MagnumPI Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 God says lions can eat vegetables. http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2009/1449 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_V Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I love this Facebook page: Christians Against Vegetarians & Vegans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prolix Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 These Vegan activist people conveniently ignore the fact that their vegan lifestyle also costs plenty of animal lives. ie., mass harvesting crops kills small ground dwelling animals.They should be fighting for something realistic and attainable like getting chickens and cows out of factory farms and into the fields where they belong. Bloodties - Kerasote http://www.amazon.com/Bloodties-Nature-Culture-Kodansha-Globe/dp/1568360274 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_V Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 These Vegan activist people conveniently ignore the fact that their vegan lifestyle also costs plenty of animal lives. ie., mass harvesting crops kills small ground dwelling animals.They should be fighting for something realistic and attainable like getting chickens and cows out of factory farms and into the fields where they belong. Bloodties - Kerasote http://www.amazon.com/Bloodties-Nature-Culture-Kodansha-Globe/dp/1568360274 So which is more harmful? Killing some small ground dwelling animals as a result of crop harvesting or Exploiting, torturing and killing countless billions of animals in oder to enjoy their flesh, secretions and skin What's wrong with living healthily and happily whilst minimising the suffering and impact on other living beings? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 So which is more harmful? Probably me boiling plant children alive in full view of the ficus. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prolix Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 What's wrong with living healthily and happily whilst minimising the suffering and impact on other living beings? You are obviously being defensive. Where did I say anything was wrong? If you look at my post, I actually advocate for just that; "They should be fighting for something realistic and attainable like getting chickens and cows out of factory farms and into the fields where they belong." Now that I can get behind, but that is not what vegans do is it? Sorry, but everything alive is food. Everything. All living beings will die and be eaten, by bacteria or by predators. Suffering is suffering, dying is not suffering. Dying is dying. All things die, all things suffer, but dying is not suffering. When an animal is eaten, suffering is not inherent. So, which is more harmful? Neither, because what is "harm" in this question? Some ethereal "harm"? Killing animals to eat them is not "harm" it is survival, it is ecology, it is biology. Do you think that animals will live forever if we don't eat them? Do you think that animals reflect back on "what could have been" when led to slaughter, all the wile lamenting and reflecting on all the lost possibilities of their untimely ending? Would a cow advocate for your well-being? Are chickens going to send nukes to asteroids in a collision path with earth? Did fish end slavery, cure any diseases or do anything other than wait there to sustain the lives of other creatures, ever? When you are done with human omnivores, is your plan to move on to animal omnivores, then get around to carnivores, then move the moon and stars around in the sky? Anthropomorphising anything can lead to much confusion. If you think that cows and chickens are having a human experience, then the vegan argument makes sense. But since they do not, then the vegan argument just becomes an exercise in anthropomorphising animals to total confusion and to no fruitful end... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_V Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 You are obviously being defensive. Where did I say anything was wrong? If you look at my post, I actually advocate for just that; "They should be fighting for something realistic and attainable like getting chickens and cows out of factory farms and into the fields where they belong." Now that I can get behind, but that is not what vegans do is it? Sorry, but everything alive is food. Everything. All living beings will die and be eaten, by bacteria or by predators. Suffering is suffering, dying is not suffering. Dying is dying. All things die, all things suffer, but dying is not suffering. When an animal is eaten, suffering is not inherent. So, which is more harmful? Neither, because what is "harm" in this question? Some ethereal "harm"? Killing animals to eat them is not "harm" it is survival, it is ecology, it is biology. Do you think that animals will live forever if we don't eat them? Do you think that animals reflect back on "what could have been" when led to slaughter, all the wile lamenting and reflecting on all the lost possibilities of their untimely ending? Would a cow advocate for your well-being? Are chickens going to send nukes to asteroids in a collision path with earth? Did fish end slavery, cure any diseases or do anything other than wait there to sustain the lives of other creatures, ever? When you are done with human omnivores, is your plan to move on to animal omnivores, then get around to carnivores, then move the moon and stars around in the sky? Anthropomorphising anything can lead to much confusion. If you think that cows and chickens are having a human experience, then the vegan argument makes sense. But since they do not, then the vegan argument just becomes an exercise in anthropomorphising animals to total confusion and to no fruitful end... It's very difficult to have a debate about animal rights with a speciesist. Just as it would be impossible to have a debate about human rights with someone who holds racism as a core belief. It has been universally accepted that non-human animals have the same capacity as us when it comes to feeling joy, happiness, sadness and fear. Just to be clear, are you saying you agree with the below? In the society we live in, it is completely unnecessary to consume animal products in order to live a healthy life. It is therefore unnecessary to fund the exploitation, torture and killing of animals. Funding the exploitation, torture and killing of animals is something one chooses to do based solely on one's taste for animal flesh, secretions and skin. Would a cow advocate for your well-being? Are chickens going to send nukes to asteroids in a collision path with earth? Did fish end slavery, cure any diseases or do anything other than wait there to sustain the lives of other creatures, ever? When you are done with human omnivores, is your plan to move on to animal omnivores, then get around to carnivores, then move the moon and stars around in the sky? - and I really hope this is humour! It sounds like an old Derek & Clive sketch (Peter Cook & Dudley Moore) where they are talking about what the whales have ever done for us humans-- "Show me a whale that's ever written a top 10 song, or written the equivalent of Othello by Shakepeare. Whales were at the Nuremberg rallies! etc etc " Great stuff! Go to about 3 minutes 20 seconds in.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_V Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Probably me boiling plant children alive in full view of the ficus. Genuine lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prolix Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 It's very difficult to have a debate about animal rights with a speciesist. And it is really hard to have a debate with someone who is only going to throw around pejoratives, even if they are made up... It has been universally accepted that non-human animals have the same capacity as us when it comes to feeling joy, happiness, sadness and fear. See this is anthropomorphising animals, and also totally false. It has not been universally accepted. If it was, then vegan would be universally accepted. Is there any chance you could make an argument as opposed to whatever it is you are doing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_V Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 And it is really hard to have a debate with someone who is only going to throw around pejoratives, even if they are made up... An example of speciesism is in your quote, below: Did fish end slavery, cure any diseases or do anything other than wait there to sustain the lives of other creatures, ever? Who are you to say what a fish feels or experiences / does not feel or does not experience? Is this fish just waiting to get eaten? See this is anthropomorphising animals, and also totally false. It has not been universally accepted. If it was, then vegan would be universally accepted. Is there any chance you could make an argument as opposed to whatever it is you are doing here? This guy was an expert: Charles Darwin There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties.… The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prolix Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 An example of speciesism is in your quote, below: Who are you to say what a fish feels or experiences / does not feel or does not experience? Is this fish just waiting to get eaten? This guy was an expert: Charles Darwin There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental faculties.… The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery. Sorry man, you are not making any arguments. Calling me "speciest" is not an argument. Videos of fish swimming is not an argument. Quoting a 19th century proto-scientist is not an argument. Sorry, but where are the arguments? My post was packed full of facts and arguments, all of which you have managed to ignore. Plain old facts. What you are offering here has no philosophical value, it is purely emotional, you have a feeling, and you refuse to support it with facts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_V Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Sorry man, you are not making any arguments. Calling me "speciest" is not an argument. Videos of fish swimming is not an argument. Quoting a 19th century proto-scientist is not an argument. Sorry, but where are the arguments? My post was packed full of facts. Plain old facts. What you are offering here has no philosophical value, it is purely emotional, you have a feeling, and you refuse to support it with facts... No need to be sorry. I just don't agree with the 'facts' in your post. I find it unbelievable that you don't believe animals have the capacity to feel pleasure, pain, joy, misery, fear. Have you ever met a dog? Did fish .... do anything other than wait there to sustain the lives of other creatures, ever? I don't agree that fish are just waiting to be food for other animals. Killing animals to eat them is not "harm" it is survival, it is ecology, it is biology. I don't agree that killing animals is necessary for survival. I am just one of many (living) examples - having not consumed any animal products for almost 2 years now. When an animal is eaten, suffering is not inherent. Unfortunately, this is not the case 9 times out of 10 given the way livestock is treated in industrialised nations. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prolix Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 No need to be sorry. I just don't agree with the 'facts' in your post. I find it unbelievable that you don't believe animals have the capacity to feel pleasure, pain, joy, misery, fear. Have you ever met a dog? I don't agree that fish are just waiting to be food for other animals. I don't agree that killing animals is necessary for survival. I am just one of many (living) examples - having not consumed any animal products for almost 2 years now. Unfortunately, this is not the case 9 times out of 10 given the way livestock is treated in industrialised nations. Sorry man, you are not being rational. You must have missed the facts because you can't disagree with facts. You basically moved past the facts to invent assumptions to disagree with that I did not make, thas a strawman. But just saying you disagree is pointless, you have to support that otherwise it is futile and we are just stating preferences. Here is an example. I point out the facts of what fish HAVE NOT done. Instead you want to comment on what is going on inside the head of a fish. The former is a fact, the latter is something that can never be known and has nothing to do with my points, which you perpetually ignore. Just like the point in my very first post that you ignored. I never said that eating meat was "necessary" but you just slam it in as if it is what I said. Nobody is going to be able to communicate with you if this is how you behave. Sorry, but I got to disengage, this discourse has been very unsatisfying for me for reasons I have already noted. If anything you are strengthening my arguments by showing that you have no capacity or intention of actually dealing with the points I brought up and supported by fact... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard_V Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Sorry man, you are not being rational. You must have missed the facts because you can't disagree with facts. You basically moved past the facts to find the few assumptions to disagree with. But just saying you disagree is pointless, you have to support that otherwise it is futile and we are just stating preferences. Here is an example. I point out the facts of what fish HAVE NOT done. Instead you want to comment on what is going on inside the head of a fish. The former is a fact, the latter is something that can never be known and has nothing to do with my points, which you perpetually ignore. Just like the point in my very first post that you ignored.I never said that seating meat was "necessary" but you just slam it in as if it is what I said. Nobody is going to be able to communicate with you if this is how you behave. Sorry, but I got to disengage, this discourse has been very unsatisfying for me for reasons I have already noted. If anything you are strengthening my arguments by showing that you have no capacity or intention of actually dealing with the points I brought up and supported by fact... I point out the facts of what fish HAVE NOT done. In that case, I respectfully bow out of this conversation. .....And whoever is dishing out the red & green reputation points is defo a salad-dodger. Completely irrational statements made by meat-lovers get left alone whilst any point made by an animal lover is jumped on and 'red carded' almost immediately. What gives? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prolix Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 In that case, I respectfully bow out of this conversation. .....And whoever is dishing out the red & green reputation points is defo a salad-dodger. Completely irrational statements made by meat-lovers get left alone whilst any point made by an animal lover is jumped on and 'red carded' almost immediately. What gives? I am sorry, you made points? I really do not think you did. You espoused opinions, that is all. Do you know the difference between preferences and arguments? Between justified belief and opinion? I ask because you tend to avoid justified belief and move toward opinion. That is just what i observed. From wiki ;;; Epistemology the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion. If you made arguments and responded to arguments, you would not have gotten negged. Also being overtly rude will do it also. You were not rude, so we are left with one option. This is not my preference. This is a fact that supports my premise that this is a philosiphy conversation and thus, epistemology will be relevant. Go back, look at your posts, it is all opinion. And that is why the convo dissolved. Now if you want to resist this then this convo will dissolve. The convo about vegans went nowhere. but the conversation, that you started, about negs does not have to go nowhere, unless you want it to. Facts, this is a epistemology conversation. Fact is, you were voted down. Fact is non-epistemological and rude statements are negged. That is how you support a supposition. That is how I support the premise that you were negged and the conversation was non-productive because you are being irrational and not respecting the difference between arguments and opinion, or justified belief and preference, or aesthetics and epistemology .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 This and the other vegetarian thread leave me a little puzzled. The speaker in the original post seems healthy as a vegan, while the speaker in the video posted by prolix changed from a vegan diet due to health concerns (I've come across tales of the opposite as well) and is healthier now for it, no? Provided they're both accurate despite differing diets: Is there another variable at play here that supersedes whether or not the nutrients, minerals, etc. coming from plant or animal sources will promote health or not? (the concept of "life force" was mentioned but I don't know how that can be communicated empirically or measured at the moment... does it have something to do with electricity?) Between moral, immoral, and amoral, this topic is in the amoral category since dietary decisions on their own count as personal preferences, right? Also, is the omnivore diet akin to the golden mean fallacy? (My gut says no...but then again my gut likely has confirmation bias. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavitor Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Who are you to say what a fish feels or experiences / does not feel or does not experience? I could easily ask you the same question... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts