Justin K.

Okay MAtt D., I listened to the first 3 minutes of your video before realizing you are not only stoned, as well as drunk on your own self importance, but clearly DO NOT understand the vegan position and were going to be arguing against ridiculous straw men, the moment you brought up plants. Refraining from eating animals has nothing to do with how "helpless" they are. Clearly you don't actual know any real vegans. Didn't make it past minute 3.

But specifically when you asked why would we care about the suffering of another species, why shouldn't we do things for our convenience? I mean then why should we care about the suffering of another race, sex, anything? Idk fellas, maybe just because we have a heart. Maybe because when you look at the suffering of anything it doesn't make you feel good unless you're a psychopath. See most people has to block it out or rationalize it away. To say that humans suffer more than the billions of animals slaughtered & kept in factory farms yearly, is kind of crazy. Particularly when animal agriculture causes tons of human suffering as well in terms of hunger, inequity. Someone earlier went on a diatribe about scarcity in Africa they witnessed. Well I said it before but 1 sonar fishing vessel with football field sized nets can catch in 2 weeks what 7k local fisherman would catch in a year, killing many species of fish in the process as unused by catch. We take their grain to feed our cattle and ship them aid in an inefficient rigged game. They are starving primarily because westerners want prawns. Veganism is an ethical Solution to most of humanities most challenging ecological crises. That's why. Because if we are "moral agents" we should concern ourselves with easy, pragmatic, Compassionate choices where we find them instead of how we might find a way to wrap bacon around a dominos pizza crust I'm thinking. Well no, I asked it so that when you realize there is no good answer to it, one could understand the hypocrisy and double standard as it relates to how we treat animals, obviously. A question isn't illogical just because you can not come up with a logical answer to it to support your argument - what is illogical would therefore be your argument. Nice spin though

The idea that optimal health is easier obtained eating meat than from abstaining from meat is just wildly untrue. There is no nutrient supplied by meat not available in plants - it simply contains many other things proven harmful to humans. As just one of a myriad of misconceptions and lies, often repeated, from amino acids, complete proteins, B12, see attachment. No one needs meat. Everyone is healthier without it.

No they shouldn't use animals in circuses because it's immoral. By definition, keeping an animal against its will or in spaces so small they can't turn around causes them suffering. I don't PETA to make that point - it's definitional - it's a gestation crate, or a veal crate. And I didn't conflate eating animals with dog fighting - I quite clearly asked why you or we, society would think one is ok and the other you go to jail for. In both instances you are exploiting animals for pleasure or convenience but not necessity. He doesn't know how to address my post because there is no good answer to it, logically. That's all.

I still don't see how any living being's ability to understand UPB is relevant as to whether harming and killing them is morally justified. The only reason we debate how we evolved or what our ancestors are is because regardless of how we got here there remains no nutritional imperative for any human being to eat animals today. The omnivores are searching for one or claiming evolutionary advantages because without that it is even more apparent that eating animals can only be justified for reasons of pleasure, entertainment or convenience. Causing non moral agents suffering & death for convenience, or unecessarily is something no one can argue in a debate about morality. As Bentham said, "it is not a question of whether they can reason, it is a question of whether they suffer." If it wasn't, then we would have absolutely no problem with dog fighting. Sure you can live off eating meat. But you can earn a living dog fighting. So why do we not say, oh Dogs or cocks aren't moral agents so we can fight them in a ring? Because we erroneously believed for some time that meat was needed for survival or optimal health. Today we don't even have that excuse left, so UPB is merely an affirming the consequent fallacy as it relates to animals, or we are schizophrenic as to how we are applying it.

It's clear that humans are omnivores, not vegetarians. What vegans decide to do in their kitchens is irrelevant to the reality of our history of multiple modes of nutrition. Well first, vegeterians are omnivores. Vegans are herbivores. This is an important distinction. But second, biologically nothing could be further from the truth. Homo Sapien sapiens share almost no of the identifying characteristics of carnivores, very little with omnivores, a ton with herbivores and almost everything with strictly frugivorous creatures that eat all fruit. The comparative anatomy chart I posted earlier with over 100 anatomical facts makes this unequivocally clear. Not that this has anything to do with morality, but our digestive systems are long and not made for eating meat. Sometimes people point to our canine teeth. A saber tooth tiger's tooth it is not. It works pretty good biting into an apple, but hop on the back of a cow and try taking a bite, and you'll learn pretty quickly as you are tossed 20 feet away on your head bum over teakettle how omnivore humans are designed. Here is the truth about human classification Sorry it didn't attach, here:

I submit that Vegeterianism/Veganism most likely birthed the entire concept of right & wrong. All morality, ethics, & philosophy followed the first time someone went to attack something else, (& in the beginning, for what other reason but to eat it) saw the fear in it's eyes, the ferocity with which it fought back, or the speed with which it ran away, and changed their mind. It may have been the first self reflective or moral thought in the Universe. Yes dare I say get completely carried away, but, it follows quite logically that the entire world, and everything good and noble in it, started with that decision. Less we be tribes of murderous thieves and cannibals, someone decided hurting other things is wrong. While some may have limited it to humanity, there can be little doubt, it was first employed near an act of savagery committed against an animal. It is no surprise that Plato, the Pythagoreans, Aristotle, and the founders of damn near every major religion abstained from meat. It is no wonder the book of Genesis, the concept of good & evil, as well as Cain & Abel revolved around a story of agriculture. We are born with an innate empathy for our children of course. The first time we extended this feeling outside of our family, or our tribe, basically to someone or something that could NOT do us any good, is the very foundation of the Non Aggression Principle or Universally Preferable Behavior. Somewhere, sometime long ago, someone, first had a heart, said to themselves, perhaps without words, but "screw it, I'll eat a banana" & empathy, and morality, was born.

I think this debate between Francione & Machan on neutral territory summarizes both sides quite well and is intellectually fair to both positions. James Dean. When you ask how we can define necessity, and in relation to what goal. We can define necessity as being necessary to sustain your life, and in relation to living a moral life and not causing immense suffering and destroying the planet for reasons of sensual pleasure and convenience only.

.

I think this debate on neutral playing field between Macan & Francione is fair to both sides & summarizes the issue quite well. Ethical Veganism has nothing to do with cultural marxism. I'm not looking for any government law, but rather a choice not taken in a free market. James Dean & Professional Teabagger, I meant unnecessary as in literally there being no necessity to do it. Doing it for reasons of pleasure, convenience or entertainment by definition is unnecessary. So no there is no problem with this. "In relation to what goal"? You asked. The goal of living & eating without torturing and destroying the planet. I'm not saying this sarcastically or scornfully. But that is the goal. To live morally. If Michael Vick was wrong to fight dogs, how are we any different to eat pigs. We are doing this solely for sensual pleasure. That we can live off it is no more relevant than Vick can make money fighting dogs. This debate between Francione & Macan summarizes both sides very well and I think is fair to both positions.

Ethical Veganism has nothing to do with cultural marxism. I'm not looking for any government law, but rather a choice not taken in a free market. James Dean & Professional Teabagger, I meant unnecessary as in literally there being no necessity to do it. Doing it for reasons of pleasure, convenience or entertainment by definition is unnecessary. So no there is no problem with this. ?In relation to what goal"? The goal of living & eating without torturing and destroying the planet. I'm not saying this sarcastically or scornfully. But that is the goal. To live morally. If Michael Vick was wrong to fight dogs, how are we any different to eat pigs. We are doing this solely for sensual pleasure. That we can live off it is no more relevant than Vick can make money fighting dogs.

I think you guys are being quite over dramatic. I didn't lie. I said right in the first post.

Oh God. How dramatic. And now the tap dancing begins No it's actually quite easy. Not complicated. Not even a little bit. Unnecessary meaning there is absolutely no necessity for you to eat animals. At all. Professional Teabagger, Claiming you've answered a question isn't a substitute for answering it. Claiming I haven't answered your question doesn't erase the 6 different ways I've answered it. Let's be honest. No one on the other side of this issue has any genuine interest in arriving at philosophic truth. You just want to drown out good arguments with Ad Homs & Straw Men. Claiming I am sanctimonious, etc. I thought this was a philosophy forum. It's starting to sound more like mental masturbation. Minute 37-about 42 (in case you get bored) pretty much summarizes why you already subscribe to principles which we know render you on this topic unequivocally wrong. If you have an answer to the contrary, I'm still all ears. Anyone who can read knows I've answered yours. UPB isn't complicated. Morality isn't complicated. We want to complicate it to mask our moral schizophrenia regarding animals. But it is fairly cut & dry, whether we like it or not.

Why won't anyone answer my question? I've proposed it several different ways and responses are conspicuously absent. Is it morally wrong to cause unnecessary harm or suffering to anything for mere convenience? If you were walking down the street and saw a 9 year old child kicking a puppy, then pick up a stick to beat it with, would you stop the child? If you would, than it is hypocritical to pay others to imprison and slaughter animals when there is zero nutritional reason that makes it imperative. Causing more harm than necessary is immoral. No one has said the developmentally disabled are animals. (The guidelines say not use words like "retarded" - while we all know what it means & I know you didn't mean it in a derogatory way) What has been said is many aren't moral agents. The reason it is immoral to eat animal is because It is never acceptable to initiate force unless in self defense. When chickens start attacking you, we can talk about whether UPB can be applied to animals. But they aren't. If a child or special needs individual kills you accidentally through negligence, they aren't punished like adult moral agents, because they don't have the same capacity for reason. But we don't say it is okay to harm them. The arguments to the contrary do not address this. They don't make any sense.

Professional Teabagger. Is it morally wrong to cause needless suffering to an animal for the purposes of entertainment, amusement or convenience?