Eating Meat is Barbaric

[Age]

As rational beings, we have the ability to shape our world.

'you' human beings 'shape' 'your world' whether 'you' are being 'rational' or 'irrational' beings.

Which is, exactly, how and why 'you' human beings. end up living in peace and harmony [heaven] or not [hell].

If you are okay with animal cruelty and don't want to do your part to eliminate it, then you are partakers of darkness and savagery.

Is 'judging' others for what they do, without ever first learning and understanding, fully, why you all do what you do, also partaking in 'darkness' and/or 'savagery' as well?

Or, is 'the judging' of others okay and all right from 'your perspective' of things?

Most people know it's wrong, they just don't care -- they don't want to give up on the taste of savory meat.

Just like they 'know', 'deep down', that 'it' is Wrong, they also, 'deep down', 'do care'. However, they have been so indoctrinated to 'look' the 'other way', try to 'justify' their 'Wrong doing', and have learned to 'not care' 'about others', this is why they do not want to give up what they have only 'learned to like'.

I know meat tastes good, but animal lives matter more than my personal taste.

But, 'animal lives' 'matter' more to who and/or what, exactly?

'We' have one human being here, in this forum, who would kill a human being 'dead', over relatively actually 'absolutely nothing at all', so 'the lives' of 'non human animals' are certainly not going to matter one iota at all to 'that one'.

Sometimes, in order to create a better world, we have to make sacrifices.

LOL If one actually thinks or believes that just not eating meat is a 'sacrifice', then there is no wonder that making and creating a much 'better world' for everyone, is taking what seems like 'an eternity'.

If there is a God or gods, then I imagine they will judge us on how we responded to this situation.

Okay. But is it not already said and claimed that God 'judges' on all of what you human beings do, and not just on one tiny little situation as this one here?

But regardless of reward or punishment, we should do the right thing, the compassionate thing.

Well it goes without saying that one 'should' do the 'Right thing'. The very words, 'right thing', means not the 'wrong thing'. So, doing the Right thing is obvious.

Doing the 'compassionate thing' is fairly well self-explanatory also. However, there are some adult human beings who believe that non human being animals do not 'feel' things, so these people will obviously have no compassion for those animals.

And, the actual 'reward' and 'punishment' you human beings 'will get', you are 'already getting from yours and previous adult human beings Right, and Wrong, doings.

[Age]

animal lives matter more than my personal taste.

Why?

Are they that important, or, do you matter so little?

LOL Where, how, and why did the 'important' word get in here?

Why do you believe, absolutely, "henry quirk" that the human animal is, laughingly, so-called 'important', while the rest are not?

Or, if this is not what you believe here, then what, exactly, do you believe here?

[phyllo]

You're wasting your time.

Animals are placed here for HQ's use and entertainment.

[Age]

just because you cannot hear the screams of pain every vegetable makes when you devour it...

-Imp

Are you implying any thing here?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

Also, hearing the screams of pain has not, and does not, necessarily stop/ped you human beings from killing each other and other animals either anyway.

[Iwannaplato]

You're wasting your time.

Animals are placed here for HQ's use and entertainment.

Don't worry, Age knows everything, that included.
viewtopic.php?t=42548

[Age]

just because you cannot hear the screams of pain every vegetable makes when you devour it...

-Imp

You can hear the screams of crawfish when they go into the boiling pot...sweet music...makes my mouth water.

you might well also like the sounds of 'screaming children' when you shoot them, for just 'touching' what you claim is 'your stuff', as well.

Shooting 'them' and hearing children, or adults, screams might also make your 'mouth water', as you call it.

[Harbal]

we must get rid of the animal slaughterhouse industry

We can do that. I'll just hunt more.

So, this one will just 'take' another's life, although it claims that everyone has a 'natural right' to life.

Henry has an argument for why human beings have a right to their lives, but nothing else does. To put it simply, his argument seems to be that human beings can think, whereas animals can't think, and the ability to think is the determining factor in whether you have a right to your life. He does make an exception to that rule in the case of the human foetus, which has a right to its life despite not being able to think. Presumably, the fact that it will eventually be able to think is what gives the foetus its rights.

I wouldn't have thought that a human being who was facing imminent death would be doing a great deal of thinking; my guess is that they would more likely just be experiencing terror, the same as a none thinking animal would. Anyway, "I think, therefore I have rights", is the principle that henry seems to subscribe to, because he somehow just knows that being able to think is the crucial factor in deserving to be alive.

[Age]

If we are to truly consider ourselves moral and civilized, then we must get rid of the animal slaughterhouse industry. It has no place in a modern civilization that prides itself on enlightenment and ethical principles. We are not cavemen anymore; we don't need to hunt anymore. We live in a modern civilization with plenty of resources. Being vegan it totally practical. And there are also plenty of vegan sources of protein. You won't be malnourished. The animal slaughterhouse industry is ugly and cruel. We must acquire a new morality that truly includes the well being of animals.

Killing animals and eating their meat is barbaric and cruel.

Part of the human telos is to evolve and transcend. We must respect animals in order to promote an ever advancing civilization.

Choose the benevolent and compassionate path and be vegan. It is worth it.

To be effective, morality and ethics should not be extended to non-humans.
The most is, humans must deal with non-humans in the most humane ways.

So, according to 'this logic' you human beings are 'free' to kill every other living thing, as long as you just kill them 'all' so-called 'humanely'.

Some of these people here, as can be clearly seen, are 'beyond an absolute joke', as it was said.

If morality and ethics are extended to animals, then where is the limit and why so selective?

1. you human beings ARE 'animals'. So many of you forget this irrefutable Fact, ignore this irrefutable Fact, or just had not yet learned this irrefutable Fact.

2. 'Morality' and 'ethics' extends to ALL things. There is no limit. Only you "veritas aquitas" are the one here being so-called 'so selective'. How blatantly obvious is this?

"insects are part of the group of animals known as arthropods."
There are also many other animals in the animal kingdom that are a threat to humans and there is a need for them to be killed where necessary.

To me, this does not even logically nor rationally follow.

But, because you are absolutely closed here, then there is absolutely no use in even trying to clarifying any thing here 'from you'.

Instead of morality, the handling of animals should be dealt with Virtue, i.e. with consideration of kindness, humaneness, exercise with rationality and wisdom.

'Whose' wisdom? one could ask, for starters.

Humanity survival is interdependent with many other animal species, as such humanity need to exercise rationality and wisdom in not killing them arbitrarily.
That dogs and cats are popular pets, humans need to exercise virtue, rationality and wisdom in not killing dogs and cats.

But, if they taste 'as good' as other animals, then why not harvest and eat them as well?

After all you human beings have and keep sheep, cows, pigs, fish, and chickens as so-called 'pets' as well.

If one is into veganism which is more psychological and emotional than rationality and wisdom,

This is another prime example of just saying some thing, in the hope that it will somehow back up and supports one already obtained beliefs, but which is absolutely nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and just down and out absurd and ridiculous.

one should just adopt it personally and do not impose their beliefs on others.

But, when one is into what "veritas aequitas" is into, then 'those ones', or 'that one', should not just adopt and 'keep' it personal, and should impose 'their, or your, beliefs' on others, right?

[Age]

We can do that. I'll just hunt more.

So, this one will just 'take' another's life, although it claims that everyone has a 'natural right' to life.

And this one allows animals to be killed for his nutrition via agriculture and cannot admit that he is as responsible for animal deaths as henry quirk, but is less honest about it.

What are you even on about here, this time, "iwannaplato"?

you really do come up with some of the strangest and weirdest assumptions, and then worse conclude that your very own made up assumptions are true, and even worse still you end up believing your own made up assumptions, and conclusions, are actually true.

Every time AGe buys food products he is paying those who kiilled animals to make his food. Which leads to more animals being killed.

[phyllo]

We can do that. I'll just hunt more.

So, this one will just 'take' another's life, although it claims that everyone has a 'natural right' to life.

Henry has an argument for why human beings have a right to their lives, but nothing else does. To put it simply, his argument seems to be that human beings can think, whereas animals can't think, and the ability to think is the determining factor in whether you have a right to your life. He does make an exception to that rule in the case of the human foetus, which has a right to its life despite not being able to think. Presumably, the fact that it will eventually be able to think is what gives the foetus its rights.

I wouldn't have thought that a human being who was facing imminent death would be doing a great deal of thinking; my guess is that they would more likely just be experiencing terror, the same as a none thinking animal would. Anyway, "I think, therefore I have rights", is the principle that henry seems to subscribe to, because he somehow just knows that being able to think is the crucial factor in deserving to be alive.

You don't need to spend too much time around animals to realize that they think.

[Age]

We can do that. I'll just hunt more.

So, this one will just 'take' another's life, although it claims that everyone has a 'natural right' to life.

Henry has an argument for why human beings have a right to their lives, but nothing else does. To put it simply, his argument seems to be that human beings can think, whereas animals can't think, and the ability to think is the determining factor in whether you have a right to your life.

But, as can be clearly seen in this forum, out of the countless other examples, human beings can have 'an argument' for just about absolutely any thing at all. However, whether 'an argument' is sound and valid, or not, is another thing.

And, as I have stated and written here previously, only a 'sound and valid argument' is worth repeating.

Also, I wonder if horses, for example, who thought or believed that 'they' were the only 'thinking animal' would also, coincidentally, conclude, and then so-call 'argue', that because 'we' horses can think, and the other animals cannot think, then those other animals do not a/ny right to life.

Which therefore means that 'we' horses have just given ourselves 'an excuse' to go out and shoot all of the other animals, which obviously includes humans.

And, this is without even delving into whether other animals can even think or not. Does "henry quirk" have irrefutable proof that other animals cannot think? Or is this just what "henry quirk" wants to believe and/or would like to 'think' is true?

He does make an exception to that rule in the case of the human foetus, which has a right to its life despite not being able to think.

I wonder if 'this exception' has any thing to do with "henry quirk", concidently, being a 'fetus', "itself', previously, and/or the self-imposed 'importance' that it has put on and given to human beings over all of the other animals, or not?

Presumably, the fact that it will eventually be able to think is what gives the foetus its rights.

Okay. Which is quite convenient when one is created as a 'human fetus'.

I wouldn't have thought that a human being who was facing imminent death would be doing a great deal of thinking; my guess is that they would more likely just be experiencing terror, the same as a none thinking animal would. Anyway, "I think, therefore I have rights", is the principle that henry seems to subscribe to, because he somehow just knows that being able to think is the crucial factor in deserving to be alive.

I would have thought that absolutely every thing that has come-to-have 'life', itself, would have been 'deserving to be alive'. Otherwise the 'God-Being', which, coincidentally, is just 'another person', to "henry quirk", would not have 'created a living thing' if it was not actually 'deserving to be alive'.

To me, it would be somewhat contradictory, and/or even hypocritical, for some thing to 'come alive' if it was not even 'deserving to be alive'.

[Age]

So, this one will just 'take' another's life, although it claims that everyone has a 'natural right' to life.

Henry has an argument for why human beings have a right to their lives, but nothing else does. To put it simply, his argument seems to be that human beings can think, whereas animals can't think, and the ability to think is the determining factor in whether you have a right to your life. He does make an exception to that rule in the case of the human foetus, which has a right to its life despite not being able to think. Presumably, the fact that it will eventually be able to think is what gives the foetus its rights.

I wouldn't have thought that a human being who was facing imminent death would be doing a great deal of thinking; my guess is that they would more likely just be experiencing terror, the same as a none thinking animal would. Anyway, "I think, therefore I have rights", is the principle that henry seems to subscribe to, because he somehow just knows that being able to think is the crucial factor in deserving to be alive.

You don't need to spend too much time around animals to realize that they think.

In fact one only has to spend a few seconds around the 'human' animal to realize that there is 'thinking' happening and occurring in animals.

As for all of the other animals, there would have to be some form of 'thought', within, for 'the body' to 'know' which way to go, or not, when fighting or fleeing, when hunting and catching food, or when how to escape from being food themselves.

[Harbal]

So, this one will just 'take' another's life, although it claims that everyone has a 'natural right' to life.

Henry has an argument for why human beings have a right to their lives, but nothing else does. To put it simply, his argument seems to be that human beings can think, whereas animals can't think, and the ability to think is the determining factor in whether you have a right to your life. He does make an exception to that rule in the case of the human foetus, which has a right to its life despite not being able to think. Presumably, the fact that it will eventually be able to think is what gives the foetus its rights.

I wouldn't have thought that a human being who was facing imminent death would be doing a great deal of thinking; my guess is that they would more likely just be experiencing terror, the same as a none thinking animal would. Anyway, "I think, therefore I have rights", is the principle that henry seems to subscribe to, because he somehow just knows that being able to think is the crucial factor in deserving to be alive.

You don't need to spend too much time around animals to realize that they think.

It probably has to be a certain type of thinking; maybe the ability to reason, or something like that. I'm sure henry will put the record straight in due course.

[Walker]

just because you cannot hear the screams of pain every vegetable makes when you devour it...

-Imp

The Silence of the Yams

Vegetarians so enjoy raising up and nurturing tender shoots for the ritual of living plant slaughter, that they often keep a private garden just for that purpose.

[Iwannaplato]

What are you even on about here, this time, "iwannaplato"?

Well, I suppose you might be a breatharian. But otherwise you are eating food made from living things, plants and/or animals. Even if it is only the former, many animals are killed to make your food.

you really do come up with some of the strangest and weirdest assumptions, and then worse conclude that your very own made up assumptions are true,

It'd be very strange to have an assumption one thought wasn't true. Rather oxymoronic.

But yes, if you are eating, which you are, you choose to have animals put to death so that you can eat. You may be a vegetarian or a vegan and somehow be unaware of what happens to make your food, but it happens, nonetheless.

If in some weird way you are saying 'Ken' eats but "age" doesn't, well that's true in "henry quick's" case also.

and even worse still you end up believing your own made up assumptions, and conclusions, are actually true.

You seem not to understand what an assumption is, since you seem to think one makes up assumptions and then believes them or not.

Every time Age buys food products he is paying those who kiilled animals to make his food. Which leads to more animals being killed.

I do understand why this was the one part you chose not to respond to.

I do understand why your post had no substance in it, that it did not address my post in any way, and merely said: you are wrong in a longwinded way with no justification for this conclusion.

Do you understand why you avoided dealing directly with my post in any way?