Eating Meat is Barbaric

[Skepdick]

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.

Venus Fly trap is unpersuaded by your arguments.

Neither are any of the other predators.

[Peter Kropotkin]

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.

K: this seems to me to be an sort of argument for some aspect of
morals and ethics..... to be ''truly'' moral, ethical, one must not
eat meat..... but that leaves us several problems.... as been noted,
plants are still alive, eating a plant also raises moral and ethical problems
if, if we go with the idea that eating anything previously alive is ''immoral"...

Your arguments carried to its logical conclusion leads us to not being able
to eat, virtually anything..... wheat for example is grown on a plant,
and the plant is cut down and the wheat is harvested.... isn't that
practicing cruelty to living things? and water... all water has living
things within it.... very small micro organisms live in all the
water we drink.... isn't that the exact same problem you have with
animals? How are we going to work out avoiding ALL living things
in the things we eat.....

I hear they are growing meat in labs..... I for one, can't even
think about eating that.... would that be acceptable for you?
eating process meat from a lab? and that leaves the entire
question of eating living things that come from the ocean...
from shrimp to tuna, to sushi.... I don't eat seafood, the thought
makes me sick...... but if we can't eat anything that has been
previously alive, what exactly can we eat?

Kropotkin

[Age]

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.

Was there any actual purpose here for saying and writing what is, and was already, blatantly obvious to absolutely every one here?

If yes, then what is that actual purpose?

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.

Okay.

But, still having assumptions, and then just carrying on as though those assumptions were true, before and without ever actually seeking out actual clarification, is a Truly stupid and very closed thing to do.

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.

Are you assuming that there is someone here who has not yet already known this?

If yes, then who are you assuming, exactly?

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

your Truly weird and strange assumptions just keep leading you further and further away, and astray.

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.

One can be Truly closed, by assuming things, and then believing those assumptions to be true.

Or, one can be Truly wise, by just being open, and then by just remaining open.

But, if you want to believe that your own made up assumptions are true "iwannaplato", then by all means please keep doing so.

By doing so you are proving, irrefutably, what I will be saying in regards to how the Mind and the brain actually work.

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.

Not that you will ever answer and clarify, but, What do you understand, exactly, about why I did not respond to this one part?

And, could what you are 'assuming' here be Wrong, also?

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.

Here is another prime example of this one's assumption/s being Wrong, again.

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

What, exactly, do you believe there was to 'deal' with, in your post, anyway?

[Age]

that really is how it seems.

Your assessment -- how it seems to you -- is wrong. You can have the view if you like, but it's wrong.

But, you will not correct it either, right "henry quirk"?

If yes, then how it seems, will remain.

[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.

K: this seems to me to be an sort of argument for some aspect of
morals and ethics..... to be ''truly'' moral, ethical, one must not
eat meat..... but that leaves us several problems.... as been noted,
plants are still alive, eating a plant also raises moral and ethical problems

How would and could eating a 'plant' be a 'problem' if to be 'truly moral and ethical one must not eat meat?

To me what you wrote here is not logical at all.

if, if we go with the idea that eating anything previously alive is ''immoral"...

But, only a True idiot would go with the idea that eating anything previously alive is 'immoral'. For the obvious reason/s.

Your arguments carried to its logical conclusion leads us to not being able
to eat, virtually anything..... wheat for example is grown on a plant,
and the plant is cut down and the wheat is harvested.... isn't that
practicing cruelty to living things?

The title of this thread is, 'Eating meat is barbaric'. So, how do you get to, 'the following arguments carried to its logical conclusion' leading 'you' to not being about to eat wheat, for example?

and water... all water has living
things within it.... very small micro organisms live in all the
water we drink.... isn't that the exact same problem you have with
animals? How are we going to work out avoiding ALL living things
in the things we eat.....

In case I have missed some thing here, this thread is about not eating 'meat'. So, how, and why, did you jump to ALL living things, exactly?

I hear they are growing meat in labs..... I for one, can't even
think about eating that.... would that be acceptable for you?
eating process meat from a lab? and that leaves the entire
question of eating living things that come from the ocean...
from shrimp to tuna, to sushi.... I don't eat seafood, the thought
makes me sick...... but if we can't eat anything that has been
previously alive, what exactly can we eat?

Kropotkin

Talk about having here a prime example of just how simply and easily one with beliefs can twist and distort things ever so quickly.

[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.

Was there any actual purpose here for saying and writing what is, and was already, blatantly obvious to absolutely every one here?

I wrote that as a direct answer to you're asking for clarification.

If you go back through the dialogue to where I first brought up the issue, in relation to your post, it should be clear what my purpose was.

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

Okay.

But, still having assumptions, and then just carrying on as though those assumptions were true, before and without ever actually seeking out actual clarification, is a Truly stupid and very closed thing to do.

Nah. The baby assumes that mother's face it more important that anything else in the room. We all use ad hoc assumptions, which hopefully we check in on and also notice things like counterevidence and anomolies regarding. I assume you are not an evil being hoping to hurt me. I assume that today in some basic ways will be like yesterday. That there will be gravity and other humans and that getting dressed will be the same or close to it. I want to find something out I often assume there is a change I can find that out. Assumptions give us a starting place and they are often based on knowledge/experience/intuition we already have. One key is to be able to revise and to stay aware and open. One could call them working hypotheses, but it would be utterly counterproductive to wake up in the morning and have no assumptions about some of the patterns one will encounter. To start a blank slate completely every day would be damaging actually. And this actually is part of the problem with your communication. 1) you act as if you don't make assumptions and always or even mostly check first. That is not true. You make assumptions all he time (or you communicate poorly) 2) Because you cannot accept others working with assumptions, you end up with the types of communication you have with people here. You do not end up getting their best and you do not show us your best.

Not that any of this was my point. I just thought it was odd you thought one could have an assumption one didn't consider true in some way.

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.

Are you assuming that there is someone here who has not yet already known this?

I would guess some people haven't thought of it.

Do you think your life is more valuable that a single animals life? If not, then how do you justify your continued existence at the expense of so many animals' lives. If so, why do you at least seem critical of henry quick for thinking his life is more valuable than animals' lives?

If yes, then who are you assuming, exactly?

Here I am actually probing and was in the previous post. We'll see if I end up with an answer.

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

your Truly weird and strange assumptions just keep leading you further and further away, and astray.

I guess you didn't see the word 'if' there.

One can be Truly closed, by assuming things, and then believing those assumptions to be true.

Yes,one can be.

By doing so you are proving, irrefutably, what I will be saying in regards to how the Mind and the brain actually work.

No, sorry, even if you were correct about my mind and brain that doesn't prove your universal hypothesis about brains, for example. It would be weak evidence at best. It certainly would not prove anything. I have pointed this out before. I understand that you disagree and my guess is you will continue to thing such small samples of evidence prove your claims. Unfortunately you are not alone in this confusion. VA also has made such assertions, where someone doing something proves__________he is right about something. This is a confusion at the level of logic.

So, it's worth pointing out even if it has no effect on your use of the idea.

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.

Not that you will ever answer and clarify, but, What do you understand, exactly, about why I did not respond to this one part?

Again,notice the binary thinking. Even if I clarify on occasion, this does not matter. Age will present it as if I will never clarify. Even when this pattern of yours is pointed out, you continue this pattern.

Because to answer that part, should you be open and not just say this shows something negative about me, but if you actually answered, it would undermine the way you were responding to henry quick and you assertions about the value of animal lives.

[s]And, could what you are 'assuming' here be Wrong, also?.[/s]

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.

Here is another prime example of this one's assumption/s being Wrong, again.

And here you do exactly what I described. No substance. In the other post it was the whole post. Here in this response, perhaps others.

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

What, exactly, do you believe there was to 'deal' with, in your post, anyway?

I'll take that as an implicit 'no' in answer to my question.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Nope.

I'm not saying that is what your argument is, but just what it seems to be.

I think I can get a bit closer for you. I predict that I will offend Henry mightily by doing so...

Henry's root axiom is his version (perhaps borrowed via Bastiat or Mises?) of Locke's famous quote...

Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.
Source: Locke Second Treatise

Henry's take on this mirrors Austrian economist Von Mises' variant in which religion is stressed less and the self-ownership is taken as the single root of all the other stuff rather than occupying some position within a trinity. This is property absolutism in which all other goods are converted into expressions of proprty rights, and all bads are redefined as some sort of property crime.

Within Henry's rather extreme philosophy, if you cannot own yourself, then you are property, and if you can own yourself, then you cannopt become property. Further, if you cannot own property, there is no other way for you to be sinned against because absolutely everything to do with right and wrong is property right/wrong. So his explanation for why lying to somebody is a sin is that it deprives another person of the use of their property (themselves and their beliefs being property too if I recall). His explanation of why lying about somebody is a sin relates to their reputation being property too.

Within his philosophy, which doesn't explicitly endorse that bit from Locke about inferior animals, the question of whether animals have rights comes down to whether they can hold property, and that does boil down to a sort of a test he might have. This would be something to do with whether you can understand that you own yourself in the correct terms, so that I believe is where you got the animals can't think part from. Henry has in past offered to extend personhood to non human animals if they can pass this sort of test.

Weighed against that, he has some gymnastics that his other positions require of him. He seems to be a life begins at conception sort of huy these days, which is an essentialist position not suited for issuing tests such the above. A fetus with a a genetic abnormality resulting in half its brain being absent and that will die within minutes of birth due to having no means to operate its lungs cannot possibly pass a test that requires an agent to grasp a moral principle, yet Henry is very committed to that entity being protected as a person.

This hints at another issue. Locke and Bastiat were writing in the last days when it was cool to just use God as an actor in this sort of argument. By the time of Mises, you really couldn't do that any more. So Bastiat was ok to write something like "Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property." But Mises is the one who takes this stuff and minimises God by not making God's will part of some basic trinity of goods that everything else derives from. But this is the real problem, not having such a trinity means you have to collapse everything into the one aspect.

At the other end of the life and death spectrum, Henry has been known to grasp the nettle in a way that he won't for a fetus. I'm pretty sure he's opposed to euthenasia, but once ytou are dead, I don't think he extends your property rights over your body post death. So grave-robbing, necrophilia and cannibalism are only morally problematic if the corpse belongs as property to a son or daughter of the deceased.

Thus, it is not morally wrong in Henry's judgment to have necrophilic sex with your own grandmother's corpse and then get her dog to lick your junk clean afterwards, not as long as the dog was left you in her will. But if your sister got the dog, then technically you have misused her property.

With regards to animal rights, the primary weakness in Henry's case is abortion. The principle of property is eitehr his genuine underlying principle or it is a costume for some other principle he doesn't put in writing, his abortion position indicates the latter. What it imples is that he believes the awareness of self-ownership is a very reliable indicator of where the property of being a 'self' who can 'own' is to be located, but not an infallible indicator and therefore not the thing itself.

And the reason for that is obvious, it's because he believes in souls, or some sort of spark of life. The essence of the person. The thing he can never put into meaningful words is that you have this self-ownership thing because that is a function of a soul. The thing that makes a fetus facing abortion a moral agent, but not a kitten in a sack with a brick is that kittens don't have sould, but fertilized ovums do.

So when Henry tells you that it's ok to eat meat because farm animals are automata, he just means that it's ok to eat meat becausde animals don't have souls and were put on Earth as property "Common to all men". The attempt to do Locke without the religious burden via reduction to property rights was ill-founded.

[Age]

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.

Was there any actual purpose here for saying and writing what is, and was already, blatantly obvious to absolutely every one here?

I wrote that as a direct answer to you're asking for clarification.

If you go back through the dialogue to where I first brought up the issue, in relation to your post, it should be clear what my purpose was.

So, once more, you cannot or will not 'just clarify'.

If you go back through this forum, with me, this is a very common habit of yours. Which is very clear.

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

Okay.

But, still having assumptions, and then just carrying on as though those assumptions were true, before and without ever actually seeking out actual clarification, is a Truly stupid and very closed thing to do.

Nah.

Here is another prime example of just how closed, and thus Truly stupid this one here is.

The baby assumes that mother's face it more important that anything else in the room.

And, you 'know' this how, exactly?

Or, is this just another 'assumption' of yours?

And, is there any actual proof that you have sought out and/or obtained regarding your claim and assertion here?

We all use ad hoc assumptions,

Here 'we' have another 'generalization' of this one of all of you human beings. Which this one also claims I do and when I do it it is toxic.

which hopefully we check in on and also notice things like counterevidence and anomolies regarding.

you 'hoping' you check in on never means that you actually do. And, the amount of times that you never can be clearly seen throughout this forum.

I assume you are not an evil being hoping to hurt me.

Once again, I will suggest that before you assume absolutely any thing it is much better to obtain actual clarity/clarification first.

I assume that today in some basic ways will be like yesterday.

Who cares what you assume.

What you actually 'know' is far more useful.

That there will be gravity and other humans and that getting dressed will be the same or close to it. I want to find something out I often assume there is a change I can find that out. Assumptions give us a starting place and they are often based on knowledge/experience/intuition we already have.

Well you contradicted this above. But, then you usually do this. So, one could assume that you will keep doing this, correct?

One key is to be able to revise and to stay aware and open.

LOL Contradiction within one sentence.

One could call them working hypotheses, but it would be utterly counterproductive to wake up in the morning and have no assumptions about some of the patterns one will encounter.

'Counterproductive' in relation to 'what', exactly?

To start a blank slate completely every day would be damaging actually.

Why are you assuming this?

Why would to start a blank day every day, supposedly, be damaging, actually?

And, damaging to who and/or what, exactly?

Also, it is like you cannot help "yourself" but to just keep assuming.

And this actually is part of the problem with your communication.

LOL Talking about another prime example of very quickly jumping to a believed conclusion, from just another made up assumption, here, which could be absolutely False and Wrong.

1) you act as if you don't make assumptions and always or even mostly check first.

Why did you assume, and then say and write, 'act'?

That is not true.

That 'your assumption' is not true could also be absolutely True.

You make assumptions all he time (or you communicate poorly)

LOL 'all the time'.

Also, will you list just 'the assumptions' that I have, supposedly, made just in this thread?

if no, then why not?

After all you made another claim and assertion.

2) Because you cannot accept others working with assumptions,

Here is another assumption of this one that is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. Which can be added to the almost impossible to count list, which already exists.

I do not just accept you human beings working with assumptions, I love it when you do.

you end up with the types of communication you have with people here. You do not end up getting their best and you do not show us your best.

For the very reasons I have already explained a few times already.

Not that any of this was my point. I just thought it was odd you thought one could have an assumption one didn't consider true in some way.

Once again, I never even thought 'this assumption' of yours here. So, once again, here is another assumption of this one that is absolutely False and Wrong.

Obviously, if it did not make up the 'first assumption' here, and then did not believe 'it' to be true, then this one would not arrived at this False and Wrong conclusion here, as well.

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.

Are you assuming that there is someone here who has not yet already known this?

I would guess some people haven't thought of it. [/quote]

What 'we' have, again here, another guess/assumption, which could just be absolutely False and Wrong, from the outset. And, why this one says and writes so many False and Wrong things here.

Do you think your life is more valuable that a single animals life?

No.

If not, then how do you justify your continued existence at the expense of so many animals' lives.

For the simple Fact that every life has an equal 'right' to be HERE, alive and living.

If so,

What is the 'so' word here in reference to, exactly?

why do you at least seem critical of henry quick for thinking his life is more valuable than animals' lives?

Because the animal that "henry quirk", literally, is claims that human animals are, laughingly, more important/valuable than the other animals are.

And, what did you assume, think, or believe that the one known here as "henry quirk" is not an animal, itself?

If yes, then who are you assuming, exactly?

Here I am actually probing and was in the previous post. We'll see if I end up with an answer.

So, once again, it seems like an absolute impossibility for this one to just answer and clarify, again.

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

your Truly weird and strange assumptions just keep leading you further and further away, and astray.

I guess you didn't see the word 'if' there.

I saw that word. And, I also saw the rest of your Truly weird and strange assumption here. Which, again, is what keeps leading you further and further a field here.

One can be Truly closed, by assuming things, and then believing those assumptions to be true.

Yes,one can be.

By doing so you are proving, irrefutably, what I will be saying in regards to how the Mind and the brain actually work.

No, sorry, even if you were correct about my mind and brain that doesn't prove your universal hypothesis about brains, for example.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here 'it' is. Another prime example of, exactly, how the brain, with the belief-system works. And, how this process absolutely twists and distorts what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct. Which explains why these human beings, back then, took so, so long to, also, get to 'know' what the actual Truth is, exactly, and fully.

It would be weak evidence at best. It certainly would not prove anything.

And, you, supposedly, 'know' this how, exactly?

I have pointed this out before.

And, you have been Wrong before, right?

I understand that you disagree and my guess is you will continue to thing such small samples of evidence prove your claims.

This one's assumption/s here are Wrong and Incorrect, again.

Unfortunately you are not alone in this confusion. VA also has made such assertions, where someone doing something proves__________he is right about something. This is a confusion at the level of logic.

Believing that one already 'knows' some thing like is where True confusion, lies.

Will you inform the readers here how you, supposedly, 'know' that what you are saying and writing here will never ever prove what I will be saying about how the Mind and the brain work?

Obviously, you could never ever 'know' this, already.

And, this is without even looking into and going into the Fact that you do not, yet, even know what I will be saying, and showing and demonstrating.

So, it's worth pointing out even if it has no effect on your use of the idea.

If you believe so, then keep 'pointing out' here.

Doing so is only further proving True what I will be saying, and showing.

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.

Not that you will ever answer and clarify, but, What do you understand, exactly, about why I did not respond to this one part?

Again,notice the binary thinking. Even if I clarify on occasion, this does not matter. Age will present it as if I will never clarify. Even when this pattern of yours is pointed out, you continue this pattern.

Because to answer that part, should you be open and not just say this shows something negative about me, but if you actually answered, it would undermine the way you were responding to henry quick and you assertions about the value of animal lives.

[s]And, could what you are 'assuming' here be Wrong, also?.[/s]

So, this one just proved me absolutely True and Right, again.

This one again just made up another 'excuse' for not doing what I said and claimed that it would not do.

See, already 'knowing' how the Mind and the brain work, exactly, allows me to 'know' what these ones here would do, back in those very 'olden days'.

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.

Here is another prime example of this one's assumption/s being Wrong, again.

And here you do exactly what I described. No substance. In the other post it was the whole post. Here in this response, perhaps others.

And, once again, why I do not provide what some call 'substance' I have explained numerous times already.

Which, this one, is either completely forgetting or is just too closed to realize what is actually happening here.

This one seems to not, yet, realize how it is being 'used' here.

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

What, exactly, do you believe there was to 'deal' with, in your post, anyway?

I'll take that as an implicit 'no' in answer to my question.

Take that in absolutely any way you like. But, obviously, whatever way you take that could be False and Wrong, as well.

[henry quirk]

I predict that I will offend Henry mightily by doing so...

Like Harbal, I done been thru it all a few times with you, and, like Harbal, you're no closer to gettin' it now than you were when we started.

I blame myself for being a poor writer.

Anyway: no, I'm not offended. As RED MAN DEFIANT sez: any advertising is good advertising.

Keep up the good work.

[Eudaimonia23]

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.

Venus Fly trap is unpersuaded by your arguments.

Neither are any of the other predators.

We are humans -- rational, intellectual beings capable of moral action. We are not plants, nor animals driven by instinct (animals in the conventional sense).

To base your life or morality on how primitive beings behave in the wild is kind of ridiculous. And it could lead to all sorts of interesting places morally speaking. Rape occurs in nature. Does that make it okay for people to do just because it's observable in nature? Note: rape, pillage, and plunder were natural or commonplace in the ancient world.

All sorts of barbaric things are part of nature. That doesn't make it morally right.

Shaping your life based on predatory behaviour from a Venus fly trap or lion or whatever else is quite frankly a telltale sign that someone is morally reprehensible and possibly psychopathic.

Base your lifestyle on rationality and ethics, not on predatory beings such as Venus fly traps or lions.

[Eudaimonia23]

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.

K: this seems to me to be an sort of argument for some aspect of
morals and ethics..... to be ''truly'' moral, ethical, one must not
eat meat..... but that leaves us several problems.... as been noted,
plants are still alive, eating a plant also raises moral and ethical problems
if, if we go with the idea that eating anything previously alive is ''immoral"...

Your arguments carried to its logical conclusion leads us to not being able
to eat, virtually anything..... wheat for example is grown on a plant,
and the plant is cut down and the wheat is harvested.... isn't that
practicing cruelty to living things? and water... all water has living
things within it.... very small micro organisms live in all the
water we drink.... isn't that the exact same problem you have with
animals? How are we going to work out avoiding ALL living things
in the things we eat.....

I hear they are growing meat in labs..... I for one, can't even
think about eating that.... would that be acceptable for you?
eating process meat from a lab? and that leaves the entire
question of eating living things that come from the ocean...
from shrimp to tuna, to sushi.... I don't eat seafood, the thought
makes me sick...... but if we can't eat anything that has been
previously alive, what exactly can we eat?

Kropotkin

Plants are living organisms, but they don't have a central nervous system, so they don't experience any pain.

This is kind of basic lol shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's perfectly ethical to eat carrots. They don't experience any anxiety or pain when consumed.

Slaughtering animals, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game.

Veganism is about minimizing pain and suffering.

[Iwannaplato]

Was there any actual purpose here for saying and writing what is, and was already, blatantly obvious to absolutely every one here?

I wrote that as a direct answer to you're asking for clarification.

If you go back through the dialogue to where I first brought up the issue, in relation to your post, it should be clear what my purpose was.[/quote]

So, once more, you cannot or will not 'just clarify'.

You asked me why I wrote it and I clarified why I wrote. You asked for a clarification and that was why I wrote it. In addition to my clarifying answer, in case you wanted more information, which you had not asked about, I suggested you check the original context. I clarified and added an easy way to check, should have you have further questions. You seem to think I have to repeat myself because you are either too lazy to read what I write or you have memory issues. And I am beginning to suspect you have memory issues because you constantly ask me to do things I have already done. Or ask me to clarify things I have already clarified. Or ask me questions I have already answered. Yes, I have done that also, but with you it is pretty much every post with more than a few sentences. If anyone in your in-person life has made the same observation, I recommend you visit a neurologist.

If you go back through this forum, with me, this is a very common habit of yours. Which is very clear.

And yours.

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

Okay.

But, still having assumptions, and then just carrying on as though those assumptions were true, before and without ever actually seeking out actual clarification, is a Truly stupid and very closed thing to do.

Nah.

Here is another prime example of just how closed, and thus Truly stupid this one here is.

Here is the idiocy of not reading the complete answer before coming with judgments performed by Age.

The baby assumes that mother's face it more important that anything else in the room.

And, you 'know' this how, exactly?

Or, is this just another 'assumption' of yours?

And, is there any actual proof that you have sought out and/or obtained regarding your claim and assertion here?

How do I know this exactly. Well, it's been common knowledge in science for decades, so it is hard to nail down exactly what research I read. It also came from seeing two newborns and then in conversation with mothers.

Here's a link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598- ... 2Dmonths23).

Evidence of Newborns' Preference for Faces

Face-Like Patterns:
Newborns show a preference for face-like patterns over non-face-like patterns. This was demonstrated in studies where infants tracked moving face-like stimuli more than scrambled or non-face-like patterns.

Mother's Face Recognition:
Research indicates that newborns can recognize their mother’s face within the first few days of life. Studies using preferential looking techniques have found that infants will gaze longer at their mother’s face compared to the faces of strangers.

Bonding and Attachment:
The preference for the mother's face is crucial for bonding and attachment. Newborns are sensitive to the facial features, voice, and smell of their mother, which helps them form a secure attachment.

Key Studies

Johnson et al. (1991): This study found that newborns preferentially tracked face-like configurations more than other shapes, suggesting an innate mechanism for face preference.
Bushnell et al. (1989): This research showed that infants could distinguish and show a preference for their mother’s face compared to a stranger's face within the first few days of life.
Field et al. (1984): This study found that newborns showed a preference for their mother's face over the faces of other women, highlighting the importance of early visual recognition in attachment.

Mechanisms Behind the Preference

Innate Predisposition: Newborns seem to have an innate predisposition to pay attention to faces. This is likely an evolutionary adaptation that facilitates social bonding and communication.
Early Learning: Within hours of birth, newborns start learning and recognizing their mother's face through repeated exposure. The combination of visual, auditory, and olfactory cues aids this rapid learning process.

Research seems to indicate that autistic babies or children who later get diagnosed with autism have less of this tendency.

And as usual you ask me this kind of question but do not, as most people would, say if they agreed or disagreed. I've explained before why this is good practice, especially when we are not talking about the main topic. I know, you don't find my advice useful. Your loss, even with us not necessarily -lol - being the target audience. I love that you put in more effort to give less information with that phrasing.

We all use ad hoc assumptions,

Here 'we' have another 'generalization' of this one of all of you human beings. Which this one also claims I do and when I do it it is toxic.

Yes, the universalized negative generalizations about human beings is toxic, especially when aimed at individuals without even bothering to justify it. I think you have done this less of late. I hope that is the case.

which hopefully we check in on and also notice things like counterevidence and anomolies regarding.

you 'hoping' you check in on never means that you actually do.

No, it doesn't mean that. Some people do, some don't. Further people do it with different frequencies, with more or less skill and I would say courage. Terrible interpretation.

And, the amount of times that you never can be clearly seen throughout this forum.

You have no idea how much I notice anomalies, deal well with cognitive dissonance, change beliefs based on new experiences and challenges from others. And you clearly have little idea why I have reacted to you the way I have. As usual as if how someone reacts to your or what you've written is how they react in life...to you.

I assume you are not an evil being hoping to hurt me.

Once again, I will suggest that before you assume absolutely any thing it is much better to obtain actual clarity/clarification first.

Mull over how idiotic that what you wrote here is. You let me know if it was a poor assumption.

I assume that today in some basic ways will be like yesterday.

Who cares what you assume.

Oh, you don't understand the idea of giving counterexamples when someone else asserts something. Perhaps you have no idea what it means to demonstrate something, let alone prove it.

And of course you don't interact with the points I made at all. You assert. I present a challenge to that. You say idiotic things like the above. But you're not pissed off. LOL.

It's time for me to pause or perhaps even end our communication.

[Peter Kropotkin]

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.

K: this seems to me to be an sort of argument for some aspect of
morals and ethics..... to be ''truly'' moral, ethical, one must not
eat meat..... but that leaves us several problems.... as been noted,
plants are still alive, eating a plant also raises moral and ethical problems
if, if we go with the idea that eating anything previously alive is ''immoral"...

Your arguments carried to its logical conclusion leads us to not being able
to eat, virtually anything..... wheat for example is grown on a plant,
and the plant is cut down and the wheat is harvested.... isn't that
practicing cruelty to living things? and water... all water has living
things within it.... very small micro organisms live in all the
water we drink.... isn't that the exact same problem you have with
animals? How are we going to work out avoiding ALL living things
in the things we eat.....

I hear they are growing meat in labs..... I for one, can't even
think about eating that.... would that be acceptable for you?
eating process meat from a lab? and that leaves the entire
question of eating living things that come from the ocean...
from shrimp to tuna, to sushi.... I don't eat seafood, the thought
makes me sick...... but if we can't eat anything that has been
previously alive, what exactly can we eat?

Kropotkin

Plants are living organisms, but they don't have a central nervous system, so they don't experience any pain.

This is kind of basic lol shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's perfectly ethical to eat carrots. They don't experience any anxiety or pain when consumed.

Slaughtering animals, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game.

Veganism is about minimizing pain and suffering.

K: a couple of thoughts..... there is an entire school of thought that suggests
that we must have pain and suffering if we are to grow......the basic premise
of Buddhism lies within this pain and suffering we have.... the question is not to
avoid pain and suffering but to embrace it... and if it seems true of human beings
that suffering has some benefits, then why can't plants enjoy the benefits of
suffering?

the second point is this: on what grounds do you believe that eating carrots
is ethical? You say they don't experience any anxiety or pain when eaten,
but there is a theory out there that says, everything in the universe has
consciousness, even matter like rocks and doors and water.....

if this is true, then carrots may actually feel something when eaten.....
your theory become ethically compromised when faced with the idea
of a universal consciousness.... that all things are conscious....

Kropotkin

[LuckyR]

Plants are living organisms, but they don't have a central nervous system, so they don't experience any pain.

This is kind of basic lol shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's perfectly ethical to eat carrots. They don't experience any anxiety or pain when consumed.

Slaughtering animals, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game.

Veganism is about minimizing pain and suffering.

A philosophical discussion of animal's status must distinguish between wild animals and human created domesticated animals whose entire reason for existing at all is to be culled for their contribution to humans.

If there is no need for animal contribution, say horses for transportation, their numbers drop dramatically due to economic forces without any particular plea or mandate. It is erroneous to suppose that it is "unnatural" to kill and eat animals specifically invented for that purpose (as opposed to hunting wild animals for the same thing).

As a separate and in my opinion, more important issue, improving the conditions of the segment of the ranching industry that occupies the lowest portion of the spectrum is where the most actual improvements in animal welfare will occur.

[Eudaimonia23]

K: this seems to me to be an sort of argument for some aspect of
morals and ethics..... to be ''truly'' moral, ethical, one must not
eat meat..... but that leaves us several problems.... as been noted,
plants are still alive, eating a plant also raises moral and ethical problems
if, if we go with the idea that eating anything previously alive is ''immoral"...

Your arguments carried to its logical conclusion leads us to not being able
to eat, virtually anything..... wheat for example is grown on a plant,
and the plant is cut down and the wheat is harvested.... isn't that
practicing cruelty to living things? and water... all water has living
things within it.... very small micro organisms live in all the
water we drink.... isn't that the exact same problem you have with
animals? How are we going to work out avoiding ALL living things
in the things we eat.....

I hear they are growing meat in labs..... I for one, can't even
think about eating that.... would that be acceptable for you?
eating process meat from a lab? and that leaves the entire
question of eating living things that come from the ocean...
from shrimp to tuna, to sushi.... I don't eat seafood, the thought
makes me sick...... but if we can't eat anything that has been
previously alive, what exactly can we eat?

Kropotkin

Plants are living organisms, but they don't have a central nervous system, so they don't experience any pain.

This is kind of basic lol shouldn't even have to explain this.

It's perfectly ethical to eat carrots. They don't experience any anxiety or pain when consumed.

Slaughtering animals, on the other hand, is a whole different ball game.

Veganism is about minimizing pain and suffering.

K: a couple of thoughts..... there is an entire school of thought that suggests
that we must have pain and suffering if we are to grow......the basic premise
of Buddhism lies within this pain and suffering we have.... the question is not to
avoid pain and suffering but to embrace it... and if it seems true of human beings
that suffering has some benefits, then why can't plants enjoy the benefits of
suffering?

the second point is this: on what grounds do you believe that eating carrots
is ethical? You say they don't experience any anxiety or pain when eaten,
but there is a theory out there that says, everything in the universe has
consciousness, even matter like rocks and doors and water.....

if this is true, then carrots may actually feel something when eaten.....
your theory become ethically compromised when faced with the idea
of a universal consciousness.... that all things are conscious....

Kropotkin

That's just a theory... it's not proven.

Even if plants have a rudimentary awareness, that doesn't necessarily mean that they experience pain.

Let's be real here, just between the two of us, no bullshit...we both don't honestly believe that carrots experience suffering when eaten.

Let's also get something straight here. Veganism is about reducing pain as much as possible. Vegans aren't perfect; sometimes we will accidentally step on ants, sometimes small animals might be killed in crop production, but we do our best to eliminate the major problem of the animal slaughterhouse industry.

Veganism is not about being perfect. It's just about reducing suffering as much as possible.