It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Piggies are friends NOT FOOD!

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
What you think plants aren't living organisms, you eat them don't you? Why don't you have as much compassion toward the plant kingdom? Get over yourself and face facts, in order to survive you must eat other things. If you are too insane to eat something because you think it makes you better than all the other horrible people in the world, then die of starvation.

Compassion won't solve the worlds problems, but rationality can.
edit on 1-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


In defence of ethical vegetarianism itself, it's not so much about eradicating suffering and cruelty as it is reducing it. Vegetarians do not need to eat meat, but we need to eat plants. Most meat eaters don't need to eat meat, so there's a distinction to be made.

The idea of vegetarianism is to cause minimal harm, to kill or destroy based upon need, rather than want or pleasure. Vegetarians eating plants is a poor argument because there is no other option for vegetarians. Eating plants is the least harmful(from an ethical stand point at least) diet.

The flaw of your argument is the presupposition that we need to eat meat to survive, it's born of fantasy. No Westerner is dying from starvation on a vegetarian diet, in fact, you're probably more likely to put weight on by eating mountains of cheese -- or perhaps that's just me




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


Well, I can't speak from personal experience because I've never assumed a vegetarian diet for any period of time. However I can say that I feel very weak and hungry when I don't get enough meat in my diet. So to me it is necessity, my body is telling me it needs things I am not providing it. Humans and animals alike can survive on some pretty outrageous stuff, that doesn't mean it's ideal to stay healthy.

Also, I don't understand this concept of causing "minimal harm"? The only grand assumption I see in this argument is that you think killing a plant is somehow less harmful than killing an animal, they are both living organisms, there is no difference other than a bias against destroying animals in favor of destroying plants. You can argue about pain, but animals can be killed in ways that do not cause them pain and whose to say if plants feel any kind of pain (probably not, but for the sake of argument), so what is the difference?
edit on 1-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


Well, I can't speak from personal experience because I've never assumed a vegetarian diet for any period of time. However I can say that I feel very weak and hungry when I don't get enough meat in my diet. So to me it is necessity, my body is telling me it needs things I am not providing it.

Also, I don't understand this concept of causing "minimal harm"? The only grand assumption I see in this argument is that you think killing a plant is somehow less harmful than killing an animal, they are both living organisms, there is no difference other than a bias against destroying animals in favor of destroying plants.
edit on 1-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


That's fair enough. Many ex-vegetarians say similar to yourself(on feeling weak), Sam Harris is one. So there's perhaps a health argument for some individuals, there's also a possible ecological argument and an economical one. But even the best of meat eaters would have to concede, I think, that there's no moral argument for eating meat.

As for harm between animals and plants, there are many differences. I think you would enjoy the video I posted on the last page between Singer and Dawkins. The topic of harm and ethics between animals, plants and even humans is addressed. There is an unfortunate difference between animals and plants. Believe me, if there wasn't I'd be tucking into some jerk chicken rather than this bloody vegetable soup



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


You can argue about pain, but animals can be killed in ways that do not cause them pain and whose to say if plants feel any kind of pain (probably not, but for the sake of argument), so what is the difference?
edit on 1-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


The difference is animals, most of them, have an intelligence and awareness that plants do not.

I think you're making the mistake of thinking that vegetarians don't have a desire to eat a nice steak. Speaking for myself, and I hope you take my word on this, I've searched high and low for arguments that would justify me returning to eat and meat. I would love to eat meat, but ethically I can't bring myself to do it, because, for all my research and attempts, there is no moral argument for it.

At best there's potential for an environmental or economic argument, although both are relatively flimsy in a Western context.

Here's the video I metnioned between Singer(vegetarian) and Dawkins(non-vegetarian)


edit on 1-1-2012 by JessopJessopJessop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by JessopJessopJessop
That's fair enough. Many ex-vegetarians say similar to yourself(on feeling weak), Sam Harris is one. So there's perhaps a health argument for some individuals, there's also a possible ecological argument and an economical one. But even the best of meat eaters would have to concede, I think, that there's no moral argument for eating meat.

As for harm between animals and plants, there are many differences. I think you would enjoy the video I posted on the last page between Singer and Dawkins. The topic of harm and ethics between animals, plants and even humans is addressed. There is an unfortunate difference between animals and plants. Believe me, if there wasn't I'd be tucking into some jerk chicken rather than this bloody vegetable soup


Didn't realize Sam Harris was ever a vegetarian, but now that I think about it should have been obvious.

About the moral argument, no it doesn't make me feel good to kill any animal so I see your point. It's just that it is a necessity and a part of the natural cycle of life. Morality is only a several thousand(?) or so year old concept created for expression, nature has been here far longer. I don't kill anything that I won't eat, I won't even kill a cat (some guys shoot cats out at the club) and as a matter of fact it infuriates me if someone tries to do it in my presence, so I do have some compassion toward animals.

I have some cats and a dog, I love them dearly and wouldn't eat them, but I would kill a deer if I had to in order to feed them, myself and anyone/thing else I personally care about. It's just necessity, sorry vegetarians, life is just weird and it's not pretty sometimes. I guess not even really necessity as that could be debatable.

I'll check out the video, I skipped over the thread a bit.


Originally posted by JessopJessopJessop
The difference is animals, most of them, have an intelligence and awareness that plants do not.


Okay, now you are getting to the nitty gritty.

In a nutshell, and a bit hypocritically after my previous rant about bigotry, I feel I am a more advanced vessel than anything I might kill to eat. The energy and nutrition of the animals meat supplements me and allows me to carry on as an intelligent being. This is much similar to your view about animals being more intelligent than plants, therefore morally unacceptable to kill for food, it's just that I see humans as superior to animals in the same manner. A human can accomplish much more than an animal, the value of the humans life is more than the value of the animals, though the animal needs to be respected for supporting the human. No matter if it dies willingly or not there isn't a way around this horrible truth, this is the unfortunate way that life works.

AKA the animal lives on in me and I am responsible for caring for its kin if I can. The way I see it, morally, is that I have a responsibility, because I eat animals. Much in the same way a vegetarian would crave a steak, I really don't like killing things.

Thanks for the good conversation, sorry if I came on to this thread too strong or offensive.
edit on 1-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77

Originally posted by JessopJessopJessop
That's fair enough. Many ex-vegetarians say similar to yourself(on feeling weak), Sam Harris is one. So there's perhaps a health argument for some individuals, there's also a possible ecological argument and an economical one. But even the best of meat eaters would have to concede, I think, that there's no moral argument for eating meat.

As for harm between animals and plants, there are many differences. I think you would enjoy the video I posted on the last page between Singer and Dawkins. The topic of harm and ethics between animals, plants and even humans is addressed. There is an unfortunate difference between animals and plants. Believe me, if there wasn't I'd be tucking into some jerk chicken rather than this bloody vegetable soup


Didn't realize Sam Harris was ever a vegetarian, but now that I think about it should have been obvious.

About the moral argument, no it doesn't make me feel good to kill any animal so I see your point. It's just that it is a necessity and a part of the natural cycle of life. Morality is only a several thousand(?) or so year old concept created for expression, nature has been here far longer. I don't kill anything that I won't eat, I won't even kill a cat (some guys shoot cats out at the club) and as a matter of fact it infuriates me if someone tries to do it in my presence, so I do have some compassion toward animals.

I have some cats and a dog, I love them dearly and wouldn't eat them, but I would kill a deer if I had to in order to feed them, myself and anyone/thing else I personally care about. It's just necessity, sorry vegetarians, life is just weird and it's not pretty sometimes.

I'll check out the video, I skipped over the thread a bit.
edit on 1-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


Not a problem, and I'm definitely not in the business of condemning people. If you look back the last page you'll see me ranting against vegetarians even. Hell, many of my close friends don't even realise I am a vegetarian. And I still cook family meals for my meat eating family with no qualms.

Harris position is basically that there is no ethical argument for eating meat, but he went back to and now eats meat because he felt unhealthy without it and feels better for it. He doesn't make excuses or argument against vegetarianism, that I can see. Dawkins argument is similar(although he's never been vegetarian), he concedes in many ways that eating meat isn't necessarily ethical, but he does it for convenience, habit or peer pressure(which Is outright stupid if you ask me).



The Harris video is very short and part of a larger QA session that you can find on Youtube, the QA session is about a number of subjects and is very interesting



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


Explanation: Uhmmm?



See my reply to Cosma..............you're comments aren't even worth a reply.


And yet you did reply!


Personal Disclosure: Welcome this thread to the RANTS forum in offtopics!


P.S. And in future please Stay OUT of the Survival forums ok!



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77

Okay, now you are getting to the nitty gritty.

In a nutshell, and a bit hypocritically after my previous rant about bigotry, I feel I am a more advanced vessel than anything I might kill to eat. The energy and nutrition of the animals meat supplements me and allows me to carry on as an intelligent being. This is much in line with your view about animals being more intelligent than plants, therefore morally unacceptable to kill for food.

AKA the animal lives on in me and I am responsible for caring for its kin if I can. The way I see it, morally, is that I have a responsibility, because I eat animals. Much in the same way a vegetarian would crave a steak, I really don't like killing things.
edit on 1-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)


I understand your argument and it's a poor one, because it would justify cannibalism and much more, but what's your point?

I don't ask sarcastically, I've had a few to drink and can't see what you're getting at with your argument or how it relates to minimal harm, if it does?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


Sorry, I explained that rather bad. I edited my post, maybe it will help. Your not getting anywhere with me by constantly proclaiming my argument is poor.

I don't particularly believe in minimal harm. Vegetarians kill plants to survive, omnivores kill plants and animals, that's just how it is. An animal doesn't accomplish anymore than a plant does, they both live in a chaotic natural society. Some exceptions would be working dogs, horses, pets etc, we generally don't eat those in the west.

As far as cannibalism, yes I would eat a human, but I wouldn't kill one. I am more or less equal to humans (well... because I am one) so I don't think I have any right to kill someone to eat, if they were already dead (for a short time) yea I would eat a human if I had to. Not that I want to.

I'll eat just about anything except fast food or heavily processed meat, if you eat meat in America it's almost unavoidable that you will get some mystery stuff once in a while. Though every now and I'll break my rules and grab a buffalo chicken stick from a convenience store. This only happens a few times a year. I try to stay healthy, but not so healthy that I feel unhealthy.
edit on 1-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   
But the animals we eat and a lettuce plant are not comparable. They may both feel pain and have intelligence, but to completely different degrees. Eating a plate of beans and eating a joint of bacon are miles apart. That's true in theory and even in practice -- Where growing mushrooms in a shed is far less morally abhorrent than keeping chickens, for example, locked up in a factory farm. There's a fundamental difference, ethically.

It's disingenuous and argument for comforts sake to put them on an equal footing. So your argument is what, that because vegetarianism causes some harm that it's no different than a meat-based diet?

You wouldn't accept an argument from a vegetarian that a pig has the same value as a human, so why make the argument that a potato has the same value as a cow?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


Okay, so a potato is different from a pig.

What exactly does that change? By your own words eating a plant is morally abhorrent, if only to a different degree than an animal. If you try hard enough you could find something morally abhorrent about any action you take, so why are you using such a particular definition of morality to determine something as simple as whether to eat exclusively plants or eat animals as well?

To me, it doesn't matter. I have to eat stuff to live, there is no way around it and there is no way to ethically justify killing something to eat it, that doesn't change the fact I have to eat other things to survive, plant or animal.

There is really nothing else I can say, got to eat stuff to live. I don't think its anymore ethically wrong to eat a plant than it is an animal, but to each his own. Your in for a real trip if you try to justify every single thing you do, because you will always be doing something wrong according to you or someone else.

I just don't see any reason to hold such a rigid definition of morality that you can eat plants and not animals. A potato has had the same amount of time to flourish on Earth as a pig has, the pig just ended up a bit smarter and different than the potato. Neither one accomplishes anything other than surviving and eating on its own, they are both edible in my book.

Pigs will eat flesh, does that make them evil? If they are more evil than herbivores, why not kill them? With your line of reasoning everyone who eats meat is more evil than vegetarians... like I said, holier than thou bigotry. You hold a very particular idea of morality that allows you to feel like you are somehow better than everyone who eats meat, despite the fact we've been doing it for a long... LONG time and even your ancestors who gave rise to you, ate meat. You are a product of people eating meat to survive, yet you shun us for doing it.
edit on 1-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


This is a very brave thing you are doing, continuing to put it out there, dear friend. Ironically, it is like the lamb to the slaughter. We always get attacked by the carnivores who just cannot see it. Also, they seem to treat us with disrespect and condecending attitudes, while accusing us of the same. I don't get it.

I really cannot persist like you do. I must have outgrown the urge to try and make them see the Light, because in my younger days I would have been up there with you. Now I work on the self, more than on the them.

Well done and keep going. You have my inner support.

Stunning photo! Really beautiful. Who is that in the photo? How can they eat that?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


EXACTLY! Well said.

The mere fact that a potato has so much less life experience potential (it cannot run around, it cannot make sound, it cannot feel, react, or mate, has no senses -in human experience) than a cow or a pig, is not a result of halfhazoured creation. It is so due to a well planned intention.

Is it not also so that a plant only contains two elements: water and earth. Whereby an animal is made up out of water, earth, air and fire? Thus, indicating that animals are at a much higher level than plants. (But of course, I will not get bombed by 'picks or it didn't happen and some such stuff.)

Did 'Adam' and 'Eve' not live on just fruit? (Oi! maybe I should not open that bag of potatoes!)

These threads about vegetarianism is painful to me to reply in. It is always like the 'lamb to the slaughter'.

Sadly, they cannot see it. Never mind feel it.

Sometimes I truly think it is like trying to share something with someone that is totally out their range. Like owning a unique object from another country of which they have never heard of the object nor the country.
Just because they have never been there or do not know that such an object exists, they refuse to even consider it possible.

Frustrating.
edit on 2-1-2012 by UnlimitedSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by JessopJessopJessop

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky
Eating flesh numbs the senses, thus, people that have eaten meat for a long time cannot feel compasionate towards other living creatures.


^ A prime example of the sort of extremist, egocentric and irrational attitude of vegetarians towards meat eaters.

Next time I'm in Asia with Buddhist monks I will have to let them know that their meat based diet prevents them from feeling compassion to animals, and that their Four Noble Truths are just a disguise for their immorality and lack of compassion.



Eating meat does numb the senses. It makes one incompassionate and hard. No two ways about it. Post you a picture of a human with blood all over their face, raw meat hanging out the mouth. This one I put next to a beautiful man sitting in a fruit orchard eating a peach. CAN you see, no, can you feel the difference these two images provoke? No??? Wow, still comfortably numb.

Original, true Buddhists did not eat meat. So yes, why not go and tell those 'monks'.

Do you know what you yourself sound like? A fence sitter. Also extremely condescending. You wage war with vegetarians, and females in particular. 'Fussy eaters'? Wow! And you say you don't condemn????? Good one.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by UnlimitedSky
 


I don't know who is in that photo but when I worked on our dairy farm I use to take a noon day nap during the summer with our cows.

One of them use to like to lay down and cuddle with me exactly like that, laying her head on me.

They cannot do algebra or make a atom bomb, but they have feelings, once saw Molly standing over her still born calf crying..............yes cows can cry.

Have many stories, living on a farm where in some animals have more heart, more humanity than most humans, particularly the smart arse ones posting here that are heartless and haven't a clue as to how it would feel to be abused, tortured and than used as food.

That is why I showed that man meat chart.................to give them a connection or possibly open their eyes as to how it would feel.

There is a change I have noted within "people" over the past few decades.

Just because someone may look "human" doesn't mean they are and I know that sounds crazy but even Christians, all religions believe in "possession" and I believe much of humanity has become soul infested with entities that are not quite human........hence the heartlessness, the irreverence for both our planet and it's other inhabitants.

Maybe it will take some of these "people" coming back as a cow or pig and watching their brother standing in line being skinned alive knowing they are next before they come to realize what we are doing.

No, the stun guns aren't turned up enough, I've talked to a slaughter house worker and many people support by buying "meat" that lived in and met their end in agony.

The more vicious the attack the more the person knows what they are doing is wrong........hence why they attack so viciously.

The ones that have these cute, sharp, witty and immature remarks are young, either in mind, age and or soul. They are clueless.
edit on 2-1-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I suggest for each person that is consuming meat to read; Chaos Point 2012 And Beyond Our Choices Between Global Disaster and a Sustainable Planet by Ervin Laszlo.

My guess by the many replies is that most of you do not read significant books - you do not research nor think of anyone but yourselves.


page 20-21: The Fallacies of Overconsumption: The Cases of Eating, Smoking and Driving.

World meat consumption has increased more than fivefold in the last 50 years. More and more people demand meat, yet the meat they get is not the safe meat one's grandmother bought in 1950. It may contain progesterone, testosterone, avoparcin, and clenbuterol-chemicals farmers pump into cattle to fatten them up and keep them healthy. Anabolic steroids, growth hormones, (obesity increase in humans???)and beta-agonists turn fat into muscle; antibiotics stimulate growth and protect sedentary animals against diseases they would not get if they were kept in more natural conditions.

A diet heavey on meat is not only unhealthy, it is also immoral: It indulges a personal fancy at the expense of depleting resources essential to feed the entire human population. Red meat comes from cattle, and cattle must be fed. The grain fed to cattle is subtracted from that available for human consumption. If cows returned equivalent nutrition in the form of meat, their feed would not be wasted. But the calorific energy provided by beef is only one-seventh of the energy of the feed. This means that in the process of converting grain into beef, cows (and pigs) "waste" six-sevenths of the nutritional value of their feed. The proportion is somewhat more favorable in poultry, but the average chicken still uses for itself two-thirds of the nutritional value of the feed it consumes.

The rational and moral solution is to phase out the mass production of cattle and poultry - not by massive slaughter but by breeding fewer animals and breeding them healthier."


At this point I will state that our farm cows, chicken and sheep tasted totally different than any I have ever had from a super market.............our animals were never injected with anything, fed top grade feed and free range in large pastures with very roomy barns that were kept clean.


The nutritive needs of the entire human population could be satisfied by eating more vegetables and grain and less meat, using first and foremost the produce of one's own country, region and environment. Grain and plant based food self reliance provides a healthier diet and it allows the world's economically exploitable agricultural lands to be workerd to satisfy the needs of the whole human family.


I strongly suggest for all thinking people that want a better world to read this book. It explains how things could be better for everyone and not just the few.

We cannot keep going on "business as usual" - both economically, agriculturally, farming practices, fuel consumption, all must change and change drastically and fast or we may very well find ourselves headed for disaster.


page 18]Americans, worried about obesity, spend 30 times more trying to slim down than the UN's entire budget for famine relief. Affluent people consume such quantities of red meat that the world's entire grain harvest would not be enough to feed all the cattle that would be needed if the poorer people of the world were to adopt a similar diet.
(And here the book goes into that China is now with their billions of people beginning to adopt the American greedy lifestyle)..........we cannot go on like this it's species suicide.

Dr. Ervin Laszlo's book examines the current trends of all our major world problems. One of which is meat consumption and how it takes more land and grain to feed our "meat" than if we simply ate more grain and way less (or no meat).

We could feed the whole world.

Why would any human think it is okay for them to walk around at 1-200 pounds over weight, eating 3X's the amount of meat per day deemed "unhealthy" when we have over 23,000 people a day dying of starvation (mostly children).

Description of video below: Dr. Ervin Laszlo, is a world-renowned philosopher of science, systems theorist and integral theorist as well as a classical pianist. A true Renaissance man and citizen of the world, he is the author of over 80 books translated into 21 languages. In this interview we discuss the very timely book he edited with Allan Combs called Thomas Berry, Dreamer of the Earth -- The Spiritual Ecology of the Father of Environmentalism. It contains 10 essays by eminent philosophers, thinkers, and scientists that focus on the environmental and social crises facing humanity and the urgent need for a massive paradigm shift.
Read about this book and others at www.ncreview.com...



Again, I highly recommend this book. This may give you a understanding of why and how we must change the way we currently think and act.
edit on 2-1-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by UnlimitedSky
 



There is a change I have noted within "people" over the past few decades.

Just because someone may look "human" doesn't mean they are and I know that sounds crazy but even Christians, all religions believe in "possession" and I believe much of humanity has become soul infested with entities that are not quite human........hence the heartlessness, the irreverence for both our planet and it's other inhabitants.

Maybe it will take some of these "people" coming back as a cow or pig and watching their brother standing in line being skinned alive knowing they are next before they come to realize what we are doing.

It does not sound at all crazy to me. I agree 100%.This is how it is. Sadly, man has become unbalanced and indulges in negative power which cannot do him any good. This negative energy has taken over many a good man. Probably only you will understand me when I say that I cannot for the life of me understand why they even make movies with pain, anger, suffering, hate, and above all violence. What is wholesome, kind, good in that? It makes not sense. Of course unless you have those things dominating the good in you, then it may appeal. But this things are evil itself and truly numbs the mind from compassion. Never mind if it is 'only a movie'.

I have also lived on a farm in my young days. The best time of my life. EVER. I understand you so well.

Also, mankind has become filled with Maya - illusion. This is not a reference to magic tricks as we know it. Illusion in this world refers to the fact that mankind has fallen for the trick of thinking that material things are real. On a higher level, we understand that they are not real. Only that which never perishes, never dies, never disintergrates is real. And those are only the things inside you. Inside your soul.

Stay in the Light!
Namaste.


editby]edit on 2-1-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)


editby]edit on 2-1-2012 by UnlimitedSky because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2012 by UnlimitedSky because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2012 by UnlimitedSky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ofhumandescent
 


Excellent post. Well quoted!



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
What exactly does that change? By your own words eating a plant is morally abhorrent, if only to a different degree than an animal. If you try hard enough you could find something morally abhorrent about any action you take, so why are you using such a particular definition of morality to determine something as simple as whether to eat exclusively plants or eat animals as well?


There's nothing morally abhorrent in eating plants. We need to eat plants to survive - it's necessity.


To me, it doesn't matter. I have to eat stuff to live, there is no way around it and there is no way to ethically justify killing something to eat it, that doesn't change the fact I have to eat other things to survive, plant or animal.


But you don't need to eat animals to survive.



There is really nothing else I can say, got to eat stuff to live. I don't think its anymore ethically wrong to eat a plant than it is an animal, but to each his own. Your in for a real trip if you try to justify every single thing you do, because you will always be doing something wrong according to you or someone else.


Then you aren't thinking hard enough. There's no question that eating animals is more morally dubious than eating plants. I can provide the science for it.


I just don't see any reason to hold such a rigid definition of morality that you can eat plants and not animals. A potato has had the same amount of time to flourish on Earth as a pig has, the pig just ended up a bit smarter and different than the potato. Neither one accomplishes anything other than surviving and eating on its own, they are both edible in my book.


It's really quite simple and not rigid in the least, this is pretty elementary. Eating a potato causes less harm, and I don't need to eat pig, so I'll eat the potato.

To paint eating a potato as being on par with eating a pig is just lunacy.


Pigs will eat flesh, does that make them evil?


No. A pig doesn't have the intelligence to discern between right and wrong. A pig eats to survive without thought or maybe even understanding of the harm it causes.


If they are more evil than herbivores, why not kill them?


They aren't more evil than herbivores.


With your line of reasoning everyone who eats meat is more evil than vegetarians...


Well yes, I guess I do think meat eaters are more evil than vegetarians generally and by definition of the word evil. That's not to say eating meat is evil, but vegetarianism is certainly the more moral position. So technically you're right, that is my position.


like I said, holier than thou bigotry.


Absolute nonsense. I don't think I'm holier than anyone, everyone that I love and care for eats meat and they're all wonderful people, from my family to my friends.

I think the truth is that you're intimidated by my position, for some strange reason. From the very first moment you attacked me with insults and slandered me a bigot, all because I presented a very rudimentary and friendly explanation of the minimal harm principal. I didn't attack you, and I haven't been in here preaching militant vegetarianism, in fact if you've bothered to read - rather than entering the thread all guns blazing and making arguments founded on emotional instability - you'll have seen me attacking vegetarians, yet from the get go you attacked me with vitriolic hate.

I don't know how I could be more fair or unbiased in my posts. But it's what I've come to expect on ATS and in life - you make rational arguments and you're attacked by extremists on both sides.

Do I think I'm better than you? I do now, but it has nothing to do with your diet, let me tell you.


You hold a very particular idea of morality that allows you to feel like you are somehow better than everyone who eats meat


You seem to be trying to slander me some sort of egotist who's a vegetarian for the sake of moral boasting. I'm a vegetarian because I believe it's the right thing to be. Your inferiority complex has nothing to do with me.


despite the fact we've been doing it for a long... LONG time and even your ancestors who gave rise to you, ate meat. You are a product of people eating meat to survive, yet you shun us for doing it.


My ancestors also probably raped and murdered people, doesn't mean I should continue it.

Who have I shunned? Stop trying to put me in a box based upon your preconceived notions of vegetarians. I haven't bloody shunned anyone.
edit on 2-1-2012 by JessopJessopJessop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnlimitedSky
This is a very brave thing you are doing, continuing to put it out there, dear friend. Ironically, it is like the lamb to the slaughter. We always get attacked by the carnivores who just cannot see it. Also, they seem to treat us with disrespect and condecending attitudes, while accusing us of the same. I don't get it.


Most humans are omnivores, it's unlikely that you've been attacked carnivores. Unless lions have developed the intelligence to operate a computer.

Perhaps also people would be less condescending if you treated them how you wished to be treated?



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join