The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ishallannoyyo
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Humans eating non-primate sterilised meat, in moderation, is moral

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 3 votes the winner is...
ishallannoyyo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,869 times Debate No: 25294
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (3)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

First round is acceptance of both my definitions and my boundaries for debate. If you disagree, DO NOT ACCEPT. I do not want to debate the boundaries or definitions, I want to use mine. If this is not acceptable to an opponent then please make this debate yourself and debate with another person.

Boundaries of debate: -

1) Consciousness should not be the premise of morality since if consciousness governed morals why can parents force their children into religions legally, as well as zoos and farms meaning we hold animals against their will for our own purposes. Whether or not they consciously have permitted us to do so.

2) The philosophy of Karma in the Buddhist or Hindu outlook on the matter shall not be considered when discussing the morality of eating non-primate meat. We shall be assuming that morality is purely decided by self and not predetermined by something beyond human explanation, otherwise it renders this undebatable for pro since the con's side has been decided by something far superior to any logical reasoning or emotional appeal of a mere human being.

3) The discussion is related to the eating of non-primate meat. Although we could discuss the production of meat and its ethics I would prefer if we mostly stuck to if EATING the meat in itself is ethical or not. However, I see the validity in raising the issues of the production just hope that it will not become a diversive or side-tracked debate in regards to this matter.

4) We shall not be discussing newborn babies or extremely elderly individuals both of whom can be harmed by consumption of meat since neither should be eating it if they wish to be healthy and without sickness.

Definitions:

Humans: All of the living human inhabitants of the Earth. [1]

Primate: any of various omnivorous mammals of the order Primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys), Prosimii (lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (tarsiers), especially distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability.[2]

Sterilised: The past-tense of sterilise.

Sterilise: Make (something) free from bacteria or other living microorganisms.[3]

Meat: The flesh of animals as used for food.[4]

Moderation: the quality of being moderate; restraint; avoidance of extremes or excesses; temperance.[5] I wish to take this further in that if discussing environmental issues it means that whatever is being produced or consumed, in moderation, leaves the world in a sustainable state.[5]

Moral: conforming to the rules of right conduct (as opposed to immoral).[6]

Sources:
[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] https://www.google.co.uk...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[6] http://dictionary.reference.com...

Best of luck to my opponent.
ishallannoyyo

Con

I accept all definitions and boundaries set forth by my opponent. I am a ferocious carnivore myself so I look forward to arguing for the other side and a very interesting debate!
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

I shall first be explaining the difference between humans and other animals and then discucss the morality itsel

Beings that lack a rational faculty also lack the capacity to contribute creatively to the values in nature. By contrast, human beings can create value, as a matter of our initiative, not merely exhibit it." To the extent that animals are of lesser value than humans, it is appropriate to eat them.[1]

Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them. Religious people would say that humans also have souls and a different relationship with God. Other creatures were put on this earth for mankind to use, and that includes eating meat. For all these reasons we say that men and women have rights and that animals don't. This means that eating meat is in no way like murder. (I have no source for this it's just common sense)

Surely this is one of the odder paradoxes of animal rights doctrine. It asks us to recognize all that we share with animals and then demands that we act toward them in a most unanimalistic way. Whether or not this is a good idea, we should at least acknowledge that our desire to eat meat is not a trivial matter, no mere 'gastronomic preference.' We might as well call sex--also now technically unnecessary--a mere 'recreational preference.' Whatever else it is, our meat eating is something very deep indeed." Indeed, if we consider humans to be equal to animals and a part of the animal kingdom, it is natural that we find our instincts to eat meat to be of equivalent intensity as compared to other meat-eating animals. If humans are animals too, why should we deny these instincts?[2]

The notion of man's dominion over animals need not be thought of as a blank check for man to exploit animals. Indeed, it may be appropriate to connect the notion of "dominion" to stewardship" over animals. Yet, humans can be good stewards of animals while continuing to eat them. It is merely necessary that humans maintain balance, order, and sustainability in the animal kingdom. But, again, this does not require the abandonment of meat-eating.

if we are vegetarians, does it follow that we will be kind and compassionate? Speaking in the Indian context, it would not seem so. Looking at some sordid and conspicuous aspects of Indian society, we are anything but kind and compassionate.[3]

Animals are given food, shelter and care if they become ill or injured. When it is time to slaughter them, the end is quick and pain-free. After all, unhappy and stressed animals provide poor meat, so it is in farmers' interests to look after them well. Some intensive farming methods are hard to defend, but that is a reason for passing laws to protect animals better. There is nothing wrong in principle with farming livestock.

he differing targets, contents, and sources of rights, and their inevitable conflict, together weave a tangled web. Notwithstanding all such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: they are in every case claims, or potential claims, within a community of moral agents. Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another. Whatever else rights may be, therefore, they are necessarily human; their possessors are persons, human beings.[4]

By arguing that animals are equal to humans and thus deserve the same legal protection, animal rights proponents reduce human beings to nothing more than biological entities, on par with animals. Animal rights advocates' view of humanity negates fundamental Christian, Platonic, and Stoic claims that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Humans are clearly superior to animals. Granting animals legal rights would be dangerous and degrading to humans.

There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion. Eating meat helped make us what we are, in a social and biological sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished. Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity--our own animality.[5]

The assertion that dioxins accumulate specifically in animal products is simplistic and inaccurate, and in fact a diet rich in pastured animal products provides protective nutrients, especially vitamin A, that directly oppose the toxic actions of dioxins in animal experiments, while a diet rich in most plant fats provides compounds that enhance the actions of dioxin. The argument that we should avoid animal products because of their dioxin concentration is thus no less flawed than the argument that we should avoid animal products because they contain saturated fat and cholesterol.[6]

Sources:
[1] http://mises.org...
[2] http://www.michaelpollan.com...
[3] http://rivr.sulekha.com...
[4] http://www.ucalgary.ca...
[5] http://www.michaelpollan.com...
[6] http://www.westonaprice.org...
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments. As there is a shared BOP, I will first be refuting the arguments brought forth by my opponent, then bring up some arguments of my own.

”The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Gandhi

To the extent that animals are of lesser value than humans, it is appropriate to eat them.

This argument is essentially a food chain. The superior organism eats the lesser organism. To this extent, I should be able to eat my friend Johnny because I am intellectually, physically, and emotionally superior to him. Thus, he is my lesser. Thus, it is appropriate to eat him.

Unlike animals, humans are capable of rational thought and can alter the world around them.

The fact that animals aren’t capable of rational thought only furthers our responsibility to them. They cannot protect themselves from us, so we need to protect them from ourselves. Just because they aren’t humans doesn’t mean they can’t feel pain and don’t desire to live their lives free from pain and suffering. I will expand on this later on.

Men and women have rights and that animals don’t.

This is clearly incorrect. Animals currently already have rights, preventing us from treating them brutally and hunting them to extinction.

Whether or not this is a good idea, we should at least acknowledge that our desire to eat meat is not a trivial matter, no mere “gastronomic preference”.

But eating meat is a mere “gastronomic preference”. You can’t call sex “recreational preference” because we need to reproduce if our species is to continue. You can call it “recreational necessity”. On the other hand, eating meat is hardly a necessity, hardly an “instinct”. We can survive perfectly healthy on vegetables and other vegan centred foods, we do not need meat, we choose to eat it.

Indeed, it may be appropriate to connect the notion of “dominion” to “stewardship” over animals. Yet humans can be good stewards of animals while continuing to eat them.

Have you ever heard of a great king who mercilessly slaughtered his subjects in cruel and horrible fashions? Humans have never been great stewards of animals. “It is merely necessary that humans maintain balance, order, and sustainability in the animal kingdom.” Yet we haven’t. We can’t. If we had maintained balance, order, and sustainability no animals would have gone extinct by man’s hand.

If we are vegetarians, does it follow that we will be kind and compassionate?

There is no connection between vegetarians and compassion. Just because you are a vegetarian, doesn’t mean you are very compassionate. There is no correlation between the two. Vegetarians merely do not endorse the killing of animals for food.

Animals are given food, shelter and care if they become ill or injured. When it is time to slaughter them, the end is quick and pain-free. After all, unhappy and stressed animals provide poor meat, so it is in farmer’s interests to look after them.

This is an extremely flawed argument. My opponent would have you believe that animals are slaughtered in a kind and compassionate way. This I will elaborate on in my first contention.

and Stoic claims that man was created in the image and likeness of God.

God and Jesus also showed compassion and love for ALL living things on the planet.

Granting animals legal rights would be dangerous and degrading to humans.

This is completely untrue! By giving rights to animals (which by the way, already exist) we are merely protecting them. Every person on this planet has rights, yet some are superior to others. Thus, rights should be taken away from the lesser people as it degrades the superior ones down to their level. By giving rights to animals, we are protecting other living things on this planet, how can that be morally wrong?

Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion.

Humans have also been growing crops and eating vegetables for as long as we have been on this Earth. It is just as much a part of our evolutionary heritage.

Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished.

In the fields of grain and vegetables, the human brain learned the concept of time. When to harvest, when to plant. The brain learned farming, sustainability, and preparation for the future. Vegetables are just as much a part of our culture and heritage as meat if not more.

Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity—our own animality.

Granting rights to animals will lift us into a new era of which man shows compassion and love for all living things on the planet, regardless of their stature on the food chain. It will bring us a new identity of care and responsibility. The sacrifice of our animality should have happened long ago. We are not animals, we are capable of rational thought.

The argument that we should avoid animal products because of their dioxin concentration is thus no less flawed than the argument that we should avoid animal products because they contain saturated fats and cholesterol.

I had never argued that meats contain dioxins. Furthermore, this has no relevance to this debate as it has nothing to do with morality.

I will now move on to my contentions after sufficiently refuting my opponent’s arguments.

C1: ANIMAL BRUTALITY

Farmers do not slaughter their own animals, the animals are usually shipped off to the slaughterhouse where they are killed there. Animals face brutality at every step:

TRANSPORTATION

Animals are fit into tight boxes where they don’t even have room to turn around. Poor hygiene, lack of food, crowded cages, and stress lead to the deaths of hundreds of these animals before they even arrive at a slaughter house. [1]

THE SLAUGHERHOUSE

Under law, animals must be stunned prior to death so they do not feel pain with a blow to the head or electric shock. This stunning does not occur properly at many plants. Worker avadivits, interviews, and videos show still alive and kicking animals being cruelly killed, while still capable of feeling pain. The same goes for birds, they are not stunned and thus are plucked and killed while still conscious. Moving birds thrown into boiling vats to get their feathers off. Animals killed for fur are often skinned alive and bludgeoned to death. [1]

The eating of meat encourages these practices. Supply and demand. Will there be any slaughterhouses in a completely vegetarian country? How can supporting this act be moral?

C2: BIOLGOICALLY ENGINEERED ANIMALS

Genetic modification has made us feel like gods. Chickens have been made that only produce breast meat. Other chickens are too fat to stand. Cows have been grown larger, to produce more milk, and to have more succulent slices of meat in them. [2] [3] This genetic modification is wrong, we subjugate animals to live their lives gruesomely, to be bred only for slaughter. Is this morally right? To produce animals just for us to eat? On side Opposition, we answer with No.

I have refuted all of my opponent’s points and introduced several of my own. Due to lack of characters, I will only introduce 2. I will introduce the 3rd in the next round unless my opponent doesn’t want me to as it might be unfair to introduce a new argument in R3. Voters should VOTE CON.

  1. http://www.animalsuffering.com...
  2. http://www.greenmuze.com...
  3. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

My opponent is trying to take us away from our natural ways of living to the extent that he claims we can live on a vegetarian, he even states vegan diet, and be totally healthy to justify that we aren't built to eat meat.

To deny that eating meat is moral one can't simply state that we dont' have to do it. If not having to do something made it wrong to do then debating, especially on debate.org, would be immoral without a doubt.

His example of eating his friend Johnny is irrelevant as I stated non-primate meat in the title of the debate states non-primate meat.

Humans are omnivores for our teeth has canines and one set of premolars is sharp, we gain weight more rapidly with meat than with vegetables (this is often twisted around to say that we aren't designed for meat but actually is was a warming mechanism that we developed in ice age where not many plants grew but there were mammoths to grab and kill), getting fat form meat meant some people could survive the cold better than others and live to have sex with the woman that the frozen to death man could not live to reproduce with. On top of that, only the females who had this attribute would survive to have babies. DOn't need to source this it's common sense, and irrefutable.

Omnivore: An animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin.[1]
Sources:
[1] https://www.google.co.uk...
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for a rapid response. I would just like to point out to the voters how my opponent dropped the vast majority of his arguments and provided zero refutation.

My opponent is trying to take us away from our natural ways of living

We already have moved away from our natural ways of living, we have evolved. Humans were not designed to live as long as we are now; our natural way of life is to die far before the age of 80, 90, 100. In 1900, only 3 million people were over the age of 65 in America. Now, it is 37 million. [2] In ancient Roman times, you were considered lucky if you got to the age of 25. [3] Our hunter gatherer ancestors died far before that age. The natural way is natural selection, the weak are weeded out. Medicine is extending our lives, thus it is against our natural way as the weak are not being killed off. Thus, medicine is immoral.

My opponent is essentially saying that evolution within a species is bad, because the evolution takes the species away from its “natural ways”.

To deny that eating meat is moral one can’t simply state that we don’t have to do it.

I was merely pointing out that eating meat isn’t a necessity; it is exactly as you put it “a gastronomic preference”, it isn't a necessity.

His example of eating his friend Johnny is irrelevant as I stated non-primate meat in the title of the debate states non-primate meat.

I was merely using this as an example. My opponent’s flawed logic is that since animals are our lesser, it is acceptable to eat them, because they are our lesser. Johnny is my lesser, is it acceptable to eat him or kill him or deprive him of rights because I am superior? Of course not!


Getting fat form meat meant some people could survive the cold better than others and live to have sex with the woman that the frozen to death man could not live to reproduce with. On top of that, only the females who had this attribute would survive to have babies. DOn't need to source this it's common sense, and irrefutable.
I am not entirely sure what my opponent is trying to state with this paragraph. Is my opponent saying that eating meat helps us gain weight? I’m not sure if my opponent realizes this, but a vast majority of North America is not suffering from another Ice Age. Furthermore, obesity in North America is at an exponential rate, with 1/5 of Americans being obese! If anything, we don’t want people to gain weight! If anything, this is another argument against eating meat.

I had requested my opponent tell me if I could post a 3rd contention in this round as my opponent may consider it unfair as he wouldn’t have as many rounds to refute it. My opponent has ignored the request and thus I will assume that I am not allowed. Regardless, my opponent has not refuted my refutations nor has he refuted my arguments. All my contentions still stand, them being THE CRUELTY ANIMALS FACE AT SLAUGHTERHOUSES and GENETICALLY MODIFING ANIMALS is wrong. I have refuted all of my opponent’s arguments and he has not provided any refutation so it is clear for voters to VOTE CON.

SOURCES

1. http://www.ideafit.com...

2. http://www.rps.psu.edu...

3. http://www.utexas.edu...

Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

"Moral" implies that we have a choice. Both dietary choices – omnivory and herbivory – cause animals to die. We have to eat something, and whichever choice we make, animals will die. There's no getting around that. If we're going to ask whether or not meat-eating is ethical because it causes animals to die, we also have to ask whether or not other common consumptive practices that also cause animals to die are ethical:

Is living in an apartment or a house built on the former homes of a dozen different species, several ant colonies, and the site of an indigenous people's encampment from a hundred years ago ethical?

Is wearing clothing made from conventionally grown cotton that required the use of chemical fertilizers whose runoff pollutes rivers, lakes, and oceans, thus hurting marine life ethical?

Is eating pseudo-burgers made of soybeans that hail from monocrop farms whose owners razed the land on which they grow, killing families of groundhogs and field mice and trillions upon trillions of essential microbes that compose the topsoil ethical?

Animals all die as a result of these practices. Anyone who makes it past their first year has blood on their hands. At least the meat-eater must face the unavoidable fact that he consumes dead animals directly. At least he deals with death head-on, shrink-wrapped though it may be. For once the plastic and styrofoam are removed, there it is, staring him in the face: a bloody piece of dead animal flesh that he is then going to put into his mouth, chew, swallow, and digest.

Does that make him unethical? Only if anyone who eats anything whose production resulted in the death of animals is also unethical. One could even argue that since the meat-eater at least acknowledges the fact that an animal died for his meal, he's the more honorable of the two.

And indeed everyone has blood on their hands as a direct or indirect result of their choices, consumption habits, and dietary practices. Everyone steps on someone else's toes or hooves or talons or cute little paws or flippers or probosci or roots for "selfish" reasons – even vegans. If meat-eaters are unethical by virtue of their meat-eating, so too is the vegetarian whose grain-based meals came from farmers whose tractors crush small mammals and whose cropland disrupts entire ecosystems. I don't think either person's actions are unethical, but I fail to see how someone could think the former was unethical without also taking issue with the latter. If you're going to indict eating meat because it kills animals, you also have to indict other dietary practices that also kill animals, like grain – even if those deaths are "unavoidable" or "accidental." Sure, the farmer may not gleefully set out to murder field mice with his tractor (although the rodenticide used in grain elevators might raise a few eyebrows), but does it matter if the end result – a bunch of dead animals – is the same?

Well, that's my very brief take on it. For the record, I don't think a discussion of the ethics of meat-eating can be truly entertained without full inclusion of the sustainability, organic, and local issues. In other words, without mentioning all that stuff the Times forbade us from mentioning, we can't really dig deeply enough into the issue to get to the bottom. I suspect that this was by design, and that the whole NY Times contest was primarily a way to get the "meat-eaters" on the defensive without really giving them a chance (600 word limit… really?) to come out on top.

This is a tough issue, isn't it? Death isn't pretty. Killing animals is not easy, pleasurable work. And I love animals, and not just in an ironic, "because-they're-tasty" kind of way. I'll even admit that when I think of a cow or a pig or a lamb dying for my meal, going about its daily routine and then BLAM, suddenly being escorted away from the others to be put down, it's not a pleasant thought. I feel bad for the animal, I feel a bit sad even, but I also feel thankful. If that sounds contradictory or confusing, you're right.

Sources:
[1] http://www.marksdailyapple.com...
ishallannoyyo

Con

I thank my opponent for his comments. I notice once again a complete lack of structured rebuttal like what I had presented in R2. However, I will rebut the new arguments brought forth by my opponent.

Both dietary choices – omnivory and herbivory – cause animals to die.

I’m not sure if my opponent knows the definition of an herbivore, which is a creature that only eats vegetables. Not sure how farmers eating the vegetables they grow causes death in animals. The dietary choice of being a herbivore does not at all cause animals to die.

If we’re going to ask whether or not meat-eating is ethical because it causes animals to die, we also have to ask whether or not other common consumptive practices that also causes animals to die are ethical:

Living in an apartment or house

Wearing clothes from conventionally grown cotton

Is eating pseudo-burgers made from soybeans

My opponent is making a major fallacious argument here. As I have stated (which went un refuted), eating meat is a choice, it isn’t a necessity. Eating meat is killing an animal just because it’s meat will taste good. This is completely unethical. Living in apartments, houses, wearing clothes, and setting up a farm are all necessities. Where are we going to live if not caged in four walls? Will we strut about naked in the streets? Will we abandon our livelihood that is our farm? All of these things are more ethical than eating meat as they are forced, eating meat on the other hand is killing an animal because of gastronomic preference.

Does that make him unethical? Only if anyone who eats anything whose production resulted in the death of an animal also unethical.

Yes, it makes him unethical. The only product that people eat which results directly in the death of an animal are meat eaters, so yes, that is also unethical.
One could even argue that since the meat-eater at least acknowledges the fact that the animal died for his meal, he’s the more honourable of the two.

This is ridiculous. One could argue that the meat eater should feel the most guilty of the two because he looks the dead animal in the eye, realizes he cruelly ended a life just so he could have a nice 20 minute meal and then become hungry again the next day.
And indeed everyone has blood on their hands as a direct or indirect result of their choices, consumption habits, and dietary practices.

Fallacious thinking. In the UK alone 26 animals are slaughtered a second for meat. This number will only be undoubtedly higher in the US, as the US is the country that consumes the most meat in the world. [1] A farmer who runs over a rodent with his tractor doesn’t kill 26 cows, pigs, sheep, deer, or chickens a second. Between the two choices of meat eating and vegetarianism, vegetarianism is far more ethical.

AFTER PUTTING IN ALL THE EFFORT OF REFUTING ALL OF THE WEAK ARGUMENTS THAT MY OPPONENT HAS BROUGHT FORTH, I VISIT HIS LINK AND FIND OUT THAT THE ENTIRE SPEECH WAS PLAGURIZED WORD FOR WORD. HIS ENTIRE ARGUMENT WAS TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE. THIS IS THE LINK: http://www.marksdailyapple.com...

PLAGURIZM IS AN AUTOMATIC 7 PONT FORFEIT. CLEARLY, I HAVE WON THIS DEBATE. MY OPPONENT HAS MADE A MOCKERY OF THIS TOPIC AND I SUGGEST THAT NEXT TIME HE PLAGARIZES FOR HIM TO CHOOSE A WEBSITE THAT GIVES A BETTER ARGUMENT AND NOT THE CRAP THAT WAS ON THIS ONE.

SOURCES

Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abrahamlipets 4 years ago
abrahamlipets
#1, Rational Madman, it is still plagiarism if you site your sources. Also, it is a bit sad that while ishallannoyyo created his own arguments, you plagiarised inferior arguments. A tip for the future: if you plan to plagiarise, make it worth it.
Posted by RationalMadman 5 years ago
RationalMadman
Copy or not, read the arguments. I edited anyway
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Your final argument, everything was plagarized except for 1 word.

1 WORD.

You changed "ethical" to "moral". This is complete plagarism.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
This is a tough issue, isn't it? Death isn't pretty. Killing animals is not easy, pleasurable work. And I love animals, and not just in an ironic, "because-they're-tasty" kind of way. I'll even admit that when I think of a cow or a pig or a lamb dying for my meal, going about its daily routine and then BLAM, suddenly being escorted away from the others to be put down, it's not a pleasant thought. I feel bad for the animal, I feel a bit sad even, but I also feel thankful. If that sounds contradictory or confusing, you're right.
WEBSITE

This is a tough issue, isn't it? Death isn't pretty. Killing animals is not easy, pleasurable work. And I love animals, and not just in an ironic, "because-they're-tasty" kind of way. I'll even admit that when I think of a cow or a pig or a lamb dying for my meal, going about its daily routine and then BLAM, suddenly being escorted away from the others to be put down, it's not a pleasant thought. I feel bad for the animal, I feel a bit sad even, but I also feel thankful. If that sounds contradictory or confusing, you're right.
NO CHANGES
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Well, that's my very brief take on it. For the record, I don't think a discussion of the ethics of meat-eating can be truly entertained without full inclusion of the sustainability, organic, and local issues. In other words, without mentioning all that stuff the Times forbade us from mentioning, we can't really dig deeply enough into the issue to get to the bottom. I suspect that this was by design, and that the whole NY Times contest was primarily a way to get the "meat-eaters" on the defensive without really giving them a chance (600 word limit… really?) to come out on top.
WEBSITE

Well, that's my very brief take on it. For the record, I don't think a discussion of the ethics of meat-eating can be truly entertained without full inclusion of the sustainability, organic, and local issues. In other words, without mentioning all that stuff the Times forbade us from mentioning, we can't really dig deeply enough into the issue to get to the bottom. I suspect that this was by design, and that the whole NY Times contest was primarily a way to get the "meat-eaters" on the defensive without really giving them a chance (600 word limit… really?) to come out on top.
NO CHANGES
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Well, that's my very brief take on it. For the record, I don't think a discussion of the ethics of meat-eating can be truly entertained without full inclusion of the sustainability, organic, and local issues. In other words, without mentioning all that stuff the Times forbade us from mentioning, we can't really dig deeply enough into the issue to get to the bottom. I suspect that this was by design, and that the whole NY Times contest was primarily a way to get the "meat-eaters" on the defensive without really giving them a chance (600 word limit… really?) to come out on top.
WEBSITE

Well, that's my very brief take on it. For the record, I don't think a discussion of the ethics of meat-eating can be truly entertained without full inclusion of the sustainability, organic, and local issues. In other words, without mentioning all that stuff the Times forbade us from mentioning, we can't really dig deeply enough into the issue to get to the bottom. I suspect that this was by design, and that the whole NY Times contest was primarily a way to get the "meat-eaters" on the defensive without really giving them a chance (600 word limit… really?) to come out on top.
NO CHANGES
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
NO CHANGES (character restriction)
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
And indeed everyone has blood on their hands as a direct or indirect result of their choices, consumption habits, and dietary practices. Everyone steps on someone else's toes or hooves or talons or cute little paws or flippers or probosci or roots for "selfish" reasons – even vegans. If meat-eaters are unethical by virtue of their meat-eating, so too is the vegetarian whose grain-based meals came from farmers whose tractors crush small mammals and whose cropland disrupts entire ecosystems. I don't think either person's actions are unethical, but I fail to see how someone could think the former was unethical without also taking issue with the latter. If you're going to indict eating meat because it kills animals, you also have to indict other dietary practices that also kill animals, like grain – even if those deaths are "unavoidable" or "accidental." Sure, the farmer may not gleefully set out to murder field mice with his tractor (although the rodenticide used in grain elevators might raise a few eyebrows), but does it matter if the end result – a bunch of dead animals – is the same?

And indeed everyone has blood on their hands as a direct or indirect result of their choices, consumption habits, and dietary practices. Everyone steps on someone else's toes or hooves or talons or cute little paws or flippers or probosci or roots for "selfish" reasons – even vegans. If meat-eaters are unethical by virtue of their meat-eating, so too is the vegetarian whose grain-based meals came from farmers whose tractors crush small mammals and whose cropland disrupts entire ecosystems. I don't think either person's actions are unethical, but I fail to see how someone could think the former was unethical without also taking issue with the latter. If you're going to indict eating meat because it kills animals, you also have to indict other dietary practices that also kill animals, like grain – even if those deaths are "unavoidable" or "accidental." Sure, the farmer may not gl
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Animals all die as a result of these practices. Anyone who makes it past their first year has blood on their hands. At least the meat-eater must face the unavoidable fact that he consumes dead animals directly. At least he deals with death head-on, shrink-wrapped though it may be. For once the plastic and styrofoam are removed, there it is, staring him in the face: a bloody piece of dead animal flesh that he is then going to put into his mouth, chew, swallow, and digest.

Does that make him unethical? Only if anyone who eats anything whose production resulted in the death of animals is also unethical. One could even argue that since the meat-eater at least acknowledges the fact that an animal died for his meal, he's the more honorable of the two.
THIS IS FROM THE WEBSITE.

Animals all die as a result of these practices. Anyone who makes it past their first year has blood on their hands. At least the meat-eater must face the unavoidable fact that he consumes dead animals directly. At least he deals with death head-on, shrink-wrapped though it may be. For once the plastic and styrofoam are removed, there it is, staring him in the face: a bloody piece of dead animal flesh that he is then going to put into his mouth, chew, swallow, and digest.

Does that make him unethical? Only if anyone who eats anything whose production resulted in the death of animals is also unethical. One could even argue that since the meat-eater at least acknowledges the fact that an animal died for his meal, he's the more honorable of the two.

YOU MADE ZERO CHANGES.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 5 years ago
ishallannoyyo
Is living in an apartment or a house built on the former homes of a dozen different species, several ant colonies, and the site of an indigenous people's encampment from a hundred years ago ethical?

Is wearing clothing made from conventionally grown cotton that required the use of chemical fertilizers whose runoff pollutes rivers, lakes, and oceans, thus hurting marine life ethical?

Is eating pseudo-burgers made of soybeans that hail from monocrop farms whose owners razed the land on which they grow, killing families of groundhogs and field mice and trillions upon trillions of essential microbes that compose the topsoil ethical?
THIS IS FROM THE WEBSITE.

Is living in an apartment or a house built on the former homes of a dozen different species, several ant colonies, and the site of an indigenous people's encampment from a hundred years ago ethical?

Is wearing clothing made from conventionally grown cotton that required the use of chemical fertilizers whose runoff pollutes rivers, lakes, and oceans, thus hurting marine life ethical?

Is eating pseudo-burgers made of soybeans that hail from monocrop farms whose owners razed the land on which they grow, killing families of groundhogs and field mice and trillions upon trillions of essential microbes that compose the topsoil ethical?

YOU MADE ZERO CHANGES
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mathaelthedestroyer 5 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
RationalMadmanishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized most of his sources, so conduct goes straight to con. Pro also failed to refute almost any of con's points, all of which were better in the first place (and not plagiarized).
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
RationalMadmanishallannoyyoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct due to plagarism
Vote Placed by adontimasu 5 years ago
adontimasu
RationalMadmanishallannoyyoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized most, if not all, of his arguments without proper representation. With that, Con wins conduct. Argument goes to Con, as he refuted all of the argument presented. Sources and grammar are tied.