:
|
So you couldn't kill an animal yourself, but you think it's perfectly okey to let other people, who don't think it's wrong, do the dirty work for you and then you happily eat the meat, not thinking about it. That's just so hypocritical.
|
That's exactly how it is, up until 'not thinking about it'. I don't quite get whether you're refering to the entire process described above, or the actual slaughtered which I don't think about, but I do think about it. Perhaps not at the dinner table or when I'm actually eating the meat, but then I must admit to being selfish in this respect. But then, I don't really consider the diminishing oil supplies in the world when I'm typing at my plastic keyboard. My human mind can't cope with acting and thinking at the same time. But I do think about it a lot.
Like I said, rather fractionally before, I follow my morals, I let other people follow there's. I don't persuade other people to change their morals nor do I directly question other people's morals, but if I wanted I would persuade them to question their own morals. I wouldn't go up to a butcher and say 'what you're doing is wrong', but I might ask 'do you ever think what you're doing is wrong?'
And hypocritical, I have to admit, is not in my vocabulary. It's in my dictionary, but I can't really be bother to look up every word in the definition. You'll have to enlighten me. Sorry. I'm lazy, and therefore, by Sydney's definition, selfish.
:
|
No, you didn't get Sydney's point. He was saying that only a few people are as productive to our species, than the few he mentioned. He was saying that most of us aren't going to be so special, so we aren't as far from animals as we think, because our basic needs and goals in life are the same. The basic needs and desires for an animal are to find food and to reproduce.
|
Actually I did get his point, but I apparently took it too far. I recognised that he was saying we are no better than any other animal, plant, fungi, protoetist or monera in that we all wish our species to survive, and that this does not give us or any other species the right to overpower any other species. I just also found another point that was not intended. Oops.
:
|
There we go again. Here comes the "other animals eat meat, why couldn't we?" argument... Because we know better. And besides, animals, who eat meat kill it themselves, which is, on my opinion, more acceptable than letting someone do the dirty work for you.
|
Yes, this arguement is ridiculous. I tried to make that clear myself by saying
:
|
If you're going to suggest these creatures don't have a conscience to speak of, that doesn't really address the problem, because it's not these species that have the problem, it's us.
|
, but then
:
|
Yes, that does address the problem. We know that other animals are capable of a broad range of feelings. Have you ever seen a cat whose body has been mashed into the road while it remains fully conscious? Meowing in pain and confusion, its eyes locked with those of your own, asking for comfort. Anyone who owns a pet should be able to understand that the creature has thoughts, interests and emotions.
|
. 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.
:
|
...your veiled reference to my comment on religion in the Elvis and Jesus topic was unnecesary.
|
Was it? Trouble is, we've somehow formed two separate topics here: Vegetarianism and Morals. I can't remember what your comment was, because once I'm in one post, memory of other posts' content fades. However, I'm pretty sure it was something to do with offending other religions by stating a direct 'that's not right' or 'that's impossible'. A 'you are wrong'. Which I'm worried this topic could develop into. Luckily, we've managed to steer far clear of that.
:
|
I try to avoid using words like morals (even though I already have once in my response), as they're too dependant on who you ask. To one person the eating of live babies may be morally acceptable, while to another it may be despicable.
|
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.
:
|
How do you define "humane killing"?
|
Not being a killer, I have insufficient experience of killing. Neither have I ever had the opportunity to try out lots of different deaths to search for one that fealt humane. However, there must certainly be a technique for 'humane killing'.
Scenario: Puss has feline leukemia. Either she is put down or she will suffer greatly in her old age. Obviously the humane thing to do is to kill her. And obviously slitting her throat and letting her bleed to death is not a humane method of being humane. What we do (or what happened, because Puss really did have to be put down because she had feline leukemia) is the vet injected her with something, and she supposedly died peacefully. Before anyone else complains about it, I am aware that there is one major flaw in this scenario when put to the test in that Puss wouldn't have otherwise gone on to live a nice and pleasant life, while a cattle most probably would. I'm not really sure what point I'm trying to make here, you'll have to interpret it on your own.
:
|
Are you denying that selfishness is the cause of meat consumption? I merely pointed out that meat consumption serves no essential role in the human diet, deducing that selfishness is the motivation for meat consumption. Lives are needlessly sacrificed to satisfy a needless hunger.
|
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?
Because the country-folk over here use the arguement 'it's tradition' to justify this 'sport'. I'm not wanting to add another topic to this discussion, but it is tradition for humans to eat meat, after all. Does 'it's tradition' make it alright? I don't think so, I disagree with fox-hunting, but all I want to know is whether you think it's selfish.
:
|
. Is it also wrong of me to persuade a person who eats babies to stop, even though it is in accordance with his morals to eat babies? See, the morality argument doesn't work. Chaos would ensue if everyone were free to act on what they believe is morally sound.
|
Agreed. That's why we have laws. The most universally-held morals are made officially 'right and wrong' by the governments so that as few people as possible can be offended by other people acting on their own morals. However, sometimes the law does become a little more controversial on the vegetarianism side of things. In Britain it's illegal to eat cheval. At first I couldn't see why why, but of course it's because horses are pets. And yet we eat rabbits, and the Chinese or Japanese (I forget who) eat cats. But then you apply 'it's an inteligent animal' and you end up more confused than ever, because pigs have displayed greater mental abilities than horses, and we eat them all the time. Or meat-eaters do, anyway.
While it is against my own morals to alter other people's morals, I do personally think the world would be a lot better if everyone tried to avoid offending other people. That's never going to happen, meat-eating and vegetarianism display that perfectly. But baby-eating isn't a common practice around here, as far as I know, and so at least Norwichians have got one less thing to be disgusted by. And one less thing to be disgusted by is a godsend.
You, Sydney (I'm using you as an example, although generally I try to avoid using people), are disgusted by meat-eating. Some meat-eaters doubtlessly find vegetarianism disgusting. That's where the trouble is, but it's also why we don't have any laws to control them. Similarly that's why it's been so difficult to put a ban on fox-hunting over here, because it will be impossible to avoid disgusting many people. However, it doesn't lead to interesting discussion, which I'm not sure really compensates for all the disgustedness.
There's probably a whole load of stuff I haven't touched upon which I'd like to, but for interests of time and in trying to keep my post as short as possible (a bad attempt), I'm stopping here. No doubt about sixteen thousand people have posted while I was typing.
Vegetarianism
Because we know better. And besides, animals, who eat meat kill it themselves, which is, on my opinion, more acceptable than letting someone do the dirty work for you. It sure isn't pretty, though, when eg. a lion kills a gasell. The gasell can still be alive when the lion starts ripping it to pieces... But there isn't anything we can do about it. And there are animals, who just have to eat meat, or who wouldn't do so good without it. We can survive without meat, and eg. dogs could. I've been studying the subject, and I may turn my dog to one, but I really want to study it properly, so my dog won't lack anything in her diet, because I don't want to make her sick. Cats are also possible to turn into veggies, but it's much harder on them, than dogs.
Sorry, couldn't resist it. It was screaming to be typed.
)
