Eating Meat is Barbaric

[Age]

Anywho i find it interesting how a deist as adamant as Henry Q is about being free as a bird and all that, could so easily strip a lesser creature of its freedom and right to live.

Have you managed to avoid stripping lesser creatures, as you call them, of their freedom and right to live. You realize that any food you eat leads to the deaths of animals, meat-based or not.

you seem to be completely 'stuck' on 'this position', and express it as though doing so will actually achieve some thing.

You realize that owning a digital device contributes to the deaths of animals - including whatever device you are posting here with. Even if you never eat meat, never wear leather, the odds are that your pharmaceutical use, use of plastics, buying products that are shipped, use of clothing (and both natural and artificial textiles leads to animals deaths), using roads (even in mass transportation leads to animal deaths in a variety of ways, and so on.

Are you aware "iwannaplato" what you do causes and/or allows thousands of human children to die every year?

If no, then you do 'now'.

And, because what you do, which causes the death of children, does this then make what you do Right?

Just because what you do, which is also causing the death of animals, does not make what you do Right, nor does it give you some 'automatic' permission to then go and just 'kill' more animals, just because you want to, or just want to eat them.

Unless you live in the woods and are a gatherer who doesn't get food from that originated from farming, never drive or get driven, don't take pharmaceutical (or somehow filter your urine and poop), don't wear most types of clothes, stay off the internet, etc., you're killing animals.

So what?

Does doing these things then make it 'all right', or 'less wrong' to farm, use, kill, and then eat animals?

Whatever the problems with hq¨s justification, he's right out admitting he's willing to kill and/or have others kill for him.

Which some would say is 'more barbaric', or just 'more caveman' like.

Also, let 'us' not forget that "henry quirk" will not admit that it 'steals'. So, again, each to your own.

Some of you will admit to 'stealing', while others will not. And, some will admit to have animals 'killed' for them, while others will not.

And, then again, some may not have, previously, Truly thought how they 'steal' and/or 'kill' things.

Will you "iwannaplato" admit to you allowing thousands, or if not hundreds, of human children to die every year?

If no, is this because you are not being honest here, or, because you have not yet Truly thought about this before?

[Age]

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.

I never stated that it's unnatural to kill animals.

On the contrary, it is actually natural to kill animals.

But just because something is natural, that doesn't necessarily make it morally right.

Rape, for example, is natural. But any civilized person would say it's morally reprehensible.

You also need to remember that those animals that have been culled and created a certain way are still living, breathing beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

I don't know if you are lacking the ability to experience empathy and compassion, but yeah, having your throat slit open doesn't feel good, even for culled and specifically created animals.

You're kind of all over the place. So are you okay with eating animals who were anesthetized before being killed? Are you against the practice regardless or just under certain circumstances?

Not being absolutely specific in regards to absolutely every thing in absolute detail does not mean that one is so-called 'all over the place'.

If you would like to 'know', from another what they would do in absolutely every situation, then it is up to you to list absolutely 'every situation', and then ask that one to clarify what they would do in every one of 'those situations'.

As to my empathy and compassion quotient, since only 1% of Americans are vegan, if one's eating habits are the measure of those (which, of course it isn't, despite your histrionics), mine are in the top 10%, since I make the decision to spend more to select less inhumane ranches as my source of foodstuffs.

Once again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of what 'the majority' think, and/or how 'the majority' mis/behavior, then 'this' is the right thing to do and/or follow.

BTW I can't wait to hear your details on why you find the practice of rape: "natural'. I'll go make some popcorn.

1. Because human beings, naturally, did and, in the days when this is being written, were still doing this. Just like 'abuse' is 'natural'. Wrong, but 'natural'.

2. Because there is not a single thing, ever, which is above, beyond, nor apart from 'Nature', Itself, or just what is 'natural', itself.
[/quote]

[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.

Can 'we' have a so-called 'philosophical discussion', first, about 'what contribution' 'to humans' is actually being made?

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).

Has any human being ever thought that it is 'unnatural' to kill and eat animals?

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.

So, as long as the 'killing' and/or 'murdering' of animals continues this is, supposedly, where the so-called 'most actual improvements in animal welfare', will occur.

Has it not occurred to you that the non using of animal, which result in the premature death of the animal, just for some human being's monetary gain and for some human beings, so-called, 'enjoyment', would not be a more actual improvement in animal welfare?

What a hypocrite. Hope you or your loved ones never need surgery or a medication. How, exactly do you think advances in medicine occur? Magic?

[LuckyR]

I never stated that it's unnatural to kill animals.

On the contrary, it is actually natural to kill animals.

But just because something is natural, that doesn't necessarily make it morally right.

Rape, for example, is natural. But any civilized person would say it's morally reprehensible.

You also need to remember that those animals that have been culled and created a certain way are still living, breathing beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering.

I don't know if you are lacking the ability to experience empathy and compassion, but yeah, having your throat slit open doesn't feel good, even for culled and specifically created animals.

You're kind of all over the place. So are you okay with eating animals who were anesthetized before being killed? Are you against the practice regardless or just under certain circumstances?

Not being absolutely specific in regards to absolutely every thing in absolute detail does not mean that one is so-called 'all over the place'.

If you would like to 'know', from another what they would do in absolutely every situation, then it is up to you to list absolutely 'every situation', and then ask that one to clarify what they would do in every one of 'those situations'.

As to my empathy and compassion quotient, since only 1% of Americans are vegan, if one's eating habits are the measure of those (which, of course it isn't, despite your histrionics), mine are in the top 10%, since I make the decision to spend more to select less inhumane ranches as my source of foodstuffs.

Once again, what 'we' have here is another prime example of what 'the majority' think, and/or how 'the majority' mis/behavior, then 'this' is the right thing to do and/or follow.

BTW I can't wait to hear your details on why you find the practice of rape: "natural'. I'll go make some popcorn.

1. Because human beings, naturally, did and, in the days when this is being written, were still doing this. Just like 'abuse' is 'natural'. Wrong, but 'natural'.

2. Because there is not a single thing, ever, which is above, beyond, nor apart from 'Nature', Itself, or just what is 'natural', itself.

[/quote]

Kudos to you for writing lots of criticism while addressing not a single issue I brought up (to someone else, BTW). I'll similarly not address a single question/issue of yours.

[Iwannaplato]

Are you aware "iwannaplato" what you do causes and/or allows thousands of human children to die every year?

Yes, in fact I already said this earlier in the thread, though I mentioned that it led to humans in general being killed, including children, of course. Just using a digital device alone entails that via the wars and abuse over the materials in them, people, including children, die, yes.
Can you, Age, admit that you allow this?

Amazing you could not figure out the two reasons to raise this issue.
One, the smugness of people who think by relatively small changes they avoid doing the same things that the ones they want to judge do is not helping. In fact it makes the situation worse. I now understand what Prometheus was up to, but in general, yes, Age, I think many people are unaware of what their continued existence is dependant on, unless things change.
Two, if people are not aware of what modern, civilized life leads to, then changes are less likely to happen.

But, I understand, you're angry at me, so you are incapable of thinking rationally or charitably when you read my posts. I, also, understand why you pretend you're not pissed off and have denied it before, thinking that because we are not in your physical presence, we can't really notice the way your posting changes when you're pissed off. And yes, it is easy for you to now say this is False and Wrong. But then you are lying and you know that. And if you want to say I get angry at you...well, duh. I'm human and I don't hate those facets of me you want to disidentify with in yourself.

Of course, you are not necessarily my target audience for this post, Age.

LOL

[Iwannaplato]

Kudos to you for writing lots of criticism while addressing not a single issue I brought up (to someone else, BTW). I'll similarly not address a single question/issue of yours.

You don''t understand that you are dealing with someone who knows how to know everything. He has one belief, otherwise everything else he knows and can prove with perfect certainty. Why should he waste time interacting with the ideas of a 'human being' a derogatory entity in his schema? Human beings are utterly determined. The Mind, which he represents, has free wiill. So, his knowledge is freely arrived at.

And, as he regularly says, you aren't necessarily his target audience. So, like, accept your role, man.

Oh, but he does want to learn how to communicate better, so pointing out typos is acceptable.

[Iwannaplato]

"You realize that any food you eat leads to the deaths of animals"

Oh lol no I'm not a vegetarian. Damn my bad.

Well, past of the point was vegetarian or not one is still killing animals.
That said, I understand the context for your response to henry q better, now.

[Age]

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.

Can 'we' have a so-called 'philosophical discussion', first, about 'what contribution' 'to humans' is actually being made?

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).

Has any human being ever thought that it is 'unnatural' to kill and eat animals?

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.

So, as long as the 'killing' and/or 'murdering' of animals continues this is, supposedly, where the so-called 'most actual improvements in animal welfare', will occur.

Has it not occurred to you that the non using of animal, which result in the premature death of the animal, just for some human being's monetary gain and for some human beings, so-called, 'enjoyment', would not be a more actual improvement in animal welfare?

What a hypocrite.

In regards to what, exactly?

Hope you or your loved ones never need surgery or a medication.

Okay. Thank you

How, exactly do you think advances in medicine occur?

Why? What has this got to do with absolutely any thing that I have said and written here?

Magic?

you have gone here from absolutely nothing that I have said and meant, to absolute absurdity.

[FlashDangerpants]

What a hypocrite. Hope you or your loved ones never need surgery or a medication. How, exactly do you think advances in medicine occur? Magic?

Lemme help you out here. When dealing with either Immanuel Can or Age you can't split a single continuous thought into multiple sentences and imagine your counterpart will realise they are a continuous thought just because you followed the convention of putting such a thing into a paragraph. Thus, the one that is autistic will accidentally split that para into atomised sentences and never even realise that they are related in such a way that the question one sentence provokes is answered by the next, and the one who just lacks decency and honesty will deliberately do the same.

I have tested this, and the way to control Age is to tell him at the start of every single paragraph you write that this is a full paragraph and he is not allowed to split it up. Literally, every single one. I sort of tested on IC as well, but his condition is more advanced than age's so there's nothing to be done for him I'm afraid.

[Age]

Are you aware "iwannaplato" what you do causes and/or allows thousands of human children to die every year?

Yes, in fact I already said this earlier in the thread, though I mentioned that it led to humans in general being killed, including children, of course.

But it does not. Why do you believe that it does?

And, so you know what you are doing, which is killing children, yet you just keep on doing it. Like you do not give it any second thought at all.

Just using a digital device alone entails that via the wars and abuse over the materials in them, people, including children, die, yes.
Can you, Age, admit that you allow this?

I have already talked, in part, about this already.

Amazing you could not figure out the two reasons to raise this issue.

But, you are obviously missing the other reasons.

One, the smugness of people who think by relatively small changes they avoid doing the same things that the ones they want to judge do is not helping. In fact it makes the situation worse. I now understand what Prometheus was up to, but in general, yes, Age, I think many people are unaware of what their continued existence is dependant on, unless things change. Two, if people are not aware of what modern, civilized life leads to, then changes are less likely to happen.

But, I understand, you're angry at me,

But, 'I' have never ever been angry with 'you'. Why did you even begin to presume and believe such a Truly False and Incorrect thing as this?

so you are incapable of thinking rationally or charitably when you read my posts.

I just asked you if you knew that what you are doing is causing hundreds or thousands of children to die every year.

Now, why, exactly, do 'you' presume or believe that 'I' am incapable of thinking rationally or charitably when I read your posts?

I, also, understand why you pretend you're not pissed off and have denied it before, thinking that because we are not in your physical presence, we can't really notice the way your posting changes when you're pissed off.

LOL Now here is another prime example of just how deluded one becomes when they only 'listen to' and follow their own self made up beliefs, only.

What do you even believe 'I' would even be so-called 'pissed off' with 'you' about, exactly?

And yes, it is easy for you to now say this is False and Wrong.

And, one of the reasons why it is so 'easy' is because it is actually absolutely True and Right.

But then you are lying and you know that.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one is so 'stuck' in its own presumptions and beliefs that it actually believes, absolutely, that what it believes about 'another', which it actually has absolutely no direct access with nor to, other than just printed words on a screen only, is absolutely true. Which is even more laughable considering the irrefutable Fact that it is absolutely no evidence nor proof at all.

All it has is its own made up presumptions and beliefs, only.

And if you want to say I get angry at you...well, duh.

I have had absolutely no interest at all in how 'you' are 'feeling' here.

I only have the printed words here to 'look at' and 'go on', and all I am, really, Truly interested in here is 'the Truth' of things, and how to communicate better, with you human beings. Who, it turns out, Truly do say and believe some of the Truly weirdest and strangest things.

Again, as 'you' are proving True, for 'me', "iwannaplato".

I'm human and I don't hate those facets of me you want to disidentify with in yourself.

So, to this one anyway, 'the answer' to 'the question', 'Who am 'I'?' is; 'human'.

Of course, you are not necessarily my target audience for this post, Age.

LOL

Okay. But, if this were true, then I would suggest you do not quote 'me' so that 'i' get notified that 'you' have responded, 'to me'.

[Age]

Kudos to you for writing lots of criticism while addressing not a single issue I brought up (to someone else, BTW). I'll similarly not address a single question/issue of yours.

You don''t understand that you are dealing with someone who knows how to know everything. He has one belief, otherwise everything else he knows and can prove with perfect certainty. Why should he waste time interacting with the ideas of a 'human being' a derogatory entity in his schema?

This here is another prime example of one of this one's beliefs, which are absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, but which this one would never ever even just consider.

Human beings are utterly determined.

I disagree.

Why do you believe this is true "iwannaplato"?

The Mind, which he represents, has free wiill. So, his knowledge is freely arrived at.

Once again, this one's beliefs here could not be further from the actual Truth of things.

And, as he regularly says, you aren't necessarily his target audience. So, like, accept your role, man.

Oh, but he does want to learn how to communicate better, so pointing out typos is acceptable.

Again, this one's beliefs have led it so far astray that I am not sure how to get this one onto the Right 'track'.

[Age]

What a hypocrite. Hope you or your loved ones never need surgery or a medication. How, exactly do you think advances in medicine occur? Magic?

Lemme help you out here. When dealing with either Immanuel Can or Age you can't split a single continuous thought into multiple sentences and imagine your counterpart will realise they are a continuous thought just because you followed the convention of putting such a thing into a paragraph. Thus, the one that is autistic will accidentally split that para into atomised sentences and never even realise that they are related in such a way that the question one sentence provokes is answered by the next, and the one who just lacks decency and honesty will deliberately do the same.

I have tested this, and the way to control Age is to tell him at the start of every single paragraph you write that this is a full paragraph and he is not allowed to split it up. Literally, every single one. I sort of tested on IC as well, but his condition is more advanced than age's so there's nothing to be done for him I'm afraid.

Just so you become aware "flashdangrpants" you telling me that I am not allowed to split up a paragraph has not and will never work.

Also, the assumptions that you made here are absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. Which can be, and will be, proved absolutely True through tests done on you.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just so you become aware "flashdangrpants" you telling me that I am not allowed to split up a paragraph has not and will never work.

That's not the flex you think it is. But I did it already, and demonstrated that it worked in so far as is possible with you. I didn't demonstrate that conversation with you us worth the hassle though, so run along, I don't intend to waste any more time on you today.

[Iwannaplato]

Age, this stuff doesn't work on me. Perhaps it will on your target audience.

[Iwannaplato]

Nor does this stuff. Couldn't manage to be honest about something so simple, could ya?
But, maybe your target audience won't see through your B.S.