Total Posts:65|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should humans kill nonhumans for food?

kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 3:42:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi everyone!

It's been awhile since a good forum topic on animal killings. So the question is: Should humans kill nonhumans for food? Why, or why not?

This is a pretty general question, so I'll narrow it down. Assume that the nonhuman is a large mammal such as a cow, pig, or dog. Assume that the human is not starving, and does not plan to give the flesh as a gift. Should the human kill? Why or why not?
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 4:50:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 3:42:18 PM, kbub wrote:
Hi everyone!

It's been awhile since a good forum topic on animal killings. So the question is: Should humans kill nonhumans for food? Why, or why not?

This is a pretty general question, so I'll narrow it down. Assume that the nonhuman is a large mammal such as a cow, pig, or dog. Assume that the human is not starving, and does not plan to give the flesh as a gift. Should the human kill? Why or why not?
clgaram720
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 9:24:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
: At 8/24/2014 3:42:18 PM, kbub wrote:
Hi everyone!

It's been awhile since a good forum topic on animal killings. So the question is: Should humans kill nonhumans for food? Why, or why not?

This is a pretty general question, so I'll narrow it down. Assume that the nonhuman is a large mammal such as a cow, pig, or dog. Assume that the human is not starving, and does not plan to give the flesh as a gift. Should the human kill? Why or why not?


Yes, it's reasonable for a human being to kill and consume a non human animal. We are omnivores, which means we can eat both flora and fauna. But it's an AND situation, not an OR. The human body functions at it's best when provided with both animal tissues and plant tissues to consume and digest. We need both to function optimally. (Source: http://authoritynutrition.com...)

Now I'm not for the wholesale murder of whole populations of animals, but I think if we breed an animal, like a cow or a pig, for this purpose, and see to it having a reasonably safe and healthy and comfortable (this means no crunchy cages, seriously need to be done with that people) existence, then there is not a moral issue. Human beings are like bears; omnivores that are both hunter and gatherer. There is no moral dilemma with a bear killing and eating a fish, and as such there should be no dilemma where a human does the same thing.

And you don't need to be starving to be in a moral safe house. Starvation is a state the body enters LONG AFTER the human being required the steak. Whether you are starving or not should not be a variable. You require food to live. You require both types of food to live. Your continued existence depends upon that cow whether you kill it today or three weeks from now once your body has eaten most of itself.

I am disgusted by the conditions in which the animals people eat live. There is a good reason to kill an animal for food, but not one single reason for a being of such advanced intelligence and moral reasoning to allow said animal to live it's entire life in a state of suffering. We need to do better, but I don't see a problem with figuring out how to do better over cheeseburgers and salad.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2014 6:48:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Foods that come from animals are detrimental to human health.

Since humans don't need to eat animals, they shouldn't. We don't need to murder anyone so we can be healthy.
"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
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 11:28:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 6:48:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Foods that come from animals are detrimental to human health.

Since humans don't need to eat animals, they shouldn't. We don't need to murder anyone so we can be healthy.

Poe's law comes into place here...

clgaram posted this link above, which responds to your first claim:
http://authoritynutrition.com...

You made an is-ought fallacy. We don't need to eat chocolate, so we should not eat chocolate? Your "is" is wrong anyway, we are omnivores, so it is reasonable to consume animals in order to be healthy.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 6:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 3:42:18 PM, kbub wrote:
Hi everyone!

It's been awhile since a good forum topic on animal killings. So the question is: Should humans kill nonhumans for food? Why, or why not?

This is a pretty general question, so I'll narrow it down. Assume that the nonhuman is a large mammal such as a cow, pig, or dog. Assume that the human is not starving, and does not plan to give the flesh as a gift. Should the human kill? Why or why not?

No they shouldn't. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you don't really need to kill an animal, you shouldn't kill it. But the question is, can everyone be a vegetarian? Will it affect your finances? What vegetables will you eat if, for example, you don't like most of them? Will it have any impact on your health that you will need to supply by taking vitamins? And what about your habits? Can keep exercising? Going to the gym and get muscle mass as before? etc

Don't get me wrong, I love vegetarias, but it is not easy to become one. It's not as simple as: you don't need to kill the animal so don't kill it. I think people considering the possibility of becoming vegetarians, are too many times overwhelmed by the number of questions that come to mind.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2014 11:56:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Cows and pigs are delicious! I personally have killed 3 sheep; 1 as euthanasia, 1 for dog tucker, and 1 for lamb curries.

I wouldn't eat a dog though. Judging from how bad their shiit smells, I doubt their meat would taste very good.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 11:28:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/25/2014 6:48:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Foods that come from animals are detrimental to human health.

Since humans don't need to eat animals, they shouldn't. We don't need to murder anyone so we can be healthy.

Poe's law comes into place here...


Appeal to ridicule.


clgaram posted this link above, which responds to your first claim:
http://authoritynutrition.com...


That was a bad article. If there is a claim in it that you think is valid, let me know and I'll tell you why it isn't. The consensus of experts on this subject is that eating animals and their secretions is detrimental to human health. Google the ADA's position paper on vegan diets, for example.

You made an is-ought fallacy. We don't need to eat chocolate, so we should not eat chocolate? Your "is" is wrong anyway, we are omnivores, so it is reasonable to consume animals in order to be healthy.

P1 Causing unnessary suffering is immoral.

P2 Humans are non-obligate omnivores (i.e., they can eat animals but don't need to in order to thrive).

P3 Humans want to claim rationality in their actions.

P4 Being immoral is irrational

C Humans shouldn't cause animals to suffer.

Show me how my premises are wrong or how they don't support the conclusion.
"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
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:58:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 11:56:55 PM, apb4y wrote:
Cows and pigs are delicious! I personally have killed 3 sheep; 1 as euthanasia, 1 for dog tucker, and 1 for lamb curries.

I wouldn't eat a dog though. Judging from how bad their shiit smells, I doubt their meat would taste very good.

I have never killed an animal myself. One day, I found a dog on the road all of a sudden and I crushed my car to evade it lol
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:18:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The question is worded all wrong.

Should we RAISE animals to eat should be the real question.

Dying would never even be an issue if we didn't create the animals in the first place.

At least, an arbitrary notion of a "premature" animal death.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 6:04:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/26/2014 6:25:21 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/24/2014 3:42:18 PM, kbub wrote:
Hi everyone!

It's been awhile since a good forum topic on animal killings. So the question is: Should humans kill nonhumans for food? Why, or why not?

This is a pretty general question, so I'll narrow it down. Assume that the nonhuman is a large mammal such as a cow, pig, or dog. Assume that the human is not starving, and does not plan to give the flesh as a gift. Should the human kill? Why or why not?

No they shouldn't. It seems pretty obvious to me that if you don't really need to kill an animal, you shouldn't kill it. But the question is, can everyone be a vegetarian?

Yes, as far as I know, anyone living in a modern western context can live without consuming animals or their byproducts. Actually Hindus and Buddhists have been proving for millinia that this is possible with or without access to modern conveniences.

Will it affect your finances?

Only for the better. Consider what would happen to your food expenses if you replaced meat with vegetable protiens like rice, beans, grains, nuts and seeds. Also consider what that would mean for your health and, therefore, your medical bills.

It's also worth mentioning that the government subsidizes agriculture making meat appear less expensive than it is. It takes about 7-20 pounds of human consumable vegetation to produce 1 pound of meat (depending on the animal). So the real cost of meat is tremendious compared to healthy, plant-basd sources of fat and protein.

(https://alumni.stanford.edu... )

What vegetables will you eat if, for example, you don't like most of them?

There are a lot of beans, legumes, seeds nuts, vegetables, fruits and grains-based foods out there.

Will it have any impact on your health that you will need to supply by taking vitamins?

Just make sure you are getting B12 from fortified food such as soy milk, granola bars, etc. According to the science, vegans aren't at a disadvantage when it comes to getting enough nutrients.

And what about your habits? Can keep exercising? Going to the gym and get muscle mass as before? etc

Yes, yes, yes! The protein available from plant sources is of a very high quality despite what most people believe. Putting on muscle mass as a vegan is very easy. I used to be a weight lifter so I know this is true first-hand. Google "vegan weight lifters" or "vegan athletes".

Don't get me wrong, I love vegetarias, but it is not easy to become one. It's not as simple as: you don't need to kill the animal so don't kill it. I think people considering the possibility of becoming vegetarians, are too many times overwhelmed by the number of questions that come to mind.

That's probably true. I would recommend just taking one day a week to eat as a vegan. Once you get the hang of that, increase it to two days and so on.
"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
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 6:19:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 6:04:18 PM, vbaculum wrote:
That's probably true. I would recommend just taking one day a week to eat as a vegan. Once you get the hang of that, increase it to two days and so on.

That's actually a very good idea and I might put it in practice. So many times I tried to move to vegetarianism and crashed on the way lol. Starting with one day a week and moving on when I feel sure seems like something I can do :D
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:44:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:48:20 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/26/2014 11:28:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/25/2014 6:48:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Foods that come from animals are detrimental to human health.

Since humans don't need to eat animals, they shouldn't. We don't need to murder anyone so we can be healthy.

Poe's law comes into place here...


Appeal to ridicule.

I apologize, though I genuinely got confused about the seriousness of the statement. I retract it.


clgaram posted this link above, which responds to your first claim:
http://authoritynutrition.com...


That was a bad article. If there is a claim in it that you think is valid, let me know and I'll tell you why it isn't. The consensus of experts on this subject is that eating animals and their secretions is detrimental to human health. Google the ADA's position paper on vegan diets, for example.

Why don't we consider lack of nutrition or inferior sources of nutrition (Vitamin B12, Vitamin D, Zinc, Iron, Omega-3) "unnecessary harm"? Some types of utilitarianism don't consider animals a factor.

Can you provide a controlled study which shows the miraculous and significant advantage vegan diet has? If it is not controlled, preferably provide one that it is reasonably large and has been replicated.

You made an is-ought fallacy. We don't need to eat chocolate, so we should not eat chocolate? Your "is" is wrong anyway, we are omnivores, so it is reasonable to consume animals in order to be healthy.

P1 Causing unnessary suffering is immoral.

P2 Humans are non-obligate omnivores (i.e., they can eat animals but don't need to in order to thrive).

P3 Humans want to claim rationality in their actions.

P4 Being immoral is irrational

C Humans shouldn't cause animals to suffer.

Show me how my premises are wrong or how they don't support the conclusion.

Premise 1: Causing unnecessary suffering is immoral.
So is reading a trashy romance novel rather than engaging in humanitarian aid is immoral?
Is staying to watch the end of a movie while being hungry immoral?
Can it be argued that the best and most moral healthcare system in the world is one that saves as few lives as possible?
If there was a WMD that can cause instant death to humanity with little to no pain, then it is moral to use it?
It is moral to cheat on your wife/husband with your boss if your spouse never finds out?

Your statement lead to absurdities. Furthermore, how did you derive this principle? Can you prove it?

Premise 2: Humans are non-obligate omnivores (i.e., they can eat animals but don't need to in order to thrive).

Humans also don't need to eat plants using the same logic. Why discuss equally moralless issues such as omnivore vs herbivore?

Think about all the native animals and their natural environment that were plowed over to allow agriculture. Think of the harms popular trends such as pesticides, organic pesticides, herbicides, cheap fertilizers, genetic engineering, depletion of soil fertility.

What about the people who don't live in an agricultural areas? Do they have to deport or have almost all their food supply imported because, by definition, living there is immoral?
What if there was a season where drought, insect, or disease spread? Do people deserve to starve because their one source of food is inefficient?

Omnivore diets are more nutrient, meaning that you need to consume a less amount of food to reach your needs. But oh no, this isn't about being sustainable or saving lives, this is about reducing the subjective sensation of suffering.

Well, domesticated animals don't generally undergo torture seasons, they get a swift and probably painless, death. So where is the suffering exactly?

Premise 3: Humans want to claim rationality in their actions.

And what does this have to do with the rationality of their actions?
Classical wishful thinking fallacy; wanting something to be rational does not make it rational.

Premise 4: Being immoral is irrational.

Aha. And when that morality is derived from human emotions, it consequently becomes an appeal to emotions, thus irrational.
Putting the "rational" and "irrational" labels and something implies that thing was derived from rational means, but it couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, as long as subjective principles of morality such as "utilitarianism" are used, we can't even consider principles such as "sacrifice", "human rights", and "human equality" to be rational; it is completely emotional.

Conclusion: Humans shouldn't cause animals to suffer.

Even if it causes human suffering? Where is the evidence to the hidden premise that "humans cause domesticated animals suffering"?
The premises don't follow, but can you clarify the statement anyway?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 7:55:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 6:44:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:48:20 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/26/2014 11:28:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/25/2014 6:48:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Foods that come from animals are detrimental to human health.

Since humans don't need to eat animals, they shouldn't. We don't need to murder anyone so we can be healthy.

Poe's law comes into place here...


Appeal to ridicule.

I apologize, though I genuinely got confused about the seriousness of the statement. I retract it.


clgaram posted this link above, which responds to your first claim:
http://authoritynutrition.com...


That was a bad article. If there is a claim in it that you think is valid, let me know and I'll tell you why it isn't. The consensus of experts on this subject is that eating animals and their secretions is detrimental to human health. Google the ADA's position paper on vegan diets, for example.

Why don't we consider lack of nutrition or inferior sources of nutrition (Vitamin B12, Vitamin D, Zinc, Iron, Omega-3) "unnecessary harm"? Some types of utilitarianism don't consider animals a factor.

Can you provide a controlled study which shows the miraculous and significant advantage vegan diet has? If it is not controlled, preferably provide one that it is reasonably large and has been replicated.

You made an is-ought fallacy. We don't need to eat chocolate, so we should not eat chocolate? Your "is" is wrong anyway, we are omnivores, so it is reasonable to consume animals in order to be healthy.

P1 Causing unnessary suffering is immoral.

P2 Humans are non-obligate omnivores (i.e., they can eat animals but don't need to in order to thrive).

P3 Humans want to claim rationality in their actions.

P4 Being immoral is irrational

C Humans shouldn't cause animals to suffer.

Show me how my premises are wrong or how they don't support the conclusion.

Premise 1: Causing unnecessary suffering is immoral.
So is reading a trashy romance novel rather than engaging in humanitarian aid is immoral?
Is staying to watch the end of a movie while being hungry immoral?
Can it be argued that the best and most moral healthcare system in the world is one that saves as few lives as possible?
If there was a WMD that can cause instant death to humanity with little to no pain, then it is moral to use it?
It is moral to cheat on your wife/husband with your boss if your spouse never finds out?

Your statement lead to absurdities. Furthermore, how did you derive this principle? Can you prove it?


Premise 2: Humans are non-obligate omnivores (i.e., they can eat animals but don't need to in order to thrive).

Humans also don't need to eat plants using the same logic. Why discuss equally moralless issues such as omnivore vs herbivore?

Think about all the native animals and their natural environment that were plowed over to allow agriculture. Think of the harms popular trends such as pesticides, organic pesticides, herbicides, cheap fertilizers, genetic engineering, depletion of soil fertility.

What about the people who don't live in an agricultural areas? Do they have to deport or have almost all their food supply imported because, by definition, living there is immoral?
What if there was a season where drought, insect, or disease spread? Do people deserve to starve because their one source of food is inefficient?

Omnivore diets are more nutrient, meaning that you need to consume a less amount of food to reach your needs. But oh no, this isn't about being sustainable or saving lives, this is about reducing the subjective sensation of suffering.

Well, domesticated animals don't generally undergo torture seasons, they get a swift and probably painless, death. So where is the suffering exactly?


Premise 3: Humans want to claim rationality in their actions.

And what does this have to do with the rationality of their actions?
Classical wishful thinking fallacy; wanting something to be rational does not make it rational.

Premise 4: Being immoral is irrational.

Aha. And when that morality is derived from human emotions, it consequently becomes an appeal to emotions, thus irrational.
Putting the "rational" and "irrational" labels and something implies that thing was derived from rational means, but it couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, as long as subjective principles of morality such as "utilitarianism" are used, we can't even consider principles such as "sacrifice", "human rights", and "human equality" to be rational; it is completely emotional.

Conclusion: Humans shouldn't cause animals to suffer.

Even if it causes human suffering? Where is the evidence to the hidden premise that "humans cause domesticated animals suffering"?
The premises don't follow, but can you clarify the statement anyway?

Even if we somehow evolve as a species to 100% Vegan, Humans would still find health risks, costs and guilt about eating plants. (plant murder)

Humans need conflict to survive. If we had a utopia, we would trash it for the sake of our sanity.

The next phase after failed Veganism would be making food from dirt.... followed by.... Earth Murder.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 10:54:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 6:44:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:48:20 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/26/2014 11:28:52 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/25/2014 6:48:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Foods that come from animals are detrimental to human health.

Since humans don't need to eat animals, they shouldn't. We don't need to murder anyone so we can be healthy.

Poe's law comes into place here...


Appeal to ridicule.

I apologize, though I genuinely got confused about the seriousness of the statement. I retract it.


clgaram posted this link above, which responds to your first claim:
http://authoritynutrition.com...


That was a bad article. If there is a claim in it that you think is valid, let me know and I'll tell you why it isn't. The consensus of experts on this subject is that eating animals and their secretions is detrimental to human health. Google the ADA's position paper on vegan diets, for example.

Why don't we consider lack of nutrition or inferior sources of nutrition (Vitamin B12, Vitamin D, Zinc, Iron, Omega-3) "unnecessary harm"? Some types of utilitarianism don't consider animals a factor.

Can you provide a controlled study which shows the miraculous and significant advantage vegan diet has? If it is not controlled, preferably provide one that it is reasonably large and has been replicated.

You made an is-ought fallacy. We don't need to eat chocolate, so we should not eat chocolate? Your "is" is wrong anyway, we are omnivores, so it is reasonable to consume animals in order to be healthy.

P1 Causing unnessary suffering is immoral.

P2 Humans are non-obligate omnivores (i.e., they can eat animals but don't need to in order to thrive).

P3 Humans want to claim rationality in their actions.

P4 Being immoral is irrational

C Humans shouldn't cause animals to suffer.

Show me how my premises are wrong or how they don't support the conclusion.

Premise 1: Causing unnecessary suffering is immoral.
So is reading a trashy romance novel rather than engaging in humanitarian aid is immoral?
Is staying to watch the end of a movie while being hungry immoral?
Can it be argued that the best and most moral healthcare system in the world is one that saves as few lives as possible?
If there was a WMD that can cause instant death to humanity with little to no pain, then it is moral to use it?
It is moral to cheat on your wife/husband with your boss if your spouse never finds out?

Your statement lead to absurdities. Furthermore, how did you derive this principle? Can you prove it?


Premise 2: Humans are non-obligate omnivores (i.e., they can eat animals but don't need to in order to thrive).

Humans also don't need to eat plants using the same logic. Why discuss equally moralless issues such as omnivore vs herbivore?

Think about all the native animals and their natural environment that were plowed over to allow agriculture. Think of the harms popular trends such as pesticides, organic pesticides, herbicides, cheap fertilizers, genetic engineering, depletion of soil fertility.

What about the people who don't live in an agricultural areas? Do they have to deport or have almost all their food supply imported because, by definition, living there is immoral?
What if there was a season where drought, insect, or disease spread? Do people deserve to starve because their one source of food is inefficient?

Omnivore diets are more nutrient, meaning that you need to consume a less amount of food to reach your needs. But oh no, this isn't about being sustainable or saving lives, this is about reducing the subjective sensation of suffering.

Well, domesticated animals don't generally undergo torture seasons, they get a swift and probably painless, death. So where is the suffering exactly?


Premise 3: Humans want to claim rationality in their actions.

And what does this have to do with the rationality of their actions?
Classical wishful thinking fallacy; wanting something to be rational does not make it rational.

Premise 4: Being immoral is irrational.

Aha. And when that morality is derived from human emotions, it consequently becomes an appeal to emotions, thus irrational.
Putting the "rational" and "irrational" labels and something implies that thing was derived from rational means, but it couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, as long as subjective principles of morality such as "utilitarianism" are used, we can't even consider principles such as "sacrifice", "human rights", and "human equality" to be rational; it is completely emotional.

Conclusion: Humans shouldn't cause animals to suffer.

Even if it causes human suffering? Where is the evidence to the hidden premise that "humans cause domesticated animals suffering"?
The premises don't follow, but can you clarify the statement anyway?

Wow. At least I'm realistic enough to realize I'm doing something immoral by supporting factories of animals living in 2x2 meter cells with the only life purpose of becoming food, or being skinned ALIVE for decorating a coat. But I see that there are people who even dares to say that this is moral and necessary lol!
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:22:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 10:54:38 AM, Otokage wrote:

Wow. At least I'm realistic enough to realize I'm doing something immoral by supporting factories of animals living in 2x2 meter cells with the only life purpose of becoming food, or being skinned ALIVE for decorating a coat. But I see that there are people who even dares to say that this is moral and necessary lol!

Define morality, cause it seems to be "I personally don't feel good about it, therefore it is immoral!".

Animals have a life purpose? lol. I guess riding horses is animal cruelty too to you, huh?
As far as we know, they are guided by instincts. Is there a reason that it isn't a mutually beneficial relationship?

I don't support animal cruelty/torture or killing them except for food or self-defense.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:38:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 11:22:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

I don't support animal cruelty/torture or killing them except for food or self-defense.

Yeah, sound supper logical to torture an animal for food and self-defense. Really practical.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:44:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 11:38:28 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:22:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

I don't support animal cruelty/torture or killing them except for food or self-defense.

Yeah, sound supper logical to torture an animal for food and self-defense. Really practical.

Let me rephrase: "I don't support animal crulety/torture. Furthermore, I don't support killing them except for food and/or self-defense".
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:48:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 11:38:28 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:22:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

I don't support animal cruelty/torture or killing them except for food or self-defense.

Yeah, sound supper logical to torture an animal for food and self-defense. Really practical.

A 2x2 cage may be torture for you, but might be a paradise for a wild animal.

Anthropomorphism much?
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:36:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 11:44:28 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:38:28 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:22:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

I don't support animal cruelty/torture or killing them except for food or self-defense.

Yeah, sound supper logical to torture an animal for food and self-defense. Really practical.

Let me rephrase: "I don't support animal crulety/torture. Furthermore, I don't support killing them except for food and/or self-defense".

But dude, you support animal cruelty/torture by buying meat on the supermarket. Or do you think cows and pigs live on beauty salons with slaves at their service? No, they live on extremely precarious conditions, in environments where they can not move, with stress levels that increase the toxicity of their meat, where they are forced to eat even using funnels, and so on. You can even see it on youtube. It is literally like a horror movie.

At 8/28/2014 11:48:08 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:38:28 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:22:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

I don't support animal cruelty/torture or killing them except for food or self-defense.

Yeah, sound supper logical to torture an animal for food and self-defense. Really practical.

A 2x2 cage may be torture for you, but might be a paradise for a wild animal.

Anthropomorphism much?

I don't think any veterinary or ethologist would agree with you. Maybe the CEO of McDonalds.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:39:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 11:38:28 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:22:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

I don't support animal cruelty/torture or killing them except for food or self-defense.

Yeah, sound supper logical to torture an animal for food and self-defense. Really practical.

A 2x2 cage may be torture for you, but might be a paradise for a wild animal.

Anthropomorphism much?

I don't think any veterinary or ethologist would agree with you. Maybe the CEO of McDonalds.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
clgaram720
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:47:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have to agree with dragonfang in the anthropomorphic comment. As far as any science is able to detect in this age, human beings are the only animal that has a hierarchy of needs including fulfillment of dreams or purpose of life. We are the only creature that is not content with the mundane, the only living thing that actively seeks out something more than the simple eat, breed, survive mentality. We skydive, we paint, we make music, and we do all of these things even at a detriment to the more natural urges, like eating food and procreating. To assume animal killing is immoral because we'd be denying them this right is illogical. Animals are not humans. It doesn't mean they don't deserve our respect and caring, but it does mean the life of a cow has significantly less worth than that of a man. If you want to make an argument that killing an animal is immoral, make it from the perspective that man needs to be more responsible to mother earth, not by implying that the loss of an animal is equal to the loss of a human.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:47:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 6:39:31 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:38:28 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 8/28/2014 11:22:49 AM, Dragonfang wrote:

I don't support animal cruelty/torture or killing them except for food or self-defense.

Yeah, sound supper logical to torture an animal for food and self-defense. Really practical.

A 2x2 cage may be torture for you, but might be a paradise for a wild animal.

Anthropomorphism much?

I don't think any veterinary or ethologist would agree with you. Maybe the CEO of McDonalds.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

What is that supposed to mean? First, we are speaking about cows and pigs in jails not about dogs in kennels that are taken outside of the kennel three times a day, given toys, and are constantly attended by her caregiver. And second, the only relevant sentence of the text which is "kenels work to reduce streess" has no source...
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:54:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 6:47:23 PM, clgaram720 wrote:
I have to agree with dragonfang in the anthropomorphic comment. As far as any science is able to detect in this age, human beings are the only animal that has a hierarchy of needs including fulfillment of dreams or purpose of life. We are the only creature that is not content with the mundane, the only living thing that actively seeks out something more than the simple eat, breed, survive mentality. We skydive, we paint, we make music, and we do all of these things even at a detriment to the more natural urges, like eating food and procreating. To assume animal killing is immoral because we'd be denying them this right is illogical. Animals are not humans. It doesn't mean they don't deserve our respect and caring, but it does mean the life of a cow has significantly less worth than that of a man. If you want to make an argument that killing an animal is immoral, make it from the perspective that man needs to be more responsible to mother earth, not by implying that the loss of an animal is equal to the loss of a human.

I haven't said the loss of an animal is equal to the loss of a human (hello strawman), but that animals have emotions and thus they suffer, and making them suffer does not seem moral at all. Also most birds and mammals do play, cetaceans and birds sing, and it doesn't seem moral to prevent them from living a normal life, lock them, force them to eat and then kill them just because meat is tastier than lettuce.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 1:48:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 3:42:18 PM, kbub wrote:
Hi everyone!

It's been awhile since a good forum topic on animal killings. So the question is: Should humans kill nonhumans for food? Why, or why not?

This is a pretty general question, so I'll narrow it down. Assume that the nonhuman is a large mammal such as a cow, pig, or dog. Assume that the human is not starving, and does not plan to give the flesh as a gift. Should the human kill? Why or why not?

I'm vegan now and have been for like 3 months now. I think it's morally wrong for me to eat meat, but I'm not judging anybody else.

I think it is incredibly hard and maybe even impossible for a lot of people to survive on a vegan diet. I researched common nutrition deficiencies and currently take vitamin A (still have to do a lot of research on this one it seems hard to get adequate plant based sources), Vitamin D, omega fat from seeweed, calcium, B12, Zinc, Iron and supplement with plant based protein shakes because I lift weights.

That's a shitload of supplements and planning needed to insure you're getting the appropriate nutrition. Meat eaters just naturally follow their urges and get the proper amount of nutrition.

They suffer health issues from over consuming, but it's better than or atleast feels better than health issues caused by deprivation. I'm not sure if veganism is something I'll stick with, but honestly I like the challenge it presents as far as food choices are concerned. Honestly when I get the hang of this I'll restrict my diet even more (for fun).

Anyway bottom line seeing the challenges facing this type of eating style as well as the fact that some people's bodies just don't respond well to this diet at all. I would say it is perfectly moral to eat meat.

If we start talking about children who eat vegan the damages we discuss can get even worse. You know more about this subject than me, I'd love to know your opinions on Vitamin A as well as the occasional headline we see of vegan moms doing a ton of damage to their infants. To the point of death in many cases, when they happen to suffer from something that prevents them from breast feeding.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 1:52:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 6:48:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Foods that come from animals are detrimental to human health.

Since humans don't need to eat animals, they shouldn't. We don't need to murder anyone so we can be healthy.

In America we have a problem with over consumption. Tons of research has been shown that animal products in moderation are preferred to a strict vegan diet or the standard American diet.

This might surprise you but vegetarians (animal products in moderation) seem to have a longer life expectancy than vegans or over consumers of meat (S.A.D.).
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:03:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 9:24:16 PM, clgaram720 wrote:

Now I'm not for the wholesale murder of whole populations of animals, but I think if we breed an animal, like a cow or a pig, for this purpose, and see to it having a reasonably safe and healthy and comfortable (this means no crunchy cages, seriously need to be done with that people) existence, then there is not a moral issue. Human beings are like bears; omnivores that are both hunter and gatherer. There is no moral dilemma with a bear killing and eating a fish, and as such there should be no dilemma where a human does the same thing.


The problem is meat wouldn't be very affordable without factory farming and government subsidies. Ethical consumption of meat isn't a solution to the problem, because it leaves poor people without a way to get proper nutrition.

If you stop subsidizing meat and corn and putting it in everything than America will have a huge problem with hordes of starving people. I don't know what the solution to the problem is. Ethical farming practices would make it impossible for those in lower income brackets to get proper nutrition , due to increased costs of production.

At the moment we might be better off with the current system as far as the meat and dairy industry are concerned. I know that every year the technology to create animal flesh without the use of an animal is getting cheaper and I forsee a future of artificial animal flesh made in a lab replacing the meat we get from factory farming industry.

For more information on these soon to come advances in technology; http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:05:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/25/2014 6:48:11 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Foods that come from animals are detrimental to human health.

Since humans don't need to eat animals, they shouldn't. We don't need to murder anyone so we can be healthy.

Yes, meat which has been eaten by humans for thousands of years is all of a sudden detrimental for human health.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."