:
Originally posted by Max the Mug
Yes, this arguement is ridiculous. I tried to make that clear myself by saying [snip] Unfortunately, I think either Sydney or I got confused about the difference between 'consciousness' and 'conscience'. The first deals with what Sydney describes, and I definitely agree most species of animal have these attributes (emotion, thoughts, interests, quirks), but the later refers to morals, which we keep coming back to. That's how I've always used the words anyway.
|
What exactly is ridiculous about defending an animal's behaviour because they have a limited grasp of empathy? You say it's ridiculous, but you don't explain why. You quoted me, but conveniently snipped off the first part of my response which clearly said "they don't possess the capacity to understand the issue, or they're unable to properly digest plants." The inability to understand the issue suggests that their conscience is either nonexistant or underdeveloped. But the posession of a conscience isn't the issue, but rather that
we recognise the sophistication of organisms with nervous systems, and that we are grossly disrespecting their rights and interests by taking their lives and consuming their flesh. Morality is only part of the situation once you've levelled all the facts. The facts are:[list=a][*]Animals have interests, desires and emotions[*]They are very much like us in that respect[*]We, unlike other animals, understand that our treatment upon them causes tremendous suffering and confusion[*]The consumption of their flesh is not essential for human health/survival[/list=a]Therefore, I come to the conclusion that those who eat animals place the satisfaction they get above the lives of these beings. These animals are sacrificed for pleasure, not necessity! That is why we can say that meat eating is a symptom of selfishness. These beings suffer for a
needless cause.
:
Originally posted by Max the Mug
That's how I use the word. My morals allow me to do some things that other people couldn't do. Other people's morals, while I can't dispute them directly, may allow Mr Baby Eater to do something I question in myself. Then I'd have to go and persuade him to question his morals, while carefully avoiding trying to directly change them.
|
Good. But now do you understand why morality is a futile argument in topics such as these? The discussion could end simply with me declaring that eating meat is morally wrong according to my standards, and you and the others could just as easiliy say that eating meat is acceptable within your own moral codes. This is why I introduced the baby eating argument - morality doesn't arbitrarily say it is right or wrong - it depends on who you ask. Therefore, we should look at the facts: A man is taking the lives of unwilling babies to satisfy his tastebuds. He doesn't need to eat babies to survive, but he does it simply because he enjoys it, regardless of the infringement of the babies' interests. This is the argument I have been using all along. Look up at the dot points above. If you continue to eat meat, you must either agree with me that it's a selfish habit, or provide a counter-argument.
:
Originally posted by Max the Mug
No, I wasn't really denying that, but at the time I didn't really understand it. Reading through the topic since my last post has let me see what you mean though, and I must agree, meat-eating can be defined as selfish. But do you think fox-hunting is selfish?
|
So you agree that meat eating is selfish. Excellent, that's all I ask. Do I think fox-hunting is selfish? Yes, hiding behind a veil of tradition doesn't hide the fact that these people are enjoying killing animals. As I said before, an activities' duration isn't its justification.
:
Originally posted by Statikk HDM
It seems to me that all the vegetarians care about are the cute animals.
|
Evidence please. Pigs are quite ugly, yet we still care about them. I don't know where you got the idea that vegetarians only care about attractive animals, so why not tell us?
:
Originally posted by Dragadon
To 'force' me to do so would be torture...and that is what it seems to be you are trying to do Syd with this topic. Such hostility turns me off as much as peeps trying to force their religion on me.
Now...that said...I respect you for your beliefs...and I am not about to even try to convice you otherwise, unlike what you seem to be doingcolor. You may not like my eating habits, but you have NO right to try to force YOUR beliefs of the subject down my throat! Do you see me trying to force MY beliefs down YOUR throat!? NO!
|
I don't see you trying to force your eating-related beliefs down my throat, nor do you have any reason to. My eating habits don't involve the slaughter of innocents. Why is it wrong for me to a be a voice of these defenseless creatures? If your siblings were being killed and eaten, would you protest? Or would you respect the decisions of those who eat your brothers and sisters?
:
Originally posted by abe22
I don't know why some people can't just respect other peoples opinions? All people need to say is 'in my opinion' instead of saying it as the truth. That's what get's people going the most, I think! I don't give if someone says that I'm a selfish, ignorant and lazy person because I eat meat, it doesn't worry me one bit because you don't know me personally, but it does to some people.
|
See my response to Dragadon above.
:
Originally posted by abe22
Now, I don't care if this was an argument in the other veghead topics but you veggie people say that we (meat eaters) are killers, but you are hurting the vegetable plants, what is the difference? Tell me please, if there is one. And besides, most vegetables are not genuine anyway (GM, no not government made). And yes, I could kill my own food but I'll let the professionals do it for me.
|
Some of us should really start reading the entire topic before we start adding our two cents. As it's been explained, plants don't have a nervous system. They don't feel pain, nor do they have interests or thoughts.