided the customer is willing to pay the additional cost," said Gene Gregory, president of the United Egg Producers.
Some studies have shown that raising hens cage-free adds 1 cent to the cost of each egg. It's unclear how much more it will cost to raise pork outside of gestation cages.

“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
25-04-2012, 11:49 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(24-04-2012 11:27 PM)Filox Wrote:  And all that is true NotSoVacuous, but as germanyt has stated, not everyone feels the same way about the fact. Take me for example. I care, I love animals, but not in that extend to stop eating meat or go on some PETA rallies. What I do care probably more than you do is the world economy, banking systems and technology manipulation. I would kill someone for those things, you would maybe kill someone for animal rights. Maybe you wouldn't.

It all comes back to our perception of things, we all have different priorities in life, so someone has animals, someone has something else. You just can't expect everyone to feel the same way about some things, general morality is not an issue here, it's the way people prioritize their important things in life.

Well being isn't a matter of opinion on what you hold as priorities or not. Well being is an intrinsic value. As far as you not holding animals to the same priority, well that is why we are having this conversation. You are attempting to make this a matter of opinion and ignore my points. Because you do not hold something with as much priority, doesn't make your actions right or excuse them--and that is what this discussion is about. Well being is being jeopardized at this moment, and you are making it seem as protecting that well being would somehow be in conflict with your ability to solve a few global problems.

And as I will tell german, it isn't an either or situation. You can still maximize animal well being while being concerned about the world economy. So I would appreciate if both of you would stop attempting to avoid my points with your attempts at making this a matter of opinion with your trivial statements.
(25-04-2012 07:55 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(24-04-2012 11:27 PM)Filox Wrote:  And all that is true NotSoVacuous, but as germanyt has stated, not everyone feels the same way about the fact. Take me for example. I care, I love animals, but not in that extend to stop eating meat or go on some PETA rallies. What I do care probably more than you do is the world economy, banking systems and technology manipulation. I would kill someone for those things, you would maybe kill someone for animal rights. Maybe you wouldn't.

It all comes back to our perception of things, we all have different priorities in life, so someone has animals, someone has something else. You just can't expect everyone to feel the same way about some things, general morality is not an issue here, it's the way people prioritize their important things in life.

Good post. Another example is donating money. I could donate to PETA and have a human rights activist ask me why, since I'm aware of the poverty in Africa I don't donate to a cause that could save a person's life intead of an animal. It really boils down to what you find important.
It is not as if it is a split choice. Go vegetarian or let African babies starve. It is about maximizing the overall good. You can be vegetarian, while donating to a good cause. They are not mutually exclusive. I really don't understand how your logic can be so warped that you have brought this to an either or scenario...

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 02:22 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(24-04-2012 07:34 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(24-04-2012 05:05 PM)germanyt Wrote:  It doesn't really matter bro. Most people just don't feel the same about the issue as you do. You feel that we've reached a level of intelligence where we should be above the unnecessary killing of animals and others feel that our intelligence has allowed us to come up with efficient ways of providing food for the world population. What bothers me is that you seem to feel that you are somehow on a higher level of morality or evolution based on your position. I don't agree with you. Or maybe I'm still misunderstanding you.
I don't understand how you can say we are not. We are able to manipulate evolution, the very thing that brought us to this point. We are self aware. We are capable of abstract thinking. And most importantly, we have the ability to prevent harm. If we have this ability, why not use it?
I think the root of the dispute may be encapsulated in your statement. You assume that the killing and eating of non-human animals by humans is both harmful and avoidable. With this assumption, you entirely dismiss the argument from nature. Others don't agree with your assumptions.

I find your arguments reasonable, even compelling. However, your arguments aren't convincing to everyone.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 02:28 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(25-04-2012 11:49 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  It is not as if it is a split choice. Go vegetarian or let African babies starve. It is about maximizing the overall good. You can be vegetarian, while donating to a good cause. They are not mutually exclusive. I really don't understand how your logic can be so warped that you have brought this to an either or scenario...
I'm not going to continue this discussion with you. Have fun riding your high horse. Everybody just admit that NSV is morally and intellectually superior to all of us meat eaters so he can sleep well tonight.

“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
25-04-2012, 09:03 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(25-04-2012 02:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-04-2012 07:34 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  I don't understand how you can say we are not. We are able to manipulate evolution, the very thing that brought us to this point. We are self aware. We are capable of abstract thinking. And most importantly, we have the ability to prevent harm. If we have this ability, why not use it?
I think the root of the dispute may be encapsulated in your statement. You assume that the killing and eating of non-human animals by humans is both harmful and avoidable. With this assumption, you entirely dismiss the argument from nature. Others don't agree with your assumptions.

I find your arguments reasonable, even compelling. However, your arguments aren't convincing to everyone.
I have addressed the issue of why appeals to nature are fallacious. Now you are beginning to tire me out. I want a defense for why appealing to nature is a valid justification. If I hear it one more goddamn time without a justification, then you all can circle jerk in this thread alone.

As far as convincing people, I laid my cards out of the table, everyone else won't play theirs. Appeals to nature to justify doing something is fallacious. I demand more justifications for my actions in life. If the rest of you want to claim to be "above" these animals that you eat, then "it's natural" won't cut it.

If they are not convinced, ignorance is not an excuse. I did my part. I have yet to see anyone else retort with anything more than a trivial remark.
(25-04-2012 02:28 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I'm not going to continue this discussion with you. Have fun riding your high horse. Everybody just admit that NSV is morally and intellectually superior to all of us meat eaters so he can sleep well tonight.
I rest my case.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2012, 10:10 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(25-04-2012 09:03 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 02:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think the root of the dispute may be encapsulated in your statement. You assume that the killing and eating of non-human animals by humans is both harmful and avoidable. With this assumption, you entirely dismiss the argument from nature. Others don't agree with your assumptions.

I find your arguments reasonable, even compelling. However, your arguments aren't convincing to everyone.
I have addressed the issue of why appeals to nature are fallacious. Now you are beginning to tire me out. I want a defense for why appealing to nature is a valid justification. If I hear it one more goddamn time without a justification, then you all can circle jerk in this thread alone.

As far as convincing people, I laid my cards out of the table, everyone else won't play theirs. Appeals to nature to justify doing something is fallacious. I demand more justifications for my actions in life. If the rest of you want to claim to be "above" these animals that you eat, then "it's natural" won't cut it.

If they are not convinced, ignorance is not an excuse. I did my part. I have yet to see anyone else retort with anything more than a trivial remark.
(25-04-2012 02:28 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I'm not going to continue this discussion with you. Have fun riding your high horse. Everybody just admit that NSV is morally and intellectually superior to all of us meat eaters so he can sleep well tonight.
I rest my case.
Eating meat is natural. We don't need a handful of supplements to stay alive, you do, or a very specific diet.

Who said we are better than animals? We are animals. Sounds like a straw man to me. Since that was your only argument against the natural argument, then I guess that means you lose.

Also, I will justify your life style when you justify Jeffrey Dahmer's lifestyle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mysticjbyrd's post
25-04-2012, 10:49 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Trying to attach moral values to what we eat is like trying to do so to who we have sex with, some things are just morally neutral or impossible to define.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 02:43 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
NotSoVacuous... I have read your posts, but found it not convincing, because I don't care about those things in such a manner as you do. It is as simple as that. I do not care enough to change my life, or to shift my free time priorities to that area of expertise. My day is way to short to care for everything I am suppose to care, so I have to prioritize my life and take care of the things that are most important to me.

As mysticbyrd has said, I do not think of myself (or you) to be higher than some animals (or all), I think of the humans as one of the animal species. Also, I find that cannibalism is ridiculous, if the opportunity and need is there, I would cook a human as any other meat and eat it to survive, food is food, meat is meat.

Tell you all the truth, I do not really care about the starving children in Africa as well. I have far more other worries on my head to cry all day about then starving children. And who cares about Africa, when old people are searching the garbage cans for food in front of my house? I would have to be extremely hypocritical to send money to Africa (which I don't have to spare), yet turn my head to my neighbours that are starving.

Think globally, act locally. If everyone were to take care of their own backyard, a lot of problems would be solved. But, since people are assholes, we don't do that, but then we all act mighty righteous and want to help some people or animals on the other side of the world. I don't see that as helping, just prolonging the BS.

Harsh as it sounds, but there are too many people on Earth, we can not save all of them if we mean to keep on living on this planet. The planet balances things as nature has intended, my meddling will not make an effect, not on this small scale at least.

P.S.

Even if we manage to save all people today, in 2 years time the planet would kill all of us (or we would do it...) because there would just be too much people and it would suffocate us. The solution is something else, what, I don't know. And don't care. I will die in a few decades (probably) and be just nothing except a memory. I don't watn to be don Quijote de la Mancha during the time I live.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 05:24 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(25-04-2012 10:10 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 09:03 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  I have addressed the issue of why appeals to nature are fallacious. Now you are beginning to tire me out. I want a defense for why appealing to nature is a valid justification. If I hear it one more goddamn time without a justification, then you all can circle jerk in this thread alone.

As far as convincing people, I laid my cards out of the table, everyone else won't play theirs. Appeals to nature to justify doing something is fallacious. I demand more justifications for my actions in life. If the rest of you want to claim to be "above" these animals that you eat, then "it's natural" won't cut it.

If they are not convinced, ignorance is not an excuse. I did my part. I have yet to see anyone else retort with anything more than a trivial remark.
I rest my case.
Eating meat is natural. We don't need a handful of supplements to stay alive, you do, or a very specific diet.

Who said we are better than animals? We are animals. Sounds like a straw man to me. Since that was your only argument against the natural argument, then I guess that means you lose.

Also, I will justify your life style when you justify Jeffrey Dahmer's lifestyle.
I have explained multiple times that appeals to nature are invalid. Just because it is natural does not make it a justification. I mean really, what is natural? Watching TV, is not natural; having a 9-5 job, is not natural; eating fast food, is not natural; eating hormone saturated meat from the super market, is not natural; wearing clothes, is not natural; wearing glasses, is not natural; helping anyone outside your tribe (donating), is not natural; the 2 hours or less a week of exercise most people get, is not natural.

The fact is I can go on about this all day long. "Natural" is such an arbitrary stance it isn't worthy in itself of a valid argument. I will return to this thread when I hear a defense for it. I will not continue debating with people who want to sound like a broken record. I have asked for justification on why appeals to nature are worthy. Not to my surprise, I haven't received one.

Continue causing unimaginable suffering to animals, contributing to deforestation and global warming. Ignorance is not an excuse. As I have said before, I have dealt my cards; I am waiting on the rest of you.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: