Eating Meat is Unethical

originally posted by: Son of Will

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Son of Will


Empathy is terrible for hunting?

Tell that to any native tribe.....

How can you be so obviously, glaringly wrong about so much and still maintain course?

This is bordering in delusional/cult vegetarianism mentality

If you have an argument to make, or are able to respond to mine, feel free.

But it seems all you have are insults. They don't even make any sense.

The irony in this post borderlines on comedy

originally posted by: Son of Will
You have completely confused yourself with that hodgepodge of thoughts.

Well, gee, you have my attention.
Please, go ahead and educate me about 'my' thoughts, that have 'me' so confused! *__-

You make so many mistakes,

Great! Bring 'em on!

but let me address one glaring one:

Is it not a bit premature to cry 'mistakes' without the gab to validate your aspersions?
Or is your unsupported claims merely meant to 'poison the water'?

You can't respect an animal by killing and eating it.

That is called a strawman fallacy. You are manufacturing an argument over something that I never said!
I do not even use the term 'respect', nor did I, and you are attempting to use your strawman to somehow prove my error in your manufactured 'target/strawman'?
I am beginning to smell the symptoms of a 'belief infection'; first, out come the 'straw-men', irrational, fallacious, then the ad-hominem (against the person rather than the topic) attacks...

That's psychopathic.

... And BOOM goes the 'ad-hom' dynamite! *__-

Try pulling that ridiculous logic with a sentient creature who can speak for itself, like a slave in the 1700s.

The only 'ridiculous/fallacious attempt at logic' seems to be yours.
Typical symptomatic response when egoic imaginary 'beliefs' feel threatened.

Anyway, when you have something of value to offer in a valid and rational refutation of what I offer, please feel free and I will respond.
If not, perhaps asking for elucidation, and attempting to understand, might be the wiser path, before a reactive emotional response.
Perhaps it was not 'I' who was confused after all?

"We do not see the world as it is, we see it as we are!" *__-

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Wow. Okay let me dumb this down a bit for you.

The exact path humans took in evolution, and the exact evolutionary pressures which caused every change over the generations, is still mostly theoretical. You are failing to understand that about 50% of what you quoted is entirely speculative.

For example, here's a great article that refutes one of your "gospel truth" speculations.
Why 'Meat Made Us Smart' is a Dumb Idea

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: namelesss

Hitler also brushed his teeth, do you?
Enough said. *__-

I stopped 40 years ago after I learn this...so there

Dog Bless you my child! *__-

a reply to: Son of Will

The exact path humans took in evolution, and the exact evolutionary pressures which caused every change over the generations, is still mostly theoretical. You are failing to understand that about 50% of what you quoted is entirely speculative.

Wow. Okay let me dumb this down a bit for you. I can easily return this argumentation against you as being theorical. But mine is based on evidences.

You are an excellent example of pathological belief:

Delusion: "Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression."

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: Son of Will
You have completely confused yourself with that hodgepodge of thoughts.

Well, gee, you have my attention.
Please, go ahead and educate me about 'my' thoughts, that have 'me' so confused! *__-

You make so many mistakes,

Great! Bring 'em on!

but let me address one glaring one:

Is it not a bit premature to cry 'mistakes' without the gab to validate your aspersions?
Or is your unsupported claims merely meant to 'poison the water'?

You can't respect an animal by killing and eating it.

That is called a strawman fallacy. You are manufacturing an argument over something that I never said!
I do not even use the term 'respect', nor did I, and you are attempting to use your strawman to somehow prove my error in your manufactured 'target/strawman'?
I am beginning to smell the symptoms of a 'belief infection'; first, out come the 'straw-men', irrational, fallacious, then the ad-hominem (against the person rather than the topic) attacks...

That's psychopathic.

... And BOOM goes the 'ad-hom' dynamite! *__-

Try pulling that ridiculous logic with a sentient creature who can speak for itself, like a slave in the 1700s.

The only 'ridiculous/fallacious attempt at logic' seems to be yours.
Typical symptomatic response when egoic imaginary 'beliefs' feel threatened.

Anyway, when you have something of value to offer in a valid and rational refutation of what I offer, please feel free and I will respond.
If not, perhaps asking for elucidation, and attempting to understand, might be the wiser path, before a reactive emotional response.
Perhaps it was not 'I' who was confused after all?

"We do not see the world as it is, we see it as we are!" *__-

Here's the problem that you apparently don't see.

Animals are sentient creatures. Humans are animals too. In my OP I made the statement:

"... because you don't need meat for survival, and because you know that causing suffering to others is wrong (it is literally hardwired into your brain in a form you call Empathy), then it naturally follows that killing a sentient creature for its flesh is wrong, because it clearly constitutes unnecessary aggression. It is fundamentally unethical. Since eating meat directly endorses this unnecessary aggression, that is also unethical. "

So I ask again: how exactly can you consider it ethical to kill another creature - which is robbing it of life - try to comprehend this, please -for no reason except the two caveats in my OP?

And please don't get so emotional. I didn't call you a psychopath. I said the reasoning you used was psychopathic, and I meant that in a clinical, dictionary fashion. I.e. lacking the capacity for empathy.

I do apologize for coming off harsh. I haven't slept much lately.

originally posted by: Son of Will
I haven't slept much lately.

Probably due to poor diet, get some good meat into you, you will feel much better and be healthier!

Also www.abc.net.au...

US scientists have released a new study which claims eating salad is worse for the environment than eating meat. The new research from Carnegie Mellon University — published in the journal Environment Systems and Decisions — states current recommendations to incorporate more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood in a diet could be worse for the environment.

originally posted by: pirhanna
a reply to: Son of Will

This is a denial of nature. Make no mistake, humans are predators, and we have teeth, stomachs and brains designed for the consumption of meat as well as fruits and vegetables. If you choose not to eat meat thats fine, but your sanctimony is a bit ridiculous because we are not herbivores. I certainly would like to avoid any cruelty, but i do not have a problem eating what my body was designed to eat.

All humans in modern society can not just survive, but thrive on a plant-based diet. Which makes it a choice. Since all animals with functional nervous systems and a brain to process those signals can presumably experience suffering, ethical considerations arise into the picture. If you choose to cause suffering, is that not unethical?

a reply to: Son of Will

The monetary system is unethical...will you be throwing your money in the trash soon?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Son of Will
Ending thoughts: It's the destiny of our species to become the Guardians of this beautiful planet, as we slowly shake off our immature and self-destructive habits, and spread out amongst the stars. It's our birthright and I will have nothing less. I think it's time we started acting like it. 

I can debunk your whole posts in one line.

Meat Tastes so Damn Good.

There, all done...hehe Do you really think humans the velociraptor of the mammal world is the guardians of our planet? You know that evil race of aliens that goes to a planet and rapes, pillages, and blunders all its resources and then eat anything that moves is actually us in the future.

The good news is once science can make good tasting meat in a test tube we can cull the heards of those that we eat today.

My dad was a steakhouse fanatic. I understand, trust me.

BUT YOU UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE DARK SIDE OF THE FORCE!
GQ's Best Burger has no Meat

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: pirhanna

This is a denial of nature. Make no mistake, humans are predators, and we have teeth, stomachs and brains designed for the consumption of meat as well as fruits and vegetables. If you choose not to eat meat thats fine, but your sanctimony is a bit ridiculous because we are not herbivores. I certainly would like to avoid any cruelty, but i do not have a problem eating what my body was designed to eat.

Do most people know that farming has not been very good to humans? The good side is it established a controllable and regulated food source, but in the last 20,000 years, about the time farming started, we have lost about a tennis ball size of brain, in another 20,000 years our brains will be smaller than Homo Erectus, a relative that lived half a million years ago. The reason is our brains take vast amount of energy to operate and meats and nuts provided that energy where farming just filled us up, but with vastly less energy. So we were 1500cc of brain and today we are 1350 of brain and in 20,000 years we will be below 1100cc brain size.

The big question is, are we reverse evolutioning our species by replacing meat with farming?

You raise some really interesting points, but your timeline is a bit off. Agriculture is only about 10,000 years old, while the brain has been shrinking for between 30,000 and 50,000 years. Fruit, however, fits the bill pretty nicely. No ther food can boast the degree of symbiotic evoution that occurred between fruit, and us sugar-loving, seed-dispersing humans.
It's just a theory, but every aspect is consistent with known science.

originally posted by: nerbot
a reply to: Son of Will

Telling people how to live their lives is far more unethical than eating meat imo.

Know what a pig is?
A cow, a horse, a sheep etc etc.

If we didn't eat them and farm them you wouldn't even know what they were because they would be wild and possibly extinct.

Thank those who eat meat so you can admire these animals today.

Since you apparently got confused, and replied to the wrong thread, I'll post my OP again.


" Two caveats: first, by 'eat animals' I refer to the industry of keeping livestock or attacking animals for the purpose of consuming them or a byproduct of them. Roadkill is fair game. Second, those not living in a modern, Western society, without access to  the foods we take for granted, cannot be included. This is for the modern world. Anyone living in poverty must think of themselves and their loved ones first before other animals. I'm not advocating martyrdom.

**
Ethics may differ between cultures, but every modern culture agrees that unnecessary aggression is unethical (excluding consenting combat). And it is a long-proven fact that humans can thrive on a diet devoid of animal products. A few people argue otherwise, and I'll gladly respond to any concerns in this regard, but I can guarantee that there's science to back this up (Your best chance at living to 120 without centenarian genes is by following Dr. Colin Campbell's dietary advice). So, because you don't need meat for survival, and because you know that causing suffering to others is wrong (it is literally hardwired into your brain in a form you call Empathy), then it naturally follows that killing a sentient creature for its flesh is wrong, because it clearly constitutes unnecessary aggression. It is fundamentally unethical. Since eating meat directly endorses this unnecessary aggression, that is also unethical. "

This is the "Eating Meat is Unethical" thread, and you're in the "What do we do with all these animals?" thread. Feel free to make that thread, and I hope you ask it honestly, instead of using it as an excuse to not address the ethical foundation of your choices.

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: Son of Will

Iron-tight argument? Sorry, but it was really nothing more than a bunch of opinions and assumptions. There's nothing wrong with that, but you should have presented it as such. Eating meat may be unethical to you, based on your beliefs and opinions (such as humans being natural lovers, not fighters, for example), but it isn't unethical for me.

Causing unnecessary suffering to another is one of the most universally recognized traits of anti-social behavior. All throughout the animal kingdom, you see a combination of cooperation and competition for survival. But all violence has a reason in the wild. Man's violence has reasons, but we have unique abilities in the animal kingdom.

We have conscious control over what is more automatic in other species, like training for various tasks. And our greatest trait relevant to this discussion is our ability to self-reflect on, and improve upon, our own basic nature. We have the ability both to understand the suffering of others, and also to prevent it in many cases. Actively choosing to cause harm where none was needed is the most basic example of ethics that could exist.

It's the Golden Rule for a reason. Maybe you disagree with it, but most rational people have an intuitive understanding that unnecessary violence is simply wrong.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Son of Will

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: Son of Will


Empathy is terrible for hunting?

Tell that to any native tribe.....

How can you be so obviously, glaringly wrong about so much and still maintain course?

This is bordering in delusional/cult vegetarianism mentality

If you have an argument to make, or are able to respond to mine, feel free.

But it seems all you have are insults. They don't even make any sense.

The irony in this post borderlines on comedy

You're saying that empathy - the ability to experience the pain and suffering of others - somehow is more important to making a good hunter, compared with intelligence and a strong sense of cooperation?

You don't even know the basic definition of empathy, yet continue to make such insulting comments. Priceless!

Irony indeed. Grab a dictionary, make an argument, or... Or just continue with your complete failure to make a clear thought. Your stupidity is matched only by your arrogance.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I really despise the thinking that because you do something and enjoy it, you feel the need to try and inflict your worldview on others.

Be a vegan if that's your bag, you have no right nor mandate to try and make anyone else one too.

Did you even read the OP? Or just knee-jerk respond after reading the title?

My main point is that one of the most universal and fundamental examples of ethics, in the modern world, is to not cause unnecessary suffering. Or, for the Christians, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

Since all animals with a functional brain can experience suffering, that Golden Rule should, logically, extend to all life. Does that make a bit more sense now?

Surely lots of things are unethical, but eating meat helped humans evolve into what we are today. Cooked meat especially, be thankful to your ancestors that they discovered cooked meats, or we would still be living in trees taking all day to much and digest vegetation.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

be thankful to your ancestors that they discovered cooked meats, or we would still be living in trees taking all day to much and digest vegetation.

As far as I know ... Meat takes longer for the body to digest than vegetables ...

originally posted by: Necrobile
Don't they understand that this is unethical!?!?

Humans aren't lions. Lions must hunt for survival. Humans don't need to.

Did you really not think about that? Or were you referring to the humans watching lions hunting. I don't see anything wrong with observing violence in nature. For other species, that is necessary for basic survival. Like Amazonian and African tribesmen. They do what they must - ethics enters into the equation when you have a choice between harming another sentient creature and not doing so.

a reply to: artistpoet cooked meat can be turned into energy much quicker allowing humans time to hunt, gather invent tools and have sex

originally posted by: skunkape23
I shot a small wild hog this morning. I threw the jowl in with a pot of beans. Onion, peppers, garlic, tomato. Good stuff.

Bragging about killing a creature for no need. That's pathetic, and even psychopathic in a clinical definition. I know you said that to be contrarian and that you think it makes me angry, but you forget that I ate meat for a quarter century, gladly. So I just feel sorry for you, to so completely relish your disconnection from your inner sense of empathy.