The Instigator
Tommy.leadbetter
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Aerogant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Being vegan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Tommy.leadbetter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 657 times Debate No: 59662
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Ignorance - 'lack of knowledge or understanding'. I argue that eating meat is more selfish and less ethical than not eating meat. I also argue that in order to eat meat, one must be either more ignorant to life and nature than somebody who doesn't eat meat. PLEASE NOTE - This statement only refers to those in the developed world, not tribes, primitive cultures or underdeveloped countries.
Aerogant

Con

It simply comes down to whether eating meat is ethical to the brain, not our feelings. There's a part of the brain which triggers when we do unethical things according to the human mind, which causes the "gut" to trigger, guilty consciousness to trigger and paranoia. Eating meat does not trigger that part of our brain, therefore it's not unethical to the brain, thus it's merely unethical to your claims.

You cannot argue the Universe, so it would be best to accept that is a personal matter, not a practical one.
Debate Round No. 1
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

So you are basically saying that eating meat is not unethical. And therefore my claim that eating meat is less ethical than being a vegetarian, is false. However, I am skeptical about your reasoning. Your method of judging ethics is new to me. You mention a part of the brain that triggers when we do something unethical, this is not exactly accurate. I mean the leading scientists say the brain is still not truly understood. Could you elaborate this point further and name the part of the brain that does this please so I know where to begin in debunking it.

'Ethics' is just the vocalization sound I have used to help describe the phenomena of the consideration for others. If you want to talk about brains and physiology then consider this: What we understand as 'love' or 'compassion' is an evolutionary tool to keep us in social groups and 'persuade' us to raise our young. (solitary animals don't feel it-for they have not needed to maintain the group in order to survive). 'Love' is actually a 'thing', its a hormone, it can be measured. It has been 'created' by evolution. There is no 'ethics' part of the brain, there is a hormone that is produced that encourages us to love, and that is it. We therefore have love, but it only extends to our family and our tribe, as its evolutionary function is to maintain group loyalty and family groups. As humans become less ignorant and more aware and connected, there 'love' expands to meet a wider group of beings as we learn to understand them. So we learn that the other tribe are actually quite similar and we encorperate them as well. People are still hateful of other nationalities, other races, people they don't understand or see as themselves, but 'good' people recognise that we are all equal, no matter how different we are. So my argument is that to incorporate other species into our circle of love is a step forward in ethics. How can cruelty to other earthlings be more ethical than not being cruel? I don't agree with your view on how we should determine ethics. Also, even with your view on ethics I still think I am right. For instance, killing an animal makes us feel horrible (until we desensitise), and if feeling horrible and cruel isn't a reflection of 'bad ethics' in my brain, then what is ?
Aerogant

Con

It's silly to say that is what the brain does, not what the people choose to do when they don't know how to use it. The wisest of men have demonstrated time after time again that all things can be loved, appreciated and understood in spite of acknowledging there are some cut-throat aspects involved which decipher the "other side" of humanity.

As for the part of the brain, it's from a conversation I had a long time ago on how the brain is wired not to kill in some area, but the military is managing to numb that part of the brain, to create machines that know only one thing: do what one must to survive. I never cared for names and labels, I can't even imagine in my head anything - I feel through symbol; I feel shapes, colors and people through the essence, rather than the appearance.
Debate Round No. 2
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

You say: "It's silly to say that is what the brain does, not what the people choose to do when they don't know how to use it. The wisest of men have demonstrated time after time again that all things can be loved, appreciated and understood in spite of acknowledging there are some cut-throat aspects involved which decipher the "other side" of humanity."

I don't quite understand your logic here. For the sake of the argument I am going to assume you mean: You can love and appreciate animals, whilst acknowledging that human nature can cause them suffering. This is true, but it doesn't really mean that choosing to not support the meat market isn't a more compassionate or ethical choice. To assume and accept human nature as cruel, and to be a pacifist on that logic, is a clear example of somebody being more ignorant, more selfish or less caring than someone, who also knows human nature has been cruel, and yet chooses to resist it. I don't think anyone can argue with that. Slavery and the womens rights movement give us examples of the two groups of the population-one which want to maintain the status-quo, and the other that saw that it is was wrong and wanted to improve the lives of the underdogs. People are quick to judge Nazis, women oppressors and slave owners, yet the majority of these people are just like the meat eating portion of the population-they are either to ignorant to care for ethics, too easily led into supporting anything they are told too, or they are just plain self-grandiose and self-interested. Would you agree that vegans would probably be the civil rights fighters and the slave-abolishes?

You say: "As for the part of the brain, it's from a conversation I had a long time ago on how the brain is wired not to kill in some area, but the military is managing to numb that part of the brain, to create machines that know only one thing: do what one must to survive. I never cared for names and labels, I can't even imagine in my head anything - I feel through symbol; I feel shapes, colors and people through the essence, rather than the appearance."

Don't understand how this is relevant. Also that is not very good supporting evidence, I have learned a fair bit about the brain and your idea is almost completely wrong. There will be an heir of truth, but your just confused about pretty much anything to do with the brain. There is no ethics in our brain, our minds tell us when we do something wrong and there will be a hormonal and neuronal mechanism for feeling guilt. But guilt is subjective and brain scans cannot be used to prove ethical issues.
Aerogant

Con

Again, you base everything off of emotion, which is why you keep asking for evidence - people ask for evidence when they cannot accept the possibility that there are people out there that have gone far beyond the limits of today's society where evidence is no longer an answer, but trusted analysis - hence, Science and the father thereof, Philosophy. When people challenge me, I don't ask them for evidence - I just break everything down myself, because I know that you can't argue emotion with evidence; and evidence is based on perception, which is extremely stupid in this day and age. Just look at the failures of justice and law.

Want to really know how the world works? You must first stop trying to figure it out yourself, and realize that everything that you need to know, is right in front of you. The moment you make this about you, is the moment your forfeit the journey of living vicariously through the very thing that governed our existence.

We have a gut feeling and a guilty conscious which attacks us consciously and subconsciously when we fall asleep. You are really taking life for granted when you take such a magnificent Universe which attacks itself, heals itself and destroys itself time after time again throughout time, as "just an accident that has no meaning", when that's you projecting yourself.

You clearly cannot handle this discussion, if you cannot handle your emotions. You already lost to your emotions - you know nothing of this cosmic diamond I speak of, because you're still an opal that complains and withers from their lack of nutrients because they don't want to get their roots dirty, when they need to shove those roots far into the earth's soil, to retain their strength.
Debate Round No. 3
Tommy.leadbetter

Pro

Haha your a troll I carn't believe I fell for that, I am not accustomed to trolling. I had doubts, but I believed you, because I have not known a troll do yu what you just did. I must say its very funny and hats off too you, you proper made me laugh. last time I got trolled, and the only time, it p!$$ed me off, but you proper made me laugh.

On the off chance that I'm wrong about this I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, I just really believe you are a troll. Like I said, I am not accustomed to trolling. I'm sure you have some interesting philosophies I just cannot completely understand it in the way you put it, philosophy is hard to communicate.
Aerogant

Con

Do you eat out your girlfriend?
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
Darwinism at its finest!
https://www.youtube.com... (be sure to turn on subtitles)

But seriously, there are one and a half billion cattle in the world that live for the meat and dairy industry. Your heart may hold good intentions, but the market is a cruel reality. If everyone stop paying the companies that take care of the cattle and give them land to live and graze on, what will happen to them? They'll feed off of magic food from neverland and live on someone else's private property without any problems? Either they live in the human world, or they die.

As someone who cares for animals, what would you prefer for them?
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Seeginomikatta , you are joking right?
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
So why are you hating on meat? It must certainly taste good, if you're downing your wife like an animal.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
Erm aerogant, yes I do. She is actually my wife.
Posted by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
I laugh every time a vegan/vegetarian says not using livestock means caring for them. If it weren't for humans and our animal husbandry, the livestock species you know and "care" for would not exist in the first place. Without humans, they are near incapable of survival. If people were to vanish into thin air, countless species that depend on humans, such as dogs, cows, and chickens, would face major die-offs. By stopping the livestock industry, you deny these animals the very reason and purpose of their existence.

The "care" that vegans/vegetarians offer livestock is nothing more that borderline genocide.
Posted by gorant 2 years ago
gorant
Even I strongly agree that eating meat is unethical and injustice. we have to give freedom to animals from killing and harassing here after.

Every body have same rights to live on this earth. We are more wise than animals but it doesn't mean we have to make them our slaves and eat.

We should behave ourselves at least from now on towards animals.

Hence i support Pro.
Posted by Tommy.leadbetter 2 years ago
Tommy.leadbetter
I am not saying that eating meat, for us in the developed world, is always a reflection of ignorance. But I am saying that if it is not because people are ignorant to the lives of animals, then it must be because they don't care for them as much as vegans do. Thus they are less caring, or if not less caring, more selfish. I cannot understand how this can be disputed, any bets that everyone arguing against this is a meat eater. We are often blinded to our own injustices, would you agree?
Posted by mixalisduddy 2 years ago
mixalisduddy
It is preposterous to even suggest that eating meat altogether is an ignorant act. If Ignorance truly means lack of knowledge then I fail to see any connection whatsoever that meat might have with it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
Tommy.leadbetterAerogantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was Trolling