Debate Rounds (4)
Meat eaters are not ignorant in my opinion. I am sure there are many biologists, gastroenterologists, vets, and pro animal rights people who eat meat, me falling under the last one. Being at least one of the things on the preceding list should disqualify ignorance as a reason for eating meat. Personally, I enjoy meat because of preference. I understand what happens on farms, factories, butcher shops, restaurants, etc with meat. More selfish? Well, what's selfish? Selfish seems to mean that one cares for one's self without any regards to others. I will agree that selfish is a proper word to use. Meat eaters take advantage of life on earth for personal gain and pleasure. However, we as humans are way past selfish all together. Anyone taking part in the industrial revolution and the results of it are selfish. We take advantage of earth and the things of it for our own personal gain or pleasure. We chop down trees, we dirty up water, we burn oil and coal, we dig and landscape every other acre of earth, we capture animals and genetically change them to be our fluffy pets instead of letting them roam free in the environment, we run over squirrels, and instead of eating food that grows from our surroundings, we destroy land that is already there, plant new plants that aren't natural to the area, and then they take the crops and turn them in to something more desired. Simply put, humans are selfish. We all do things that destroy the environment for our personal gain with little regards for the environment. So, we as humans are selfish and care less about others for our own personal reasons. If this debate is how vegans are better and smarter than meat eaters, than this debate is not a good idea. You and I (I'm assuming you're a vegan) are only different because of our eating choices. We are both, at the end of the day are selfish, less caring beings because we are humans. You have been destructive to the environment for pleasure and personal gain, just as I have. So, I am a more selfish, less caring person than you are because I have different eating choices? I don't think that is a fair, honest analysis of a fellow human being
" I am sure there are many biologists, gastroenterologists, vets, and pro animal rights people who eat meat, me falling under the last one. Being at least one of the things on the preceding list should disqualify ignorance as a reason for eating meat."
I agree. If these people are not ignorant to the suffering of the meat industry then IGNORANCE can be crossed of the list. These people must, therefore, be either more selfish (they care more about their own needs than others) or less caring (care less for the suffering of others) than those who choose to not support it.
In a nutshell, you said "Simply put, humans are selfish"
I agree. But there are differing levels of selfishness. We cannot accept responsibility, as individual people, born into a corrupt, earth destroying species/society. We make our own choices because that's all we can do, Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world". I believe this. Every cultural norm was held in place by the mentality you have just revealed to me. If everybody was like you, the world would still be trading slaves. My goal in life is to play my part in ending the suffering of the world, and I know I wont succeed, but I will die trying. So you may say humans are selfish but I don't believe we are. I think the reason suffering continues is because good men fail to act. (I know that's already been spoken lol). I don't expect everybody to be a revolutionary but eating meat when you are aware of the suffering must involve some sense of selfishness. One of the comments admits to being a bit selfish.
Your argument is basically that everybody is selfish. I would say that all life is selfish, but we have the capacity to not be selfish. As a whole we are selfish, but individually we don't have to be. Not everybody is, those who are aware of the suffering and still choose to support it are acting more selfishly than those who also aware, but choose to not enjoy meat in order to not support it. I don't see how anyone could disagree. Meat eaters just want it both ways, i.e to be seen as good, aware people and also to take material pleasure at the expense of a creature.
"I am a more selfish, less caring person than you are because I have different eating choices?"
Well when you put it like that and just ignore the consequences of the eating choices it sounds like i am crazy. You could say that about anything, like "I am bad just because I have different recreational choices?" when the recreational choice is dog fighting. So no, its not because you choose to eat different food, its because you support the suffering and murder of fellow earthlings purely for pleasures of the flesh. (no pun intended). You would not support it if you didn't have to give up meat would you? You know you would say to shut them factories down if you didn't have to give up your steak. Be honest with yourself.
For the record, we don't have different eating choices, I absolutely love meat (Chicken,beef,lamb,duck,pork,bacon,salmon,pigeon you name it) and I am a chef so I love to cook and I love meat with every meal. I am a vegan now though. So I have pretty much had to give up my true pleasure in life in order to align my life with my soul.
Thank you for your response.
The argument I made about me being more selfish was meant to be taken on a very, very broad scale. If I do support the murder of fellow earthlings than yeah, I am selfish. BUT, and I'm not saying it's okay, but why do we draw the line at animals' living condition (current state of life)? Why don't we draw the line at destroying their habitats, using them for testing and using them for experiments? And if the line is drawn there as well, why is the only frontline of this battle? Why is vegan the start of it all?
Animals who are not meant to eat meat would probably reject it when ingested, however, humans, whom are animals, do not reject it (actually, on some scale, I do. I have IBS but... another story another time). I know this area of this popular debate was not mentioned, I just wanted to throw that out there.
I hope it can be understood that I am running on zero sleep right now and I am not 100% focused, so what may seem off topic or weird is just me typing with one eye closed. but my turn is almost up and I shall fight through.
Something I want to cover is this pleasure. We are selfish, and we are eating at another's expense, but if we enjoy it, it boosts our morale and mental health. Mental health is an important part of anyone's overall health. Now, it's wrong to seek this pleasure in the form of murder (I think murder is the incorrect word for this and I will explain why soon) in my opponent's eyes, however, because it was introduced to us, it is hard to go back.
Now about that murder: murder seemes to be a word meaning unjustified killing. Meat is justifiable.
At this point, having had captured and farmed so many animals for so long, many farm animals have genetically changed over time to depend largly on humans, making life hard for them if they were free. We as humans let them live a pretty good life before meeting it's end.
My point is, it would take a lot of years to reverse what we have done, and it would also destroy the first world (and some lesser) economies. So many states in the United States and European States rely on having meat used. By the time we are able to stop and reverse our damage, humans will be on their way out of their turn on Earth.
"The argument I made about me being more selfish was meant to be taken on a very, very broad scale. If I do support the murder of fellow earthlings than yeah, I am selfish. BUT, and I'm not saying it's okay, but why do we draw the line at animals' living condition (current state of life)? Why don't we draw the line at destroying their habitats, using them for testing and using them using them for experiments? And if the line is drawn there as well, why is the only frontline of this battle? Why is vegan the start of it all? "
Good point. So you are saying that many of us do our bit, for example charity work, and are not vegan. You should of expanded this point further, for its the only point I have heard from a meat-eater that I have found substantial. But it doesnt mean in any way, that eating meat is less bad than I already believe it is. But it does pose a threat to this particular debate, due to the reckless and cocky nature of my opening statement. However, I will attempt to refute.
Lets take an imaginary man. He devotes his life to charity, he spends all of his time and effort on helping people who need help. He eats meat. So he is not less caring or more selfish as he is very caring and selfless. But he must be more ignorant to life on earth because if he is so much moved by the needy, then he would care for the needy animals too. So if he is genuine in his compassion, he would care for the animals too. If he eats meat, then he must be somewhat ignorant to what he is supporting-either he has never questioned it, he thinks that animals are like robots or he thinks that they have happy lives. All three are examples of ignorance. At least, more ignorance, too animals, than vegans.
"We are selfish, and we are eating at another's expense, but if we enjoy it, it boosts our morale and mental health. Mental health is an important part of anyone's overall health. Now, it's wrong to seek this pleasure in the form of murder, but because it was introduced to us, it's hard to go back."
That logic is what keeps us from moving forward. You admit it's wrong, how can you then condone it on the grounds it can feel good, without sounding like somebody who may have knowledge of right and wrong, but has little intention of actually doing the right thing? Slavery was maintained on your logic would you not agree?
I will tackle your point regain riding murder. You say murder is unjustified killing, what does that really mean? So you can kill something and it not be murder? The definitions are irrelevant to the reality of death. Does the fact that it doesn't fit the definition of murder, make it any less unfair? Besides that, animals cannot even be 'murdered' by the Oxford dictionary's definition of the word so this terminology class is irrelevant. But you also say something else wrong: 'murder is unjustified, killing animals is justified'. Murders are justified to the murderer. And how is killing an animal for a pleasurable meal, more justifiable than killing a person for revenge? Revenge seems more justifiable than a meal to me.
You point about them dying if they where set free is a total contradiction. So on the one hand you seem to care for the survival of the species, but really it's just so they can serve you. We don't have to murder all the animals, that are going to be murdered anyway, we just stop getting them to mate. And no, the species wouldn't die out, Zoo's and pet animal loves will make sure they don't.
And your point about the economy. Not eating meat could end world hunger. It takes 24x more clean water to make a pound of meat than a pound of grain. It takes something like 15 pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. And this debate is about individuals, not the broader society. However for the record, I believe it would be a positive thing for the world, and I would argue that in another debate.
Ozzyhead forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.