Total Posts:231|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Ethics of What We Eat

Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Popculturepooka put a topic up like this a while ago, although I don't think he supports the notion that it is wrong to consume meat (I do). For the sake of clarity, I have brought it up once more.

So, my argument would essentially be as follows:

P1: It is wrong to cause pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.
P2: Eating meat from modern meat producers generally causes pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.
C: Therefore, eating meat from modern meat producers is generally wrong.

Good luck trying to deny the first premise. Yes, I know words like "moral" and "wrong" don't mean much to people that are nihilists. However, it seems to me that if we are all going for a world view that is consistent, we shouldn't deny (P1). Even Most nihilists would live and act as though (P1) is true.

With regard to (P2), most people argue that it's alright to eat meat because it's enjoyable. This seems to me to be a rather strange maneuver. If it were alright to inflict pain on beings because it were enjoyable, then we should legalize animal torture and dog fighting. Perhaps Michael Vick isn't really as bad as we all thought he was.

Other people may say that meat is an essential part of the human diet. If this were true, I suppose it may come close to falsifying (P2). However, this claim can be shown to be false for two reasons: (1) vegetarians are comparatively healthier and live longer than people who don't eat meat; and (2) the vitamins, proteins etc. in meat can be had from other sources.

Thus, it seems reasonable to say that eating meat is generally wrong. I only use the word "generally" in they syllogism because I could imagine numerous scenarios where it would be possible to eat meat without harming any conscious creatures (e.g., eating animal tissue grown in a lab.) And I could also imagine some scenario where someone had to eat meat for survival.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:16:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM, Freeman wrote:
Popculturepooka put a topic up like this a while ago, although I don't think he supports the notion that it is wrong to consume meat (I do). For the sake of clarity, I have brought it up once more.



So, my argument would essentially be as follows:


P1: It is wrong to cause pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.
P2: Eating meat from modern meat producers generally causes pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.
C: Therefore, eating meat from modern meat producers is generally wrong.

Good luck trying to deny the first premise. Yes, I know words like "moral" and "wrong" don't mean much to people that are nihilists. However, it seems to me that if we are all going for a world view that is consistent, we shouldn't deny (P1). Even Most nihilists would live and act as though (P1) is true.

With regard to (P2), most people argue that it's alright to eat meat because it's enjoyable. This seems to me to be a rather strange maneuver. If it were alright to inflict pain on beings because it were enjoyable, then we should legalize animal torture and dog fighting. Perhaps Michael Vick isn't really as bad as we all thought he was.

Other people may say that meat is an essential part of the human diet. If this were true, I suppose it may come close to falsifying (P2). However, this claim can be shown to be false for two reasons: (1) vegetarians are comparatively healthier and live longer than people who don't eat meat; and (2) the vitamins, proteins etc. in meat can be had from other sources.

Thus, it seems reasonable to say that eating meat is generally wrong. I only use the word "generally" in they syllogism because I could imagine numerous scenarios where it would be possible to eat meat without harming any conscious creatures (e.g., eating animal tissue grown in a lab.) And I could also imagine some scenario where someone had to eat meat for survival.

Well, you'll hate me for this but according to my religion humans are superior to animals.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:20:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM, Freeman wrote:
Popculturepooka put a topic up like this a while ago, although I don't think he supports the notion that it is wrong to consume meat (I do). For the sake of clarity, I have brought it up once more.



So, my argument would essentially be as follows:


P1: It is wrong to cause pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.
P2: Eating meat from modern meat producers generally causes pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.
C: Therefore, eating meat from modern meat producers is generally wrong.

Good luck trying to deny the first premise. Yes, I know words like "moral" and "wrong" don't mean much to people that are nihilists. However, it seems to me that if we are all going for a world view that is consistent, we shouldn't deny (P1). Even Most nihilists would live and act as though (P1) is true.

With regard to (P2), most people argue that it's alright to eat meat because it's enjoyable. This seems to me to be a rather strange maneuver. If it were alright to inflict pain on beings because it were enjoyable, then we should legalize animal torture and dog fighting. Perhaps Michael Vick isn't really as bad as we all thought he was.

Other people may say that meat is an essential part of the human diet. If this were true, I suppose it may come close to falsifying (P2). However, this claim can be shown to be false for two reasons: (1) vegetarians are comparatively healthier and live longer than people who do eat meat; and (2) the vitamins, proteins etc. in meat can be had from other sources.

Thus, it seems reasonable to say that eating meat is generally wrong. I only use the word "generally" in they syllogism because I could imagine numerous scenarios where it would be possible to eat meat without harming any conscious creatures (e.g., eating animal tissue grown in a lab.) And I could also imagine some scenario where someone had to eat meat for survival.

fix'd
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:28:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Other people may say that meat is an essential part of the human diet. If this were true, I suppose it may come close to falsifying (P2). However, this claim can be shown to be false for two reasons: (1) vegetarians are comparatively healthier and live longer than people who do eat meat; and (2) the vitamins, proteins etc. in meat can be had from other sources.

Thus, it seems reasonable to say that eating meat is generally wrong. I only use the word "generally" in they syllogism because I could imagine numerous scenarios where it would be possible to eat meat without harming any conscious creatures (e.g., eating animal tissue grown in a lab.) And I could also imagine some scenario where someone had to eat meat for survival.

fix'd

That is great but did you know that there are old people (over 90) who smoke ? This ain't a debate so you'll have to use google yourself. Personally I am not changing my lifestyle over a health issue besides I am healthy though I eat meat.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:33:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:16:47 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM, Freeman wrote:

Thus, it seems reasonable to say that eating meat is generally wrong. I only use the word "generally" in they syllogism because I could imagine numerous scenarios where it would be possible to eat meat without harming any conscious creatures (e.g., eating animal tissue grown in a lab.) And I could also imagine some scenario where someone had to eat meat for survival.

Well, you'll hate me for this but according to my religion humans are superior to animals.

Well, I would affirm the proposition that humans are, in fact, "superior" to animals in many ways. However, what does this have to with the ethics of what we eat?

It doesn't logically follow that because (A) is superior to (B) therefore (A) has the right to eat (B).
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:40:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:33:04 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:16:47 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM, Freeman wrote:

Thus, it seems reasonable to say that eating meat is generally wrong. I only use the word "generally" in they syllogism because I could imagine numerous scenarios where it would be possible to eat meat without harming any conscious creatures (e.g., eating animal tissue grown in a lab.) And I could also imagine some scenario where someone had to eat meat for survival.

Well, you'll hate me for this but according to my religion humans are superior to animals.

Well, I would affirm the proposition that humans are, in fact, "superior" to animals in many ways. However, what does this have to with the ethics of what we eat?

It doesn't logically follow that because (A) is superior to (B) therefore (A) has the right to eat (B).

Good point but what do you think it means to be superior ?

Also this is something I realized:
(B) is observed to eat (B)
(A) doesn't eat (B) hence (B) is eaten by (B)
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:46:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Okay, Freeman. I'll bite (get it? hehe).

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:53:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:46:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
Okay, Freeman. I'll bite (get it? hehe).

lol I got it

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

The argument is simply that inflicting unnecessary pain is wrong. I would disagree; eating animals is definitely morally permissible. I would be willing to debate this too; I won't make any arguments here though.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:55:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:53:06 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:46:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
Okay, Freeman. I'll bite (get it? hehe).

lol I got it

I knew people of class would get it. *high five*

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

The argument is simply that inflicting unnecessary pain is wrong. I would disagree; eating animals is definitely morally permissible. I would be willing to debate this too; I won't make any arguments here though.

How is killing something to eat it unnecessary? I prefer to eat my meat when it's dead and to do so, I must kill it which will require some pain. Whoop-de-doo. I see no reason for this to be 'wrong'.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:56:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:53:06 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:46:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
Okay, Freeman. I'll bite (get it? hehe).

lol I got it

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

The argument is simply that inflicting unnecessary pain is wrong. I would disagree; eating animals is definitely morally permissible. I would be willing to debate this too; I won't make any arguments here though.

From what perspective ?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:57:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:57:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
"But lotteries are bad and you shouldn't have one anyways."

Wrong topic.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:57:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:57:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
"But lotteries are bad and you shouldn't have one anyways."

Wrong thread...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 7:59:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM, Freeman wrote:
P1: It is wrong to cause pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.

Well, in one sense this is a tautology. If you do anything without a good reason it is in one sense "wrong," that is, not correct, as in, there is no good reason to do it.

But there is nothing morally wrong with hurting other conscious beings. In fact, it is sometimes quite amusing.

P2: Eating meat from modern meat producers generally causes pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.

Eating meat generally causes no one any pain because the creature whose meat you are eating is already generally dead.

C: Therefore, eating meat from modern meat producers is generally wrong.

As I negated both premises, the conclusion does not follow.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:01:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:57:45 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:57:19 PM, wjmelements wrote:
"But lotteries are bad and you shouldn't have one anyways."

Wrong thread...

XD just how ....?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:01:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:46:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
Okay, Freeman. I'll bite (get it? hehe).

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

The same reason it's wrong to cause babies pain.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:02:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:55:11 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:53:06 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:46:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
Okay, Freeman. I'll bite (get it? hehe).

lol I got it

I knew people of class would get it. *high five*

We've been high fiving a lot lately. *high five*

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

The argument is simply that inflicting unnecessary pain is wrong. I would disagree; eating animals is definitely morally permissible. I would be willing to debate this too; I won't make any arguments here though.

How is killing something to eat it unnecessary? I prefer to eat my meat when it's dead and to do so, I must kill it which will require some pain. Whoop-de-doo. I see no reason for this to be 'wrong'.

Ask freeman :P It's the whole "pain and suffering" thing. In terms of beef, I think pain and suffering is quite yummy when seasoned well.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:05:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 8:01:53 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:46:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
Okay, Freeman. I'll bite (get it? hehe).

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

The same reason it's wrong to cause babies pain.

You should know this by now, Freeman -- that argument doesn't work for me. So why is it wrong to cause animals pain?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:07:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 8:05:36 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/23/2010 8:01:53 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:46:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
Okay, Freeman. I'll bite (get it? hehe).

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

The same reason it's wrong to cause babies pain.

You should know this by now, Freeman -- that argument doesn't work for me. So why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

... Empathy ?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:07:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:59:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM, Freeman wrote:
P1: It is wrong to cause pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.

Well, in one sense this is a tautology. If you do anything without a good reason it is in one sense "wrong," that is, not correct, as in, there is no good reason to do it.

It's not tautological. And secondly, doing something for no good reason isn't wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone. Haven't you ever done something spontaneously?

P2: Eating meat from modern meat producers generally causes pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.

Eating meat generally causes no one any pain because the creature whose meat you are eating is already generally dead.

Bingo!

However, by eating meat you are causing meat producers to fill supply and demand requirements which requires them to kill more animals to keep demand in check.

No one eats meat = no animals get killed for people to eat meat. No demand = no supply.

C: Therefore, eating meat from modern meat producers is generally wrong.

As I negated both premises, the conclusion does not follow.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:08:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 8:07:22 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/23/2010 8:05:36 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/23/2010 8:01:53 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:46:07 PM, annhasle wrote:
Okay, Freeman. I'll bite (get it? hehe).

Why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

The same reason it's wrong to cause babies pain.

You should know this by now, Freeman -- that argument doesn't work for me. So why is it wrong to cause animals pain?

... Empathy ?

I'm not an emotivist. Thank gawd.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:09:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 8:07:25 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:59:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM, Freeman wrote:
P1: It is wrong to cause pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.

Well, in one sense this is a tautology. If you do anything without a good reason it is in one sense "wrong," that is, not correct, as in, there is no good reason to do it.

It's not tautological. And secondly, doing something for no good reason isn't wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone. Haven't you ever done something spontaneously?

P2: Eating meat from modern meat producers generally causes pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.

Eating meat generally causes no one any pain because the creature whose meat you are eating is already generally dead.

Bingo!

However, by eating meat you are causing meat producers to fill supply and demand requirements which requires them to kill more animals to keep demand in check.

No one eats meat = no animals get killed for people to eat meat. No demand = no supply.

C: Therefore, eating meat from modern meat producers is generally wrong.

As I negated both premises, the conclusion does not follow.

True that is if we forget that animals tend to kill other animals.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:10:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 8:09:30 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 12/23/2010 8:07:25 PM, Freeman wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:59:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM, Freeman wrote:
P1: It is wrong to cause pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.

Well, in one sense this is a tautology. If you do anything without a good reason it is in one sense "wrong," that is, not correct, as in, there is no good reason to do it.

It's not tautological. And secondly, doing something for no good reason isn't wrong if it doesn't hurt anyone. Haven't you ever done something spontaneously?

P2: Eating meat from modern meat producers generally causes pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.

Eating meat generally causes no one any pain because the creature whose meat you are eating is already generally dead.

Bingo!

However, by eating meat you are causing meat producers to fill supply and demand requirements which requires them to kill more animals to keep demand in check.

No one eats meat = no animals get killed for people to eat meat. No demand = no supply.

C: Therefore, eating meat from modern meat producers is generally wrong.

As I negated both premises, the conclusion does not follow.

True that is if we forget that animals tend to kill other animals.

Appeal to nature? Bad idea.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:19:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Appeal to nature? Bad idea.
Exactly how ?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:30:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 8:19:46 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
Appeal to nature? Bad idea.
Exactly how ?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:46:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 7:08:16 PM, Freeman wrote:
Popculturepooka put a topic up like this a while ago, although I don't think he supports the notion that it is wrong to consume meat (I do). For the sake of clarity, I have brought it up once more.


So, my argument would essentially be as follows:


P1: It is wrong to cause pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.
P2: Eating meat from modern meat producers generally causes pain to conscious creatures without a good reason.
C: Therefore, eating meat from modern meat producers is generally wrong.

Good luck trying to deny the first premise. Yes, I know words like "moral" and "wrong" don't mean much to people that are nihilists. However, it seems to me that if we are all going for a world view that is consistent, we shouldn't deny (P1). Even Most nihilists would live and act as though (P1) is true.

With regard to (P2), most people argue that it's alright to eat meat because it's enjoyable. This seems to me to be a rather strange maneuver. If it were alright to inflict pain on beings because it were enjoyable, then we should legalize animal torture and dog fighting. Perhaps Michael Vick isn't really as bad as we all thought he was.

Other people may say that meat is an essential part of the human diet. If this were true, I suppose it may come close to falsifying (P2). However, this claim can be shown to be false for two reasons: (1) vegetarians are comparatively healthier and live longer than people who don't eat meat; and (2) the vitamins, proteins etc. in meat can be had from other sources.

Thus, it seems reasonable to say that eating meat is generally wrong. I only use the word "generally" in they syllogism because I could imagine numerous scenarios where it would be possible to eat meat without harming any conscious creatures (e.g., eating animal tissue grown in a lab.) And I could also imagine some scenario where someone had to eat meat for survival.

I got a shout-out! :)

Anyways, I'm still working my way through the issue because I'm pretty ignorant in this area but I find these types of arguments, prima facie at least, to be pretty strong. I'll have to think some more on the subject before I'm ready to give up (in general) my meat-eating ways, though. I do have some objections...

Are you a vegan, Freeman?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:47:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Meat is delicious. We're cooking beef, pork and turkey as well as having prawns. Take your daisy-chaining and peaceful protesting hippy crap and cram it.

OR

P1: Meat is delicious
P2: Eating delicious things is good.
C: Eating meat is good.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:50:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 8:47:38 PM, tvellalott wrote:
Meat is delicious. We're cooking beef, pork and turkey as well as having prawns. Take your daisy-chaining and peaceful protesting hippy crap and cram it.

OR

P1: Meat is delicious
P2: Eating delicious things is good.
C: Eating meat is good.

This. 10/10.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:53:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 8:46:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Anyways, I'm still working my way through the issue because I'm pretty ignorant in this area but I find these types of arguments, prima facie at least, to be pretty strong. I'll have to think some more on the subject before I'm ready to give up (in general) my meat-eating ways, though. I do have some objections...

Robert Nozick made a pretty powerful argument in ASU, but I will literally go to any length to justify eating meat. In fact, I'd sooner become a nihilist than a vegetarian.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2010 8:54:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/23/2010 8:53:19 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 12/23/2010 8:46:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Anyways, I'm still working my way through the issue because I'm pretty ignorant in this area but I find these types of arguments, prima facie at least, to be pretty strong. I'll have to think some more on the subject before I'm ready to give up (in general) my meat-eating ways, though. I do have some objections...

Robert Nozick made a pretty powerful argument in ASU, but I will literally go to any length to justify eating meat. In fact, I'd sooner become a nihilist than a vegetarian.

Oh, I cannot wait for that day... ^_^
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.