Support NeoGAF

[mysticwhip]

amibuguos cad, would you fuck an animal yes or no?

 

[AnathemicOne]

If you wish to bring in such a hypothetical, I would put it on par with damaging physical abuse. That's not a high ethical bar to clear, and I'm not sure killing clears it.

I just affirmed that there is a case where killing and eating an animal is preferable to rape. However I'd say that is limited to cases where the animal expresses displeasure and/or suffers severe physical harm. Again, a low bar to clear, and in other cases where the animal does not suffer immediate harm (even if there is long run harm in cancer/disease) that's still not as bad as death for consumption.

You keep using words like viable/practical. You want to make this about yourself and other humans, but caring about the welfare of another being does not involve what is good for yourself. You cannot justify harm to another being by the benefit it brings to yourself and also stand by the right of that being to its good health.

How is an animal dieing from cancer/disease preferable to being killed off for consumption? One scenario serves no benefit for anyone the other benefits atleast one party.

Again, I refer you back to my earlier point: I'm all for the support of animal welfare. But as a human and having faults I will not keep putting ethics over my biological needs every time I desire to eat, it is impractical and unviable and also, because in the end, we are selfish beings naturally.

It is enough for me knowing that I practice a healthy diet of both meat and plant consumption, support animal welfare programs, care for my pet, not practice poaching, etc.

 

[AnathemicOne]

How does the biological viability and social acceptability bear upon the goodness or badness of the animal's fate?

Depends on how the animal is treated. When I consume an an animal I intend to both consciously and unconsciously use all of said animal to good use. I can't speak for engaging in bestiality, but I can only assume it is only for sexual gratification most of the time.

What else would you call something that's common in the animal kingdom, and that is genetically adaptive?

Well first I would look at the other factors, this being consensual sex, then conclude that both are commonplace and not just one scenario.

 

[mavs]

How is an animal dieing from cancer/disease preferable to being killed off for consumption? One scenario serves no benefit for anyone the other benefits atleast one party.

Again, I refer you back to my earlier point: I'm all for the support of animal welfare. But as a human and having faults I will not keep putting ethics over my biological needs every time I desire to eat, it is impractical and unviable and also, because in the end, we are selfish beings naturally.

It is enough for me knowing that I practice a healthy diet of both meat and plant consumption, support animal welfare programs, care for my pet, not practice poaching, etc.

In once scenario, the animal lives before it develops cancer. In the other, it is dead. Many animals die of cancer without the intervention of humans, even despite medical intervention in the case of many pets. As Tarazet said, death is inevitable, just not necessarily imminent.

You don't have a biological need to eat meat. You should know that, but even that isn't my point. My point is that people who care about animal welfare should acknowledge that killing animals for food is a major violation of their welfare, even if you don't stop eating them you should realize that. If you do not express even a trivial wish for that violation to stop then you have little basis to judge any animal's welfare.

Depends on how the animal is treated. When I consume an an animal I intend to both consciously and unconsciously use all of said animal to good use. I can't speak for engaging in bestiality, but I can only assume it is only for sexual gratification most of the time.

I think you are uncommonly selfish. You should note that what you think is a good use of that animal is likely not what the animal would think is a "good" use. Or else there'd be no need to coerce them into killing and eating them.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

amibuguos cad, would you fuck an animal yes or no?

No.

Morality wouldn't stop me, but I have no desire to.

How is a human dieing from cancer/disease preferable to being killed off for consumption? One scenario serves no benefit for anyone the other benefits atleast one party.

I think the slight edit should explain the problem in your reasoning.

Again, I refer you back to my earlier point: I'm all for the support of animal welfare. But as a human and having faults I will not keep putting ethics over my biological needs every time I desire to eat, it is impractical and unviable and also, because in the end, we are selfish beings naturally.

It is enough for me knowing that I practice a healthy diet of both meat and plant consumption, support animal welfare programs, care for my pet, not practice poaching, etc.

You are perfectly free to persist in fault, but it also gives you little to stand on when condemning others who transgress the same moral precepts you do.

 

[akira28]

I say we keep labeling people who have sex with animals as sickos. That works for me.

This thread is barely even about that anymore. Vegetarian trolling has thunk it into a whole new different area.

If you'll eat an animal, you might as well fuck it, because it's just as bad, or something.

 

[AnathemicOne]

In once scenario, the animal lives before it develops cancer. In the other, it is dead. Many animals die of cancer without the intervention of humans, even despite medical intervention in the case of many pets. As Tarazet said, death is inevitable, just not necessarily imminent.

You don't have a biological need to eat meat. You should know that, but even that isn't my point. My point is that people who care about animal welfare should acknowledge that killing animals for food is a major violation of their welfare, even if you don't stop eating them you should realize that. If you do not express even a trivial wish for that violation to stop then you have little basis to judge any animal's welfare.

Said animal can die from decay while the other scenario is dieing instantly to support another. As we are talking about welfare, I think dieing to support someone is better than dieing to decay no?

I have a biological need to eat meat because I'm biologically attuned for it, I've practiced it for my whole life, if I quit now and resort to plants only I would probably have withdrawals, most likely unhealthy.

See the problem with animal welfare is that there's only one party that can determine what that welfare is, guess what? It's humans. How exactly do we know what's welfare to an animal? We can only go by human standards, hence why at the same time we make exemptions (the killing for eating thing).

 

[Uchip]

If you'll eat an animal, you might as well fuck it, because it's just as bad, or something.

two wrongs make a right, dont ya know

 

[AnathemicOne]

You are perfectly free to persist in fault, but it also gives you little to stand on when condemning others who transgress the same moral precepts you do.

I agree, however this specific issue discussed here is that bestiality != killing for eats, so I've all the ground to stand on with no restriction.

 

[mavs]

Said animal can die from decay while the other scenario is dieing instantly to support another. As we are talking about welfare, I think dieing to support someone is better than dieing to decay no?

No. You are free to die to support someone if you fall ill and feel that way, but unless an animal walks up to you with a gun in its mouth (or makes no attempt to defend itself when you try to kill it) it would not be possible to decide that applied to anyone but yourself.

I have a biological need to eat meat because I'm biologically attuned for it, I've practiced it for my whole life, if I quit now and resort to plants only I would probably have withdrawals, most likely unhealthy.

That sounds ridiculous. It might be true. It's also not really relevant because...

See the problem with animal welfare is that there's only one party that can determine what that welfare is, guess what? It's humans. How exactly do we know what's welfare to an animal? We can only go by human standards, hence why at the same time we make exemptions (the killing for eating thing).

Actually, we judge an animals welfare by their actions, and compare them to human standards. The animal can determine for itself, we just determine for ourselves. But certainly most animals, especially the ones we most commonly eat, are very averse to being killed by any means. And by human standards that means that being killed results in a major hit to their individual welfare. By modern human standards that would also mean that killing them is wrong, but we don't only think with the part of the brain that understands modernity.

I agree, however this specific issue discussed here is that bestiality != killing for eats, so I've all the ground to stand on with no restriction.

Rape isn't murder either. And yet both are still bad, and bad still isn't good. Bestiality bad, killing for eats bad, killing bad. The animals killed by humans for food have been wronged by humans, more seriously than some of the animals that have been raped by humans.

 

[CorvoSol]

I think one of the more hilarious statements made here is that "If you eat any animal, you can't be concerned for them when other people are raping them." It's almost as if you people have never, ever heard of cultures that thank the animals for giving their lives so that the men might continue with theirs.

There's this great children's movie out there called the Lion King, right? It's mostly a riff off of an old Shakespeare play, 'cept at one point the King tells his son "Hey, I know we're all anthropomorphic animals and so when we go hunting you're slaughtering our citizens so you can eat, but there's this thing called the Circle of Life that shows how we're all interconnected, and when you die, other animals will eat you!"

In other words: That I can't eat animals and still care about them is a big fat lie. Especially, and I think a number of people will express this same damn thought; because I do exactly that. I eat animals, animals who were ultimately bred by man for that reason, and yet I still feel for the dying animals in the streets and find the rape of animals horrific.

Good God! How is this possible!? Am I insane, that I can house such a dichotomy within myself? Surely this is the most horrible hypocrisy a man has ever committed! How do I sleep at night, eating beef and pork and chicken and fish, but at the same time thinking you shouldn't be getting it on with donkeys and sheep and dogs? Truly, this is not possible, and I must surely vanish in a puff of logic!

Oh wait, except I don't. Because people are capable of sympathy, in spite of their hunger. I'm a man, and I am capable of compartmentalizing. I was made to eat greens and the flesh of beasts, and that I might survive, I shall. Man has been eating meat as long as man can remember. He didn't one day decide "Hey, how can I ruin some pig's day?" Does the Lion fret over a Gazelle? Does the Eagle mourn for the salmon? Does the Spider lament the fly? No. Nor, then, shall I, the man, bemoan the loss of the chicken, pig, or cow. I am grateful for their sacrifice, but that is the end of it.

Here ends my soapboxing, and I can only hope that sometime before next month you people end yours.

 

[mavs]

I think one of the more hilarious statements made here is that "If you eat any animal, you can't be concerned for them when other people are raping them." It's almost as if you people have never, ever heard of cultures that thank the animals for giving their lives so that the men might continue with theirs.

There's this great children's movie out there called the Lion King, right? It's mostly a riff off of an old Shakespeare play, 'cept at one point the King tells his son "Hey, I know we're all anthropomorphic animals and so when we go hunting you're slaughtering our citizens so you can eat, but there's this thing called the Circle of Life that shows how we're all interconnected, and when you die, other animals will eat you!"

In other words: That I can't eat animals and still care about them is a big fat lie. Especially, and I think a number of people will express this same damn thought; because I do exactly that. I eat animals, animals who were ultimately bred by man for that reason, and yet I still feel for the dying animals in the streets and find the rape of animals horrific.

Good God! How is this possible!? Am I insane, that I can house such a dichotomy within myself? Surely this is the most horrible hypocrisy a man has ever committed! How do I sleep at night, eating beef and pork and chicken and fish, but at the same time thinking you shouldn't be getting it on with donkeys and sheep and dogs? Truly, this is not possible, and I must surely vanish in a puff of logic!

Oh wait, except I don't. Because people are capable of sympathy, in spite of their hunger. I'm a man, and I am capable of compartmentalizing. I was made to eat greens and the flesh of beasts, and that I might survive, I shall. Does the Lion fret over a Gazelle? Does the Eagle mourn for the salmon? Does the Spider lament the fly? No. Nor, then, shall I, the man, bemoan the loss of the chicken, pig, or cow. I am grateful for their sacrifice, but that is the end of it.

Here ends my soapboxing, and I can only hope that sometime before next month you people end yours.

Does the eagle lament the dinosaurs? Does the lion lament Mitch Hedberg? Does the cat lament the bird it tortures? You just made the argument that animals don't have any empathy, and neither should humans.

 

[AnathemicOne]

No. You are free to die to support someone if you fall ill and feel that way, but unless an animal walks up to you with a gun in its mouth (or makes no attempt to defend itself when you try to kill it) it would not be possible to decide that applied to anyone but yourself.

If that were to happen (however unlikely it would be) I would fight for my life. And as nature dictates (however unfair or fair the scenario might be) one will die and one will win. I would die fine knowing I gave it my all at that moment, unlike y'know rape where you are humiliated.

Actually, we judge an animals welfare by their actions, and compare them to human standards. The animal can determine for itself, we just determine for ourselves. But certainly most animals, especially the ones we most commonly eat, are very averse to being killed by any means. And by human standards that means that being killed results in a major hit to their individual welfare. By modern human standards that would also mean that killing them is wrong, but we don't only think with the part of the brain that understands modernity.

Again it's because we are naturally selfish beings. As a society we try to shrug this off by creating animal welfare programs and putting money into it and I've no problem with that, why? Because we have progressed enough to kill/consume only certain specific domesticated animals from in the past where we practically killed anything that wasn't human for not just consumption.

Rape isn't murder either. And yet both are still bad, and bad still isn't good. Bestiality bad, killing for eats bad, killing bad. The animals killed by humans for food have been wronged by humans, more seriously than some of the animals that have been raped by humans.

Again, we regulated our killing-for-eats quite drastically over the course of human history. But what's the difference between an animal killing for eats and a human killing for eats? I'm still part of a species on this world. Because I'm the top of the food chain does not exempt me from this.

 

[CorvoSol]

Does the eagle lament the dinosaurs? Does the lion lament Mitch Hedberg? Does the cat lament the bird it tortures? You just made the argument that animals don't have any empathy, and neither should humans.

No, I just made the argument that animals don't bitch about the animals they eat, and neither should humans. How about you don't put words in my mouth?

Oh, and Man does not lament the dinosaurs, either. I don't know if you've ever heard of cars, but we're all pretty grateful they're dead for that reason.

And until you empathize with your damn broccoli, I see no reason why this should matter anyway. You don't empathize for all life universally, mavs, just the life you WANT to empathize with. You are not better for that. Should I start crying because some medicines kill bacteria? OOOOH NOOOOOO!!!! Do I have to cry whenever I put out a yellow jacket or roach trap so I don't have to deal with stings or dead insects in my food that could make me ill? No. Death happens, and I refuse to spend life crying about what is the fate of all things.

 

[mavs]

No, I just made the argument that animals don't bitch about the animals they eat, and neither should humans. How about you don't put words in my mouth?

Oh, and Man does not lament the dinosaurs, either. I don't know if you've ever heard of cars, but we're all pretty grateful they're dead for that reason.

And until you empathize with your damn broccoli, I see no reason why this should matter anyway. You don't empathize for all life universally, mavs, just the life you WANT to empathize with. You are not better for that. Should I start crying because some medicines kill bacteria? OOOOH NOOOOOO!!!! Do I have to cry whenever I put out a yellow jacket or roach trap so I don't have to deal with stings or dead insects in my food that could make me ill? No. Death happens, and I refuse to spend life crying about what is the fate of all things.

Which is exactly the point I'm making. Don't act like you care about the fate of beings if you have a problem with improving their fates because it inconveniences you. Find something else to care about. Or don't, and be a self-absorbed killer.

 

[akira28]

Here ends my soapboxing, and I can only hope that sometime before next month you people end yours.

(Lion King song translation)
Nants ingonyama bagithi baba [There comes a lion]
Sithi uhm ingonyama [Oh yes, it's a lion]
Nants ingonyama bagithi baba [There comes a lion]
Sithi uhm ingonyama [Oh yes, it's a lion]

 

[AnathemicOne]

Which is exactly the point I'm making. Don't act like you care about the fate of beings if you have a problem with improving their fates because it inconveniences you. Find something else to care about. Or don't, and be a self-absorbed killer.

So under this logic all the animal welfare problems currently in operation should just disband and go "poof" right? Because y'know going back to the ol' days of mass killings of animals for entertainment and consumption is better than the system we have now right?

 

[CorvoSol]

Which is exactly the point I'm making. Don't act like you care about the fate of beings if you have a problem with improving their fates because it inconveniences you. Find something else to care about. Or don't, and be a self-absorbed killer.

Which is exactly what you are. A self-absorbed killer. Don't act like you care about animals because we eat them if you're going to ignore the plants you shamelessly murder so you can gorge yourself. Go find something else to soap-box about, and leave those of us who don't use the suffering of animals to push our anti-meat agenda to care.

 

[mavs]

If that were to happen (however unlikely it would be) I would fight for my life. And as nature dictates (however unfair or fair the scenario might be) one will die and one will win. I would die fine knowing I gave it my all at that moment, unlike y'know rape where you are humiliated.

Humiliation worse than death...I wonder how close to death you have ever been.

Again it's because we are naturally selfish beings. As a society we try to shrug this off by creating animal welfare programs and putting money into it and I've no problem with that, why? Because we have progressed enough to kill/consume only certain specific domesticated animals from in the past where we practically killed anything that wasn't human for not just consumption.

I'm not arguing that we haven't improved, I'm arguing that what drove us to that improvement does not coexist with killing animals for food except on the most selfish level, where seeing animals suffer makes us suffer and the easiest way to end our own suffering is to end theirs.

Again, we regulated our killing-for-eats quite drastically over the course of human history. But what's the difference between an animal killing for eats and a human killing for eats? I'm still part of a species on this world. Because I'm the top of the food chain does not exempt me from this.

There's no difference in the act. But humans have the opportunity to act differently. All omnivores do, in theory, but humans are rich enough in food to make it a reality.

Which is exactly what you are. A self-absorbed killer. Don't act like you care about animals because we eat them if you're going to ignore the plants you shamelessly murder so you can gorge yourself. Go find something else to soap-box about, and leave those of us who don't use the suffering of animals to push our anti-meat agenda to care.

Why would I care about the plants I eat and mulch any more than the rocks and lime that made the concrete and steel that I live in? Methinks you did not think this analogy through.

 

[Zaptruder]

Said animal can die from decay while the other scenario is dieing instantly to support another. As we are talking about welfare, I think dieing to support someone is better than dieing to decay no?

I have a biological need to eat meat because I'm biologically attuned for it, I've practiced it for my whole life, if I quit now and resort to plants only I would probably have withdrawals, most likely unhealthy.

See the problem with animal welfare is that there's only one party that can determine what that welfare is, guess what? It's humans. How exactly do we know what's welfare to an animal? We can only go by human standards, hence why at the same time we make exemptions (the killing for eating thing).

Protip: biological desire != biological need.

We need air. We don't need sex. We need food. We don't need meat.

Don't try to come up with poor logic or rationality to support your desire to kill and eat meat, or shy away from animal fucking.

Just own the contradictions - accept that you're a product of the culture and move on.

It's ok to be human. To be full of contradictions and contradictary thoughts and ideas and feelings and emotions.

It's ok... not ideal... but ok. Own it. Move on, and continue honing your critical thinking skills.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I think one of the more hilarious statements made here is that "If you eat any animal, you can't be concerned for them when other people are raping them." It's almost as if you people have never, ever heard of cultures that thank the animals for giving their lives so that the men might continue with theirs.

There's this great children's movie out there called the Lion King, right? It's mostly a riff off of an old Shakespeare play, 'cept at one point the King tells his son "Hey, I know we're all anthropomorphic animals and so when we go hunting you're slaughtering our citizens so you can eat, but there's this thing called the Circle of Life that shows how we're all interconnected, and when you die, other animals will eat you!"

In other words: That I can't eat animals and still care about them is a big fat lie. Especially, and I think a number of people will express this same damn thought; because I do exactly that. I eat animals, animals who were ultimately bred by man for that reason, and yet I still feel for the dying animals in the streets and find the rape of animals horrific.

Good God! How is this possible!? Am I insane, that I can house such a dichotomy within myself? Surely this is the most horrible hypocrisy a man has ever committed! How do I sleep at night, eating beef and pork and chicken and fish, but at the same time thinking you shouldn't be getting it on with donkeys and sheep and dogs? Truly, this is not possible, and I must surely vanish in a puff of logic!

Oh wait, except I don't. Because people are capable of sympathy, in spite of their hunger. I'm a man, and I am capable of compartmentalizing. I was made to eat greens and the flesh of beasts, and that I might survive, I shall. Man has been eating meat as long as man can remember. He didn't one day decide "Hey, how can I ruin some pig's day?" Does the Lion fret over a Gazelle? Does the Eagle mourn for the salmon? Does the Spider lament the fly? No. Nor, then, shall I, the man, bemoan the loss of the chicken, pig, or cow. I am grateful for their sacrifice, but that is the end of it.

Here ends my soapboxing, and I can only hope that sometime before next month you people end yours.

Here is the last gasp of irrationality, when a man is aware that he has been bested in an argument and yet cannot bear to change his opinion. There is nothing to contradict in here because it concedes the entirety of my point. It concedes that compartmentalization is necessary to maintain his point of view, that he must abandon the application of reason in order to sustain his beliefs.

You can continue merrily asserting your ability to hold logically exclusive moral viewpoints within your head. It will not make you any more correct.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Humiliation worse than death...I wonder how close to death you have ever been.

Look up some suicide cases if you want other viewpoints than mine

I'm not arguing that we haven't improved, I'm arguing that what drove us to that improvement does not coexist with killing animals for food except on the most selfish level, where seeing animals suffer makes us suffer and the easiest way to end our own suffering is to end theirs.

So you are arguing that we improved, but for the wrong reasons? What do you want from humanity a revision of history?

There's no difference in the act. But humans have the opportunity to act differently. All omnivores do, in theory, but humans are rich enough in food to make it a reality.

We may have the means but outright changing our omnivore consumption to plant consumption is impractical and when compared side by side, frankly unviable.

What is it do you want? A mass movement for the human race to forsake meat consumption and restrict themselves to plant only consumption?

 

[TheExplodingHead]

If you are a-okay with planets and insects being murdered so you can feast on their corpses, you have no basis to complain about bestiality. All living organisms, the principle is the same.

Am I doing this right?

Edit: This thread is hilarious! It went from a discussion of bestiality, to a podium where vegans can pitch some inconsistent moral agenda. Priceless.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Protip: biological desire != biological need.

We need air. We don't need sex. We need food. We don't need meat.

Don't try to come up with poor logic or rationality to support your desire to kill and eat meat, or shy away from animal fucking.

Just own the contradictions - accept that you're a product of the culture and move on.

It's ok to be human. To be full of contradictions and contradictary thoughts and ideas and feelings and emotions.

It's ok... not ideal... but ok. Own it. Move on, and continue honing your critical thinking skills.

-We need sex (reproduction)
-We need food, omnivore diet is the most viable

If you paid attention to any of what I said, you would know that I'm perfectly fine with support animal welfare and being a hypocrite in consuming meat.

 

[Uchip]

Which is exactly the point I'm making. Don't act like you care about the fate of beings if you have a problem with improving their fates because it inconveniences you. Find something else to care about. Or don't, and be a self-absorbed killer.

lol
how do you people not understand that there is no benefit to screwing animals
in fact, its unsanitary, exploitative, and often at the expense of the creatures wellbeing for no real reason.

where as eating meat is the easiest way to get certain nutrition, on a global scale. And its much more efficient than going hunting for it.

If you're going to claim that you need to stop eating meat to be able to take this stance then you are crazy. Throw away your leather belts, couches, car seats, and walk to work so that you're not polluting the air, oh and stop posting on GAF because you're not using renewable energy to power your PC.
Then we can talk about animals without having moral dilemma!

Spoiler

if you dont get it, im saying that apathy is not a good way to fuel a debate

 

[CorvoSol]

Here is the last gasp of irrationality, when a man is aware that he has been bested in an argument and yet cannot bear to change his opinion. There is nothing to contradict in here because it concedes the entirety of my point. It concedes that compartmentalization is necessary to maintain his point of view, that he must abandon the application of reason in order to sustain his beliefs.

You can continue merrily asserting your ability to hold logically exclusive moral viewpoints within your head. It will not make you any more correct.

I don't see how I am aware that I've been bested. To say that I cannot eat meat and love animals is a false dichotomy. Man has been eating meat and loving animals his entire existence. It isn't unreasonable at all. In fact it's rational. I eat them because it's beneficial. Which, as the definition of rational action holds- that people will act toward their benefits- means that yeah, to eat an animal is a rational action. I gain various proteins and nutrients and all that jazz by eating them.

I eat meat. I love animals. But I kill them? Why yes, because I need to eat them to survive. I could survive only on vegetables? True, but I'd be killing those, too, so what difference does it make?

It seems to me that you, not I, are the one who has been bested but cannot admit it. Until you can satisfy me why it is acceptable to slaughter plants for my well-being but not animals, I see no reason at all why I should believe that I cannot eat an animal and yet still care for the well-being of them. Why is one life more important than another? You rank lives just as I do. The life of man outweighs the life of his beast, and so he eats it to survive. You say the life of an animal outweighs the life of a plant, so you eat that. Nevertheless, we are both justifying the termination of life for the sustenance of our own.

But if you'd like to pretend you're not compartmentalizing, then fine.

 

[mavs]

Look up some suicide cases if you want other viewpoints than mine

Suicide? I thought you said you would fight the person that tried to take your life from you? Lemme get this straight, you'd kill yourself if you were exposed to something that might cause cancer?

So you are arguing that we improved, but for the wrong reasons? What do you want from humanity a revision of history?

How 'bout continued improvement?

We may have the means but outright changing our omnivore consumption to plant consumption is impractical and when compared side by side, frankly unviable.

What is it do you want? A mass movement for the human race to forsake meat consumption and restrict themselves to plant only consumption?

That's a good idea. TBH given how much of a waste of resources American livestock farming is, it seems easily viable in our current economy. I'd say it's even likely to happen for selfish economic reasons. But unselfish reasons would be good too.

If you are a-okay with planets and insects being murdered so you can feast on their corpses, you have no basis to complain about bestiality. All living organisms, the principle is the same.

Am I doing this right?

No, you're not taking the preferences of the organisms into account. So you're (probably?) right on insects, likely wrong on plants.

 

[Acerac]

Most of the arguments in here against it suck, and some veer far to close to the same arguments made against gay sex for my liking.

I'm a meat eater, but even I agree that the 'no consent' argument seems kind of stupid when we're killing these same animals for our food.

The best argument against it is either cruelty to animals, though I'm not sure in general how you would prove this, or the disease argument.

I agree with this completely. I came in to this thread ready to condemn those who practiced bestiality, but as an omnivore myself I don't see much room to do so.

Yes I don't have sex with animals... I just have them killed for my consumption by the hundred. I guess that is better somehow?

 

[AnathemicOne]

Suicide? I thought you said you would fight the person that tried to take your life from you? Lemme get this straight, you'd kill yourself if you were exposed to something that might cause cancer?

No, I'm saying that I'd empathize with those unfortunate victims of rape that committed suicide.

How 'bout continued improvement?

That's a good idea. TBH given how much of a waste of resources American livestock farming is, it seems easily viable in our current economy. I'd say it's even likely to happen for selfish economic reasons. But unselfish reasons would be good too.

How is it viable when an ominvore diet is still the superior diet, nevermind how our bodies work (again the teeth).

 

[CorvoSol]

I agree with this completely. I came in to this thread ready to condemn those who practiced bestiality, but as an omnivore myself I don't see much room to do so.

Yes I don't have sex with animals... I just have them killed for my consumption by the hundred. I guess that is better somehow?

You benefited from their deaths. As has been reiterated a million times, nothing is gained from sex with animals, and it is in fact unsanitary. Not to mention the whole consent thing.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

No, you're not taking the preferences of the organisms into account. So you're (probably?) right on insects, likely wrong on plants.

Okay so now were being selective in our logic, this isn't a consistent universal logic then, correct? You get to pick and choose what preferences you take into account when you slaughter, which in itself is subjective. So why is it, that your "preferences" as a anti-meat person are superior to my pro-meat agenda? Also micro-organisms, I bet their preferences don't weigh too highly in your view either.

What are these preferences I'm not taking into account? But okay, insects, are you now conceding we shouldn't be slaughtering insects and if are....does that equal another thing we have no basis to complain about?

 

[mavs]

No, I'm saying that I'd empathize with those unfortunate victims of rape that committed suicide.

But you wouldn't think you were doing them a favor if you killed them...right?

How is it viable when an ominvore diet is still the superior diet, nevermind how our bodies work (again the teeth).

How is it superior? More ethical violations per unit of time? Do people who choose to eat meat live better lives than people who choose not to?

Okay so now were being selective in our logic, this isn't a consistent universal logic then, correct? You get to pick and choose what preferences you take into account when you slaughter, which in itself is subjective. So why is it, that your "preferences" as a anti-meat person are superior to my pro-meat agenda? Also micro-organisms, I bet their preferences don't weigh too highly in your view either.

What are these preferences I'm not taking into account? But okay, insects, are you now conceding we shouldn't be slaughtering insects and if are....does that equal another thing we have no basis to complain about?

I'm sorry, did you think I wasn't being selective? What would my logic have been if I wasn't using some sort of criteria to build my ethics? To refresh your memory, we were talking about doing harm to beings that would prefer we didn't. The word "prefer" in there implies some sort of conscious thought, which plants to our knowledge don't have.

Note that even if we find out that plants are sentient, that still leaves us in a pickle. We would still eat them, and maybe we'd feel bad about it. If we didn't, though, that would be a problem if we wanted to claim to be interested in the plants' well-being.

As for insects, we aren't very nice to them are we? No, it's not exactly a moral thing to poison tons of insects. However unlike livestock, insects (and wild animals like wolves and rogue elephants) are not helpless animals we kill because we enjoy the results of killing. We kill them to defend ourselves from them. Hardly moral, but at least it is provoked.

 

[CorvoSol]

Okay so now were being selective in our logic, this isn't a consistent universal logic then, correct? You get to pick and choose what preferences you take into account when you slaughter, which in itself is subjective. So why is it, that your "preferences" as a anti-meat person are superior to my pro-meat agenda? Also micro-organisms, I bet their preferences don't weigh too highly in your view either.

What are these preferences I'm not taking into account? But okay, insects, are you now conceding we shouldn't be slaughtering insects and if are....does that equal another thing we have no basis to complain about?

You're probably not allowed to complain about malaria because you kill mosquitos and it's just their revenge on you for that.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

lol
how do you people not understand that there is no benefit to screwing animals
in fact, its unsanitary, exploitative, and often at the expense of the creatures wellbeing for no real reason.

where as eating meat is the easiest way to get certain nutrition, on a global scale. And its much more efficient than going hunting for it.

If you're going to claim that you need to stop eating meat to be able to take this stance then you are crazy. Throw away your leather belts, couches, car seats, and walk to work so that you're not polluting the air, oh and stop posting on GAF because you're not using renewable energy to power your PC.
Then we can talk about animals without having moral dilemma!

Spoiler

if you dont get it, im saying that apathy is not a good way to fuel a debate

Eating meat is not the easiest way to get protein. Soybean yields per hectare blows any kind of ranching out of the water.

Eating meat is exactly as beneficial as having sex with animals: it is an optional indulgence, moderately unhealthy if done incorrectly or excessively, that harms animals for no reason other than gratification of human desire.

Vegetarianism without veganism is pretty hypocritical, which is why so few people don't go whole hog on the deal (well, there are people who go vegetarian out of health or religious reasons; I guess that's not hypocritical).

The sustainable argument is a non sequitur.

 

[Zaptruder]

-We need sex (reproduction)
-We need food, omnivore diet is the most viable

If you paid attention to any of what I said, you would know that I'm perfectly fine with support animal welfare and being a hypocrite in consuming meat.

I of course mean on a specific individual level. What our species needs aligns, but doesn't always correspond 1:1 with what we need as individuals.

If you're ok with been hypocritical with regards to meat consumption... then why are we still having an argument? Why are these side-line arguments about 'biological necessity' and what not been interjected to obfuscate this simple fact?

 

[Log4Girlz]

No

Morality wouldn't stop me, but I have no desire to.

Ok so if it is revealed to you that you parents have a healthy love of fucking animals you'd be totally cool with it right?

 

[AnathemicOne]

Said debate is stupid.

I'm here trying to explain that there's nothing wrong with having faults and inconsistency but still striving for consistency AKA being human while I'm getting bombarded by so called GAFers who practice "consistency" who I bet are inconsistent as well.

This is suppose to be a thread to condemn beastiality not a pro-meat/anti-meat war.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I don't see how I am aware that I've been bested. To say that I cannot eat meat and love animals is a false dichotomy. Man has been eating meat and loving animals his entire existence. It isn't unreasonable at all.

I eat meat. I love animals. But I kill them? Why yes, because I need to eat them to survive. I could survive only on vegetables? True, but I'd be killing those, too, so what difference does it make?

It seems to me that you, not I, are the one who has been bested but cannot admit it. Until you can satisfy me why it is acceptable to slaughter plants for my well-being but not animals, I see no reason at all why I should believe that I cannot eat an animal and yet still care for the well-being of them. Why is one life more important than another? You rank lives just as I do. The life of man outweighs the life of his beast, and so he eats it to survive. You say the life of an animal outweighs the life of a plant, so you eat that. Nevertheless, we are both justifying the termination of life for the sustenance of our own.

But if you'd like to pretend you're not compartmentalizing, then fine.

There was an interesting study awhile back that proposed plants are more alive than we'd like to admit and can actually feel pain, or at least something comparable to it.

 

[AnathemicOne]

I of course mean on a specific individual level. What our species needs aligns, but doesn't always correspond 1:1 with what we need as individuals.

If you're ok with been hypocritical with regards to meat consumption... then why are we still having an argument? Why are these side-line arguments about 'biological necessity' and what not been interjected to obfuscate this simple fact?

I'm simply explaining why it is necessary as an omnivore species why its more practical to consume meat in conjunction with plants hence the biological terms. But then I get bombarded with moral/consistency bullshit by the so called "consistent" GAFers.

Read the thread man.

And btw, you attacked me first, not me on you.

 

[CorvoSol]

There was an interesting study awhile back that proposed plants are more alive than we'd like to admit and can actually feel pain, or at least something comparable to it.

See? I've cut open vegetables in my garden before. How do I know that "juice" isn't just blood! There's a song by Save Ferris all about this.

 

[mavs]

There was an interesting study awhile back that proposed plants are more alive than we'd like to admit and can actually feel pain, or at least something comparable to it.

Wasn't there a Mythbusters episode on this? Suffice to say, it lived up to its name. However as noted above, sentient plants don't resolve the dilemma, unless you already feel it is acceptable not to respect the welfare of sentient beings.

 

[TheExplodingHead]

I'm simply explaining why it is necessary as an omnivore species why its more practical to consume meat in conjunction with plants hence the biological terms. But then I get bombarded with moral/consistency bullshit by the so called "consistent" GAFers.

Read the thread man.

And btw, you attacked me first, not me on you.

The hilarious part is that their so-called "consistency" isn't consistent at all, which is all I was trying to point out. And as you can see they consistently fail to tackle the "moral issue" of slaughtering plants.

But anyway, meat tastes good and I like it...not cool to fuck it. That is all.

 

[CorvoSol]

Wasn't there a Mythbusters episode on this? Suffice to say, it lived up to its name. However as noted above, sentient plants don't resolve the dilemma, unless you already feel it is acceptable not to respect the welfare of sentient beings.

But you have already established the fact that it is acceptable not to respect the welfare of living beings. The only ones that must be respected are the ones you choose, from what I have seen.

 

[mavs]

The hilarious part is that their so-called "consistency" isn't consistent at all, which is all I was trying to point out. And as you can see they consistently fail to tackle the "moral issue" of slaughtering plants.

But anyway, meat tastes good and I like it...not cool to fuck it. That is all.

I've actually consistently answered every reference to plants in this entire thread

You have consistently failed to read my replies.

But you have already established the fact that it is acceptable not to respect the welfare of living beings. The only ones that must be respected are the ones you choose, from what I have seen.

Yes, I choose the sentient ones. I explained the reason for that earlier in this thread.

 

[AnathemicOne]

Wasn't there a Mythbusters episode on this? Suffice to say, it lived up to its name. However as noted above, sentient plants don't resolve the dilemma, unless you already feel it is acceptable not to respect the welfare of sentient beings.

The sentient plant issue is being brought up to make you realize how stupid this debate is. If you want consistency in welfare without hypocrisy, you need to be universally consistent this includes plant life, micro life, etc.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I don't see how I am aware that I've been bested. To say that I cannot eat meat and love animals is a false dichotomy. Man has been eating meat and loving animals his entire existence. It isn't unreasonable at all. In fact it's rational. I eat them because it's beneficial. Which, as the definition of rational action holds- that people will act toward their benefits- means that yeah, to eat an animal is a rational action. I gain various proteins and nutrients and all that jazz by eating them.

I eat meat. I love animals. But I kill them? Why yes, because I need to eat them to survive. I could survive only on vegetables? True, but I'd be killing those, too, so what difference does it make?

It seems to me that you, not I, are the one who has been bested but cannot admit it. Until you can satisfy me why it is acceptable to slaughter plants for my well-being but not animals, I see no reason at all why I should believe that I cannot eat an animal and yet still care for the well-being of them. Why is one life more important than another? You rank lives just as I do. The life of man outweighs the life of his beast, and so he eats it to survive. You say the life of an animal outweighs the life of a plant, so you eat that. Nevertheless, we are both justifying the termination of life for the sustenance of our own.

But if you'd like to pretend you're not compartmentalizing, then fine.

Every animal we slaughter for food is capable of feeling pain,and has an interiority of consciousness. It is meaningful to ask the question, "what is it like to be a dog?" They have experience in a way that is at least analogous to human experience. Insects are up in the air, but sure, let's say they've got interiority as well. Plants pretty certainly do not.

You can agree or disagree with these arguments, but anyone has to concede that they are at least reasonable and defensible. It is possible to construct an internally consistent morality with this at its base, and most vegans have done just that.

You benefited from their deaths. As has been reiterated a million times, nothing is gained from sex with animals, and it is in fact unsanitary. Not to mention the whole consent thing.

An omnivorous human eating meat and a zoophilic human having sex with animals gains exactly the same thing: the gratification of human desires.

Ok so if it is revealed to you that you parents have a healthy love of fucking animals you'd be totally cool with it right?

Sure. I'd rather not know very much about their sex lives, but if I somehow stumbled onto the knowledge it wouldn't affect me too much after I got over the mental images.

 

[CorvoSol]

I've actually consistently answered every reference to plants in this entire thread

You have consistently failed to read my replies.

Your answer has consistently been "It's okay to kill them because I say so."

Every animal we slaughter for food is capable of feeling pain,and has an interiority of consciousness. It is meaningful to ask the question, "what is it like to be a dog?" They have experience in a way that is at least analogous to human experience. Insects are up in the air, but sure, let's say they've got interiority as well. Plants pretty certainly do not.

You can agree or disagree with these arguments, but anyone has to concede that they are at least reasonable and defensible. It is possible to construct an internally consistent morality with this at its base, and most vegans have done just that



An omnivorous human eating meat and a zoophilic human having sex with animals gains exactly the same thing: the gratification of human desires.

So it doesn't matter that plants are alive to you, simply because they can't feel pain? Which is essentially the same as me saying "it doesn't matter that I eat animals, because they're not sapient." Again, I do not at all see how you are different from me in this. You're disqualification of plants is an invention of man's device. So, too, is my justification for consuming meat.

An omnivorous human being gains vital nutrients for eating an animal. A zoophiliac does not gain that at all for having intercourse with an animal. I thought you were supposed to be the king of reason here?

 

[mavs]

Your answer has consistently been "It's okay to kill them because I say so."

Bzzt! Wrong. The correct answer is, "It's okay to kill them because they hold no preference either way on account of their non-sentience."

 

[TheExplodingHead]

Bzzt! Wrong. The correct answer is, "It's okay to kill them because they hold no preference either way on account of their non-sentience."

....because you say so. That's not a clinched answer sir.

 

[Zaptruder]

I'm simply explaining why it is necessary as an omnivore species why its more practical to consume meat in conjunction with plants hence the biological terms. But then I get bombarded with moral/consistency bullshit by the so called "consistent" GAFers.

Read the thread man.

And btw, you attacked me first, not me on you.

You're been too defensive. I'm not arguing against you in personal terms - only general terms. When I say we, I mean why is thread still going on with a back and forth with you?

It seems immediately obvious when I state it, but; People on internet forums skim threads, flit in and out of arguments (especially multi-page ones), latch onto a few sentences here and there and make enquiries and arguments as to what they find of interest/curiosity/objection.

That is just the simple flow of using a forum. Expecting everyone to read every single post runs counter to how forums are used and navigated.

As for biological necessity - it's 'necessary' in that it maximized our available nutrition, that the macro and micro nutrients found in meats are some of the more efficient forms (in terms of its ability to satisfy the palette, and deliver said nutrients into our body) found in nature.

Of course, with culture and civilization, we can subvert the natural paradigm easily - we could (and do) cultivate a set of macro and micro-nutrients in plant sources where it is *not* necessary to consume animals, while still maintaining our overall health.

In growth efficiency terms - plants will always win out, because animals eat plants or animals.

As for the terms of the animal's suffering - it's not hard to see how 'been raped' is not necessarily worse than the way's we already do treat them.

There's no real argument to be had here... just a bunch of continued back and forthing on what seems like nothing in particular (from what I can gather by skimming).