Philosophy Now Forum

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
I don't fall for bad arguments, ever.

What have you been presenting then? Irrational garbage and insults about 'hippies'. Did you know that farm animal farts are a big contributor to global warming? Let me guess, you don't believe in global warming either. It's just a 'lefty libtard' conspiracy to stop yanks from fucking up the planet and having fun in hummers, or whatever those huge tanks are called that yanks love to drive around in.[/quote]

This is so inane it does not merit a response.

Actually all true. You can't argue with the truth. You supposedly have a degree, yet you can't manoeuvre the quote facility? Why doesn't that surprise me?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Actually all true. You can't argue with the truth. You supposedly have a degree, yet you can't manoeuvre the quote facility? Why doesn't that surprise me?

Maybe I'm busy translating Nietzsche.

Most people in the world would trade places with us any time.

Porcupine: the other, other white meat.

http://images.joelsartore.com/gallery/E ... -00014.jpg

Lawrence Crocker wrote:If I were asked to judge the debate so far, I would have to give the palm to the vegetarians.

The argument that the pain of animals bred to be food doesn't count morally invites the objection that second and third generation slaves were bred to be slaves. They would not have existed but for slavery. Still we don't think this justified their being held in servitude.

The vegetarian is at least justified in asking whether non-existence is better than existence as a factory chicken.

Excellent point, Lawrence1

I am not sure there is anything inconsistent morally in not being a consistent vegetarian. One might believe that killing a chimpanzee for food was worse than killing a cow which is worse than killing a fish which is worse than killing a snail which is worse than killing a locust. Our theory of levels of consciousness of animals may be a little crude, but it is surely onto something. Nature of pain felt, length of time it is appreciated, ability to anticipate it all seem to be morally relevant variables.

That's also a valid point, however there is even more to it than that. Morality aside, humanity should have evolved beyond its primitive animal nature by now. We pride ourselves on our scientific and technological accomplishments, feats that no animal can rival. The technology of manufacturing meat in modern factories is available now, yet we don't use it at all.

Instead the meat industry is cannibalizing millions and millions of animals daily!!! In medieval style torture chambers, on an industrial scale. How primitive is that? How icky esthetically? When we could have clean, sophisticated modern factories producing all the meat easily, cheaply for the whole world, we are torturing animals needlessly.

Consider just the environmental impact of the meat industry and its contribution to climate change alone!

The meat industry is of course digging in their heel, protecting their vested interest in true capitalistic fashion (just like the oil and coal industry, the tobacco industry, etc., etc). However, it is unfathomable that most meat eaters are violently against the most sensible change, even though they would have to give up nothing, because manufactured meat could taste just as good as the animal flesh they are used to.

Eventually, the change will happen, however slowly.

In the meantime more and more people select the vegetarian lifestyle in protest against the barbaric practices of the meat industry.

Lawrence Crocker wrote: The argument that the pain of animals bred to be food doesn't count morally invites the objection that second and third generation slaves were bred to be slaves. They would not have existed but for slavery. Still we don't think this justified their being held in servitude.

This doesn't work, humans, free or slaves continue to have children so second and third generations would have been born whether the parents were slaves or not. The same is not true of animals, domesticated animals are not bread unless there is a need for them, cows to produce milk, chickens to produce eggs, and other cattle, pigs and chickens to produce meat. Free humans will produce children, but domesticated animals will not reproduce unless there is a market for something.

Ned wrote: However, it is unfathomable that most meat eaters are violently against the most sensible change, even though they would have to give up nothing, because manufactured meat could taste just as good as the animal flesh they are used to.

Not quite, manufactured is not the same or as good as animal flesh. If it tastes as good it's not healthy from a lot of processing. If it's healthy, as in little or no processing, first of all it's not manufactured, or it doesn't taste very good. Of course if you are a vegetarian, as you claim, then it would not be expected that you would have much experience with real meat as opposed to artificial meat.

As I said in the OP of this thread: I was a meat eater till my early thirties and I did love the taste of meat. However, as I also mentioned in other posts on this thread: discovering gourmet vegetarian dishes greatly enriched my life, way beyond eating animal flesh. The many meat substitutes that exist today are very tasty and nutritious. See if you can find a recipe for 'seitan' and try it out once. And the taste of synthesized meat can be just as delicious as animal flesh you are addicted to.

Ned wrote:As I said in the OP of this thread: I was a meat eater till my early thirties and I did love the taste of meat. However, as I also mentioned in other posts on this thread: discovering gourmet vegetarian dishes greatly enriched my life, way beyond eating animal flesh. The many meat substitutes that exist today are very tasty and nutritious. See if you can find a recipe for 'seitan' and try it out once. And the taste of synthesized meat can be just as delicious as animal flesh you are addicted to.

OK, perhaps it is the availability in my area, but so far the artificial meat has not been so good, and the price was not as competitive.

I guess we can not afford to be ethical until the price is right?

Ned wrote:I guess we can not afford to be ethical until the price is right?

What is ethical about overcharging for a product that is not as good?

Take a look at the videos posted earlier on this thread and watch them for a while.

Then tell me weather it is ethical to treat living beings as garbage?

As I said earlier: "the sickos are those who create, profit from, support and knowingly benefit from the meat industry that treats living creatures as inanimate garbage."

OP

You have a good heart, but act hysterical and irrational, imo.

Yes, it's bad to eat animals that has suffered, but instead eat ecological animals that have had a good life, then you can eat meat without shame.

If we should act so strongly to wrong things, we wouldn't exist, you couldn't have shoes, cloth, smart phones, etc, all are manufactured in horrible conditions in the far east.

There are alternatives to all you listed.

Read the rest of the posts and think about it.

It is possible to evolve as a species.

We have already made great progress with science and technology -- we are almost there!

Just a few more steps and we can be proud of ourselves!

Ned wrote:There are alternatives to all you listed.

Read the rest of the posts and think about it.

It is possible to evolve as a species.

We have already made great progress with science and technology -- we are almost there!

Just a few more steps and we can be proud of ourselves!

This suggest that you are more rabid than first anticipated.

HexHammer wrote:

Ned wrote:There are alternatives to all you listed.
Read the rest of the posts and think about it.
It is possible to evolve as a species.
We have already made great progress with science and technology -- we are almost there!
Just a few more steps and we can be proud of ourselves!

This suggest that you are more rabid than first anticipated.

It should make for interesting reading.