Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I ate meat for the first time

gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 7:50:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And it led to a psychological brainstorm in my mind. Just my luck that I'd eat it accidently the very week I decide to go vegan :/

I was hungry, so I got a patty, which came in both veg and non veg. It did not cross my mind to specify that I wanted a veg patty. I took a bite, and it was tasty- to say the least. Very tasty. I told my friend to taste it, and she's a jain, so she smelled it and told me that it smelled funny. And that it was not veg. My first reaction was utmost disgust, Have you ever felt total freaking out moment? I actually felt that it smelled like dead meat, and that the red chilly type thing in it was blood. Total freak out.

But then I actually started thinking. I had bought the patty, hadn't I? So I had already contributed to the demand. My refusal to eat it would result in the dumping of the patty in the dustbin, which would be an insult to the dead chicken. But I just could not eat it, regardless of the fact that it was tasty.

So it was something on an individual level. I don't eat meat, because I don't want to? Not exactly, I can eat food I don't like very easily. The disgust portion really confused me, I have been taught not to disrespect food, and that wasting it is one of the sins. So the rules that govern the rest of the food don't apply to meat?

Is it possible... just a tiny bit, that I'm so prejudiced against eating meat, that it is has become an irrational stubbornness? Or was there a legitimate reason I couldn't eat meat once I knew what it was?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 10:52:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Congratulations on becoming vegan.

Knowing that what you are about to eat was once alive and sentient should arouse enough disgust to dissuade one from wanting to eat it. It's rational in the sense that it is untrue to our nature to inflict unnecessary harm on our fellow creatures.

Refusing to eat meat that you inadvertently bought also shows ones resolve against animal cruelty. This too is rational if your intention is to demonstrate this resolve.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
kyro90
Posts: 4,400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 1:54:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol, I always eat meat and never eat Veggies or Fruits. They just make me gag whenever I think about them. :P
Allow me to give you my card....
Oh you cant read? Pitty. It says,
You are now holding the card of the Awesome-Steller-Second-to-none-hot-cool-funny-incredible-magical-beautious-cuddly-warm-kitty-kat-like Secretary
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 3:20:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 10:52:53 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Congratulations on becoming vegan.

Knowing that what you are about to eat was once alive and sentient should arouse enough disgust to dissuade one from wanting to eat it. It's rational in the sense that it is untrue to our nature to inflict unnecessary harm on our fellow creatures.

Are you serious? Causing harm is untrue to our nature? You are aware of the wars we've fought and continue to fight, correct? That's our *own* species. You think that, by nature, we give a flying fvck what we do to another animal? No, we care about causing other animals pain because of our society and our ability to care.

Refusing to eat meat that you inadvertently bought also shows ones resolve against animal cruelty. This too is rational if your intention is to demonstrate this resolve.

Bull. You already bought the meat and supported the industry. They don't care whether or not you eat that patty now.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 3:23:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can fully understand your dislike of meat raised through factory farming. I also dislike that, and avoid it whenever possible. Going vegan because of that is *way* too much of an overreaction. Mountain out of a mole hill. There are plenty of ways to get meat raised in good, humane conditions, and killed the same way. Anything organic generally is fine. Locally raised meat is fine. Go hunting and fishing if you don't want to support the meat industry that much. If you don't eat those animals, something else will, and it'll be a much worse death.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
inferno
Posts: 10,565
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 3:24:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 7:50:00 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
And it led to a psychological brainstorm in my mind. Just my luck that I'd eat it accidently the very week I decide to go vegan :/

I was hungry, so I got a patty, which came in both veg and non veg. It did not cross my mind to specify that I wanted a veg patty. I took a bite, and it was tasty- to say the least. Very tasty. I told my friend to taste it, and she's a jain, so she smelled it and told me that it smelled funny. And that it was not veg. My first reaction was utmost disgust, Have you ever felt total freaking out moment? I actually felt that it smelled like dead meat, and that the red chilly type thing in it was blood. Total freak out.

But then I actually started thinking. I had bought the patty, hadn't I? So I had already contributed to the demand. My refusal to eat it would result in the dumping of the patty in the dustbin, which would be an insult to the dead chicken. But I just could not eat it, regardless of the fact that it was tasty.

So it was something on an individual level. I don't eat meat, because I don't want to? Not exactly, I can eat food I don't like very easily. The disgust portion really confused me, I have been taught not to disrespect food, and that wasting it is one of the sins. So the rules that govern the rest of the food don't apply to meat?

Is it possible... just a tiny bit, that I'm so prejudiced against eating meat, that it is has become an irrational stubbornness? Or was there a legitimate reason I couldn't eat meat once I knew what it was?

Good. Now you are human.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 3:31:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 3:20:13 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 10:52:53 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Congratulations on becoming vegan.

Knowing that what you are about to eat was once alive and sentient should arouse enough disgust to dissuade one from wanting to eat it. It's rational in the sense that it is untrue to our nature to inflict unnecessary harm on our fellow creatures.

Are you serious? Causing harm is untrue to our nature? You are aware of the wars we've fought and continue to fight, correct? That's our *own* species. You think that, by nature, we give a flying fvck what we do to another animal? No, we care about causing other animals pain because of our society and our ability to care.

+1

Refusing to eat meat that you inadvertently bought also shows ones resolve against animal cruelty. This too is rational if your intention is to demonstrate this resolve.

Bull. You already bought the meat and supported the industry. They don't care whether or not you eat that patty now.

This.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 4:03:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 3:20:13 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 10:52:53 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Congratulations on becoming vegan.

Knowing that what you are about to eat was once alive and sentient should arouse enough disgust to dissuade one from wanting to eat it. It's rational in the sense that it is untrue to our nature to inflict unnecessary harm on our fellow creatures.

Are you serious? Causing harm is untrue to our nature?

Causing unnecessary harm is untrue to our nature.

You are aware of the wars we've fought and continue to fight, correct? That's our *own* species. You think that, by nature, we give a flying fvck what we do to another animal? No, we care about causing other animals pain because of our society and our ability to care.

I used the pronoun "our" to refer to morally normal people. I'm aware that psychopaths, etc. exist.

A simple example would be the common observation that most people will step over a dogs tail to avoid hurting it because it is in our nature to not harm animals.

Refusing to eat meat that you inadvertently bought also shows ones resolve against animal cruelty. This too is rational if your intention is to demonstrate this resolve.

Bull. You already bought the meat and supported the industry. They don't care whether or not you eat that patty now.

Who doesn't?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 4:30:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 3:23:50 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I can fully understand your dislike of meat raised through factory farming. I also dislike that, and avoid it whenever possible. Going vegan because of that is *way* too much of an overreaction.

It's a path to greater health. That's never an overreaction.

Mountain out of a mole hill. There are plenty of ways to get meat raised in good, humane conditions, and killed the same way. Anything organic generally is fine.

The word "organic" doesn't mean cruelty-free. Maybe you're thinking of "free-range farms". Even on these farms cows and pigs are castrated without pain-killers and cows are branded and de-horned. Chickens have their beaks burned off. Free-range is a meaningless term in that you can let your livestock outside for 5min a day and call it free range. And there is no such thing as a free-range slaughterhouse. "Free-range" animals meet the same horrible fate as factory farmed animals in slaughterhouse often being boiled or skinned alive. Free-range is a marketing gimmick to quell the humanitarian concerns of gullible people - a considerably large market.

Locally raised meat is fine.
Locally raised meat is arguably better for the environment but has nothing to do with animal welfare, obviously.

Go hunting and fishing if you don't want to support the meat industry that much.

It's not always possible to get a clean shot meaning that often the animal will be forced to suffer an indeterminate amount of time. Anyway, most vegans would rather not hunt (obviously), hunting would be terribly time consuming, inconvenient, unhealthy and dangerous. Eating a healthy plant based diet would be much more reasonable.

If you don't eat those animals, something else will, and it'll be a much worse death.

Not domesticated animals (cows, pigs, etc.) Those species wouldn't exist if it wasn't for farming. We make them then we make them suffer unnecessarily.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 6:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 4:03:25 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2012 3:20:13 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 10:52:53 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Congratulations on becoming vegan.

Knowing that what you are about to eat was once alive and sentient should arouse enough disgust to dissuade one from wanting to eat it. It's rational in the sense that it is untrue to our nature to inflict unnecessary harm on our fellow creatures.

Are you serious? Causing harm is untrue to our nature?

Causing unnecessary harm is untrue to our nature.

9/11, Holocaust, assassinations. Explain. Bear traps. Explain. Medieval warfare. Explain. Torture. Explain. We are *not* a docile harmless species.

You are aware of the wars we've fought and continue to fight, correct? That's our *own* species. You think that, by nature, we give a flying fvck what we do to another animal? No, we care about causing other animals pain because of our society and our ability to care.

I used the pronoun "our" to refer to morally normal people. I'm aware that psychopaths, etc. exist.

Would you define "morally normal" since you've *clearly* never done anything wrong, and you're the fvcking eptiome of all that's good in this world. Killing doesn't make someone a psycopath. I'd also like to point out that killing is a crucial part of human nature and open refusal to killing in any form would point to a mental fvck up that should be causing your death if not for modern society.

A simple example would be the common observation that most people will step over a dogs tail to avoid hurting it because it is in our nature to not harm animals.

You mean a dog that you agreed to treat humanely and with kindness when you bought it? Not to mention that dogs are a part of modern society which has been altered by our technological advances. Our true nature can only been seen when we are fighting for every minute of our life.

Refusing to eat meat that you inadvertently bought also shows ones resolve against animal cruelty. This too is rational if your intention is to demonstrate this resolve.

Bull. You already bought the meat and supported the industry. They don't care whether or not you eat that patty now.

Who doesn't?

The people who sold the meat.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 6:13:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Animals raised for food generally live longer and more pleasant lives than those who live in the wild. Animals raised for food are in any case entitled to decent care. Failure to raise animals for food means that they would not have lived at all. would anyone prefer to never have lived, rather than have decent life with a bad end? You are going to die anyway.

Vegetarians are immoral because they deprive animals of life.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 6:18:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 4:30:05 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2012 3:23:50 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I can fully understand your dislike of meat raised through factory farming. I also dislike that, and avoid it whenever possible. Going vegan because of that is *way* too much of an overreaction.

It's a path to greater health. That's never an overreaction.

It is not. We are biologically designed to eat meat. Meat is a key staple of our proper diet.

Mountain out of a mole hill. There are plenty of ways to get meat raised in good, humane conditions, and killed the same way. Anything organic generally is fine.

The word "organic" doesn't mean cruelty-free. Maybe you're thinking of "free-range farms". Even on these farms cows and pigs are castrated without pain-killers and cows are branded and de-horned. Chickens have their beaks burned off. Free-range is a meaningless term in that you can let your livestock outside for 5min a day and call it free range. And there is no such thing as a free-range slaughterhouse. "Free-range" animals meet the same horrible fate as factory farmed animals in slaughterhouse often being boiled or skinned alive. Free-range is a marketing gimmick to quell the humanitarian concerns of gullible people - a considerably large market.

I'd like to see proof of this. I won't argue that they don't have to be out constantly, but the amount of time they do get out is significantly better than factory farming. You seem to think that any death is horrible. And by the way, the meat I get is locally raised and I know that the animals experience none of what you described considering the owner of the farm is a member of PETA.

Locally raised meat is fine.
Locally raised meat is arguably better for the environment but has nothing to do with animal welfare, obviously.

Read above. If it's raised on a local farm, odds are that farm's family owned and still operating the same way it did when founded. At least around me.

Go hunting and fishing if you don't want to support the meat industry that much.

It's not always possible to get a clean shot meaning that often the animal will be forced to suffer an indeterminate amount of time. Anyway, most vegans would rather not hunt (obviously), hunting would be terribly time consuming, inconvenient, unhealthy and dangerous. Eating a healthy plant based diet would be much more reasonable.

A plant based diet isn't a natural diet. We weren't designed as herbivores. Most shots are clean shots. Hunters spend extraordinary amounts of time honing their skills even if for the sole reason of decreasing the chances of your prey getting away. As for suffering, who do you think it would feel to be ripped to shreds by a mountain lion or pack of wolves. It's not as time consuming as you seem to think, and it is more than worth the time it takes. Why is it inconvient? How would hunting be unhealthy? Hunting is one of the safest activities you can engage in actually. Cheerleading's more dangerous.

If you don't eat those animals, something else will, and it'll be a much worse death.

Not domesticated animals (cows, pigs, etc.) Those species wouldn't exist if it wasn't for farming. We make them then we make them suffer unnecessarily.

So what would you have done with those. And since you clearly didn't realize, that sentence was directed at game animals.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 7:45:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 6:06:12 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 4:03:25 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2012 3:20:13 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 10:52:53 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Congratulations on becoming vegan.

Knowing that what you are about to eat was once alive and sentient should arouse enough disgust to dissuade one from wanting to eat it. It's rational in the sense that it is untrue to our nature to inflict unnecessary harm on our fellow creatures.

Are you serious? Causing harm is untrue to our nature?

Causing unnecessary harm is untrue to our nature.

9/11, Holocaust, assassinations. Explain. Bear traps. Explain. Medieval warfare. Explain. Torture. Explain. We are *not* a docile harmless species.

Like I said before, I used the pronoun "our" to mean morally normal humans.


You are aware of the wars we've fought and continue to fight, correct? That's our *own* species. You think that, by nature, we give a flying fvck what we do to another animal? No, we care about causing other animals pain because of our society and our ability to care.

I used the pronoun "our" to refer to morally normal people. I'm aware that psychopaths, etc. exist.

Would you define "morally normal" since you've *clearly* never done anything wrong, and you're the fvcking eptiome of all that's good in this world. Killing doesn't make someone a psycopath. I'd also like to point out that killing is a crucial part of human nature and open refusal to killing in any form would point to a mental fvck up that should be causing your death if not for modern society.

Moral normalcy, as I've used it, describes a person who doesn't have an empathy disorder like psychopathy. Morally normal people are capable of violence of course, but only under conditions of acute stress or cognitive compartmentalization such as when a person can't see the connection between meat in a grocery store and the violence that was required to remove the flesh from the animal. People who buy and eat meat are usually morally normal, however a number of cognitive biases (bandwagon effect, empathy gap, system justification, cognitive dissonance) as well as plain old ignorance enable them to support the infliction of tremendous suffering on their fellow animals.


A simple example would be the common observation that most people will step over a dogs tail to avoid hurting it because it is in our nature to not harm animals.

You mean a dog that you agreed to treat humanely and with kindness when you bought it? Not to mention that dogs are a part of modern society which has been altered by our technological advances. Our true nature can only been seen when we are fighting for every minute of our life.

I mean any dog. True nature is whatever is.


Refusing to eat meat that you inadvertently bought also shows ones resolve against animal cruelty. This too is rational if your intention is to demonstrate this resolve.

Bull. You already bought the meat and supported the industry. They don't care whether or not you eat that patty now.

Who doesn't?

The people who sold the meat.

I was referring to people in general. Showing commitment to a moral cause bolsters the cause itself. It show that you take the cause seriously and this has an impact on people.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 7:56:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 6:13:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Animals raised for food generally live longer and more pleasant lives than those who live in the wild. Animals raised for food are in any case entitled to decent care. Failure to raise animals for food means that they would not have lived at all. would anyone prefer to never have lived, rather than have decent life with a bad end? You are going to die anyway.

Vegetarians are immoral because they deprive animals of life.

The fact that people kill themselves proves that some lives are not worth living. If you read my first two rounds in my last debate (http://www.debate.org...), which restricts itself to the dairy industry, I think you will become convinced that the lives of dairy cows are not worth living. Additionally, you would come to believe that the short lives of veal calfs (which are the male offspring of dairy cattle) are not worth living.

Vegans and vegetarians oppose this system because we oppose misery and torture; not because we oppose life.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 7:58:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 1:54:31 PM, kyro90 wrote:
Lol, I always eat meat and never eat Veggies or Fruits. They just make me gag whenever I think about them. :P

Have fun dying at age 30.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 8:03:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 6:13:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Animals raised for food generally live longer and more pleasant lives than those who live in the wild.

No. Raised in a feedlot eating your own sh*t doesn't seem like a better life than in the wild. By your standards, shouldn't we control all animals for their betterment?

Animals raised for food are in any case entitled to decent care.

Feedlots, slaughterhouse conditions, nope. Injected with hormones, bred out of utility, kept in tight, cramped living quarters. No.

Failure to raise animals for food means that they would not have lived at all. would anyone prefer to never have lived, rather than have decent life with a bad end? You are going to die anyway.

Again, the life is not decent whatsoever. Calling it decent is like calling the conditions of the Belgian congo decent.

Vegetarians are immoral because they deprive animals of life.

What? Vegetarians advocate the PRESERVING of animal life.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 9:21:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is a joke post right?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 11:05:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 9:21:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
This is a joke post right?

Is this:?

At 12/28/2011 9:27:57 PM, sadolite wrote:
I used to have a rabbit farm when I was a boyscout. When they got old enough I broke their cute little necks and skinned them while they were still jerking around.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 11:26:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm disappointed thad hasn't given a "That's what she said!" to the thread title yet.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2012 11:30:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 9:07:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
My wife feels that way about vegetables.

lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 12:52:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 11:05:19 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 3/1/2012 9:21:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
This is a joke post right?

Is this:?

At 12/28/2011 9:27:57 PM, sadolite wrote:
I used to have a rabbit farm when I was a boyscout. When they got old enough I broke their cute little necks and skinned them while they were still jerking around.

Really!? Out of all the stupid posts that sadolite has said, your going to choose that?!
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 9:01:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 12:52:35 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 3/1/2012 11:05:19 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 3/1/2012 9:21:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
This is a joke post right?

Is this:?

At 12/28/2011 9:27:57 PM, sadolite wrote:
I used to have a rabbit farm when I was a boyscout. When they got old enough I broke their cute little necks and skinned them while they were still jerking around.

Really!? Out of all the stupid posts that sadolite has said, your going to choose that?!

This should go on the wall of shame, as a perfect opportunity, horribly wasted.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 2:46:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 7:45:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2012 6:06:12 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 4:03:25 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2012 3:20:13 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 10:52:53 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Congratulations on becoming vegan.

Knowing that what you are about to eat was once alive and sentient should arouse enough disgust to dissuade one from wanting to eat it. It's rational in the sense that it is untrue to our nature to inflict unnecessary harm on our fellow creatures.

Are you serious? Causing harm is untrue to our nature?

Causing unnecessary harm is untrue to our nature.

9/11, Holocaust, assassinations. Explain. Bear traps. Explain. Medieval warfare. Explain. Torture. Explain. We are *not* a docile harmless species.

Like I said before, I used the pronoun "our" to mean morally normal humans.

You use "our" to define people distanced from the nature of our species by a society that hasn't experienced any true threat to its existence in the last few hundred years. You're missing the point. By nature, we are *not* a harmless, docile species like you seem to think. Look at Africa and the Middle East. Why are they not morally normal? Because they don't hold *you're* ideals?


You are aware of the wars we've fought and continue to fight, correct? That's our *own* species. You think that, by nature, we give a flying fvck what we do to another animal? No, we care about causing other animals pain because of our society and our ability to care.

I used the pronoun "our" to refer to morally normal people. I'm aware that psychopaths, etc. exist.

Would you define "morally normal" since you've *clearly* never done anything wrong, and you're the fvcking eptiome of all that's good in this world. Killing doesn't make someone a psycopath. I'd also like to point out that killing is a crucial part of human nature and open refusal to killing in any form would point to a mental fvck up that should be causing your death if not for modern society.

Moral normalcy, as I've used it, describes a person who doesn't have an empathy disorder like psychopathy. Morally normal people are capable of violence of course, but only under conditions of acute stress or cognitive compartmentalization such as when a person can't see the connection between meat in a grocery store and the violence that was required to remove the flesh from the animal. People who buy and eat meat are usually morally normal, however a number of cognitive biases (bandwagon effect, empathy gap, system justification, cognitive dissonance) as well as plain old ignorance enable them to support the infliction of tremendous suffering on their fellow animals.

So then, because I hunt and eat meat (a.k.a., I stick as close to the diet and life style we, as a species, were meant to have), I'm not morally normal? Because I kill and don't feel sick, I'm not morally normal? By your standards, our species should have died out long ago. Trust me, I am not lacking in empathy, nor am I ignorant. I'm clearly far more "normal" than you could ever hope to be. I say that not as an attack at you, but because you try to condemn people who eat a more natural diet while you eat a diet that requires the destruction of habitats thus killing off animals. I can coexist with other animals. You can't. When the sh!t hits the fan and society collapses around us, I will survive. You will die off with all the other humans who've forsaken their roots for an idealistic society where you can pretend that nothing is harmed for your survival.


A simple example would be the common observation that most people will step over a dogs tail to avoid hurting it because it is in our nature to not harm animals.

You mean a dog that you agreed to treat humanely and with kindness when you bought it? Not to mention that dogs are a part of modern society which has been altered by our technological advances. Our true nature can only been seen when we are fighting for every minute of our life.

I mean any dog. True nature is whatever is.

It was rhetorical. I was referring to all strains of domestic dogs, and any wild dogs that have been brought in to live as a domestic dog. They all it the above. And what does "true nature is whatever is" mean? Are you implying that living in a house that has water, electricity, and food that we weren't designed to eat is the true nature of our species? Are you *really* implying that a species that originated as a hunter-gatherer species is, by nature, meant to live in the conditions we live in? By nature, we should be scavenging or hunting for every meal.


Refusing to eat meat that you inadvertently bought also shows ones resolve against animal cruelty. This too is rational if your intention is to demonstrate this resolve.

Bull. You already bought the meat and supported the industry. They don't care whether or not you eat that patty now.

Who doesn't?

The people who sold the meat.

I was referring to people in general. Showing commitment to a moral cause bolsters the cause itself. It show that you take the cause seriously and this has an impact on people.

It sure seemed like you were implying the company that sold the patty gives two sh!ts about whether or not you eat it. Or, it shows that you just wasted that animal's life and a few bucks. What would your cause be, exactly? Stop the consumption of meat by all humans? I hope you realize there will be war before a law is passed outlawing the consumption of meat.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 2:54:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 7:56:15 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2012 6:13:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Animals raised for food generally live longer and more pleasant lives than those who live in the wild. Animals raised for food are in any case entitled to decent care. Failure to raise animals for food means that they would not have lived at all. would anyone prefer to never have lived, rather than have decent life with a bad end? You are going to die anyway.

Vegetarians are immoral because they deprive animals of life.

The fact that people kill themselves proves that some lives are not worth living.

No, it proves that some people were willing to give up God's greatest gift rather than push through the challenging times and wake up with a better tomorrow. It proves that some people couldn't push aside their pride long enough to get professional help. Every life is worth living because the alternative is missing out on God knows what. Have you seen the movie Lorenzo's Oil? I would have pulled the plug on that kid long ago. His life was hell. His parents refused and he lived more than 20 years longer than he should have while recover from a disease that he shouldn't have been able to recover from. His parents found a cure for the disease. Even his life, as sh!tty as it was, was worth living. And if you think the solution is throwing away this life because it's hell, then wait until you get to hell. I'm sure it's much, much worse.

If you read my first two rounds in my last debate (http://www.debate.org...), which restricts itself to the dairy industry, I think you will become convinced that the lives of dairy cows are not worth living. Additionally, you would come to believe that the short lives of veal calfs (which are the male offspring of dairy cattle) are not worth living.

Free range dairy cows are just fine. I've seen numerous beef and dairy farms, and those cows look perfectly content. YOu can't limit your view to just factory farmed animals. The veal one I am more than happy to concede. They do lead a brutal short life. I don't condone the killing of any infant of any species, however.

Vegans and vegetarians oppose this system because we oppose misery and torture; not because we oppose life.

You, once again, show how ignorant you are. You are limiting your view to factory farming. And by taking life, Roy was referring to the fact that you'd rather not let these animals live at all, then watch them die to be eaten. I agree that factory farming is horrible, but that is *not* the only method of farming out there.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 2:57:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 11:26:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
I'm disappointed thad hasn't given a "That's what she said!" to the thread title yet.

I'd think that's because that's literally what she said.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 2:58:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/1/2012 7:50:00 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
And it led to a psychological brainstorm in my mind. Just my luck that I'd eat it accidently the very week I decide to go vegan :/

I was hungry, so I got a patty, which came in both veg and non veg. It did not cross my mind to specify that I wanted a veg patty. I took a bite, and it was tasty- to say the least. Very tasty. I told my friend to taste it, and she's a jain, so she smelled it and told me that it smelled funny. And that it was not veg. My first reaction was utmost disgust, Have you ever felt total freaking out moment? I actually felt that it smelled like dead meat, and that the red chilly type thing in it was blood. Total freak out.

But then I actually started thinking. I had bought the patty, hadn't I? So I had already contributed to the demand. My refusal to eat it would result in the dumping of the patty in the dustbin, which would be an insult to the dead chicken. But I just could not eat it, regardless of the fact that it was tasty.

So it was something on an individual level. I don't eat meat, because I don't want to? Not exactly, I can eat food I don't like very easily. The disgust portion really confused me, I have been taught not to disrespect food, and that wasting it is one of the sins. So the rules that govern the rest of the food don't apply to meat?

Is it possible... just a tiny bit, that I'm so prejudiced against eating meat, that it is has become an irrational stubbornness? Or was there a legitimate reason I couldn't eat meat once I knew what it was?

The disgust proves that you've been successfully brainwashed :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 3:28:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 2:46:17 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 7:45:39 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2012 6:06:12 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 4:03:25 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2012 3:20:13 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 10:52:53 AM, vbaculum wrote:
Congratulations on becoming vegan.

Knowing that what you are about to eat was once alive and sentient should arouse enough disgust to dissuade one from wanting to eat it. It's rational in the sense that it is untrue to our nature to inflict unnecessary harm on our fellow creatures.

Are you serious? Causing harm is untrue to our nature?

Causing unnecessary harm is untrue to our nature.

9/11, Holocaust, assassinations. Explain. Bear traps. Explain. Medieval warfare. Explain. Torture. Explain. We are *not* a docile harmless species.

Like I said before, I used the pronoun "our" to mean morally normal humans.

You use "our" to define people distanced from the nature of our species by a society that hasn't experienced any true threat to its existence in the last few hundred years. You're missing the point. By nature, we are *not* a harmless, docile species like you seem to think. Look at Africa and the Middle East. Why are they not morally normal? Because they don't hold *you're* ideals?

I didn't cover this? I'm aware that our species is violent and that morally normal people can be violent. Reread what I've written on this.



You are aware of the wars we've fought and continue to fight, correct? That's our *own* species. You think that, by nature, we give a flying fvck what we do to another animal? No, we care about causing other animals pain because of our society and our ability to care.

I used the pronoun "our" to refer to morally normal people. I'm aware that psychopaths, etc. exist.

Would you define "morally normal" since you've *clearly* never done anything wrong, and you're the fvcking eptiome of all that's good in this world. Killing doesn't make someone a psycopath. I'd also like to point out that killing is a crucial part of human nature and open refusal to killing in any form would point to a mental fvck up that should be causing your death if not for modern society.

Moral normalcy, as I've used it, describes a person who doesn't have an empathy disorder like psychopathy. Morally normal people are capable of violence of course, but only under conditions of acute stress or cognitive compartmentalization such as when a person can't see the connection between meat in a grocery store and the violence that was required to remove the flesh from the animal. People who buy and eat meat are usually morally normal, however a number of cognitive biases (bandwagon effect, empathy gap, system justification, cognitive dissonance) as well as plain old ignorance enable them to support the infliction of tremendous suffering on their fellow animals.

So then, because I hunt and eat meat (a.k.a., I stick as close to the diet and life style we, as a species, were meant to have), I'm not morally normal?

You are likely morally normal. See what I wrote about the cognative biases.

Because I kill and don't feel sick, I'm not morally normal? By your standards, our species should have died out long ago.

I encourage modern, civilized people to eat a vegan diet. I never said I would have encouraged paleolithic people to abibe by a vegan diet. As you said, that would likely have elimintated the species. By definition, being civilized means abiding by better norms and standards than uncivilized people.

Trust me, I am not lacking in empathy, nor am I ignorant. I'm clearly far more "normal" than you could ever hope to be. I say that not as an attack at you, but because you try to condemn people who eat a more natural diet while you eat a diet that requires the destruction of habitats thus killing off animals.

Factory farming kills hundreds of billions of animals world-wide each year in horrible ways. I know plant-based farming is not the perfect solution when it comes to wildlife. However, it is simply no match, in terms of cruelty, for modern animal husbandry. Plant-based food is required for human life anyway so it's non-negotiable. We are non-obligate omnivores meaning we have the healthier option to not eat animals or their byproducts.

I can coexist with other animals. You can't. When the sh!t hits the fan and society collapses around us, I will survive. You will die off with all the other humans who've forsaken their roots for an idealistic society where you can pretend that nothing is harmed for your survival.

I would likely eat meat if my survival depended on it just like most vegans and vegetarians.



A simple example would be the common observation that most people will step over a dogs tail to avoid hurting it because it is in our nature to not harm animals.

You mean a dog that you agreed to treat humanely and with kindness when you bought it? Not to mention that dogs are a part of modern society which has been altered by our technological advances. Our true nature can only been seen when we are fighting for every minute of our life.

I mean any dog. True nature is whatever is.

It was rhetorical. I was referring to all strains of domestic dogs, and any wild dogs that have been brought in to live as a domestic dog. They all it the above. And what does "true nature is whatever is" mean? Are you implying that living in a house that has water, electricity, and food that we weren't designed to eat is the true nature of our species? Are you *really* implying that a species that originated as a hunter-gatherer species is, by nature, meant to live in the conditions we live in? By nature, we should be scavenging or hunting for every meal.

True nature is whatever is. Nature is existence and vice-versa.

Since we are now civilized our ethical beliefs on almost everything have changed. It's natural that our ethics on animals and diet will continue to change and become more refined as well.



Refusing to eat meat that you inadvertently bought also shows ones resolve against animal cruelty. This too is rational if your intention is to demonstrate this resolve.

Bull. You already bought the meat and supported the industry. They don't care whether or not you eat that patty now.

Who doesn't?

The people who sold the meat.

I was referring to people in general. Showing commitment to a moral cause bolsters the cause itself. It show that you take the cause seriously and this has an impact on people.

It sure seemed like you were implying the company that sold the patty gives two sh!ts about whether or not you eat it. Or, it shows that you just wasted that animal's life and a few bucks. What would your cause be, exactly? Stop the consumption of meat by all humans? I hope you realize there will be war before a law is passed outlawing the consumption of meat.

I advocate non-violent education as a means to help people see that when they buy meat or other animal products, they are causing tremendious suffering which is incongruent to their (modern, civilized) nature.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2012 3:44:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/2/2012 2:54:38 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 3/1/2012 7:56:15 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2012 6:13:06 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Animals raised for food generally live longer and more pleasant lives than those who live in the wild. Animals raised for food are in any case entitled to decent care. Failure to raise animals for food means that they would not have lived at all. would anyone prefer to never have lived, rather than have decent life with a bad end? You are going to die anyway.

Vegetarians are immoral because they deprive animals of life.

The fact that people kill themselves proves that some lives are not worth living.

No, it proves that some people were willing to give up God's greatest gift rather than push through the challenging times and wake up with a better tomorrow. It proves that some people couldn't push aside their pride long enough to get professional help. Every life is worth living because the alternative is missing out on God knows what. Have you seen the movie Lorenzo's Oil? I would have pulled the plug on that kid long ago. His life was hell. His parents refused and he lived more than 20 years longer than he should have while recover from a disease that he shouldn't have been able to recover from. His parents found a cure for the disease. Even his life, as sh!tty as it was, was worth living. And if you think the solution is throwing away this life because it's hell, then wait until you get to hell. I'm sure it's much, much worse.

Do you think a veal calf's life is worth living?


If you read my first two rounds in my last debate (http://www.debate.org...), which restricts itself to the dairy industry, I think you will become convinced that the lives of dairy cows are not worth living. Additionally, you would come to believe that the short lives of veal calfs (which are the male offspring of dairy cattle) are not worth living.

Free range dairy cows are just fine. I've seen numerous beef and dairy farms, and those cows look perfectly content.

Obviously, an ancecdote won't compete with the vast amounts of research I've done (and anyone else can do) on the subject.

YOu can't limit your view to just factory farmed animals. The veal one I am more than happy to concede. They do lead a brutal short life. I don't condone the killing of any infant of any species, however.

Vegans and vegetarians oppose this system because we oppose misery and torture; not because we oppose life.

You, once again, show how ignorant you are. You are limiting your view to factory farming. And by taking life, Roy was referring to the fact that you'd rather not let these animals live at all, then watch them die to be eaten. I agree that factory farming is horrible, but that is *not* the only method of farming out there.

You listed all the alternatives and I rebutted each one.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it