Eating meat & experimenting on animals is wrong. - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

florida0214 · 09-29-2005, 06:38 AM

Eating meat is good. (As long as its not a cock sausage) it is food. Experimenting. Well not so good. I guess it beats the hell out of experimenting on humans. Which is done.

xepherys · 10-05-2005, 01:22 PM

I'm not sure I can agree with the angle at large of the OP. Devil's advocate taken to understanding, I would say we are justified simply because we are justified. How are we justified in anything that we, as human, do? Cultural divides will always do just that, divide us. Animals, shpanimal! The same can be said for so many things we do. It's silly how a 16 year old girl being pregnant in the US is a socially outcastable offense, when 100 years ago, 16 years old was a more than normal age to be popping the first one out. At any rate, I can't have this debate without going off on too many tangents.

My basic belief. We do what we do because we can... and THAT is human nature.

adysav · 10-07-2005, 05:16 AM

Plants are living beings too, just because they don't have a central nervous system to feel pain or get upset doesn't mean that you aren't maiming and killing a living being.
Plants are related to us, albeit distantly, so why should they bear the brunt of our dietary needs? As you said the lion has no choice but to eat animals, we have no choice but to eat plants or animals. If you choose animals over plants you are being speciesist, which I think was the whole point of this thread, yes?

Sorry if this repeats anyone elses argument but I couldnt be arsed reading 5 pages of posts.

P.S. I wasn't aware CSflim was a professional troll ;P

imthaman · 10-09-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSflim

I am not denying that. There is a readily available food source, which we can avail of without causing widespread sufferring.
There is nothing wrong with eating plants, as they do not have the capacity to suffer.

There is scientific evidence to the contrary. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0806090010.htm

Also, modern agriculture kills lots of animals during the harvesting process. "For the carrots, it IS the holocaust."

I suppose if you really want to eat "cruelty-free", you can, as long as you don't mind eating only gravel. Even going that route, you would still be destroying some critter's habitat.

If we were not supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.

adysav · 10-15-2005, 05:30 AM

Quick question for CSflim:
If we discovered a species of cute fluffy animal that didn't have the necessary facilities to undergo suffering (senseless nerve endings, constant stream of endorphines to the brain, whatever), would it be wrong to eat them? Hypothetically speaking of course.

Spiker439 · 10-27-2005, 12:10 AM

First off I apologize if anyone has already begun this line of thought, I was far too lazy to read all the posts.

Isn't this elaborately stated question just another way of asking "How are animals different than humans"? It's just an application of that premise, if I'm not mistaken. As far as I'm concerned the only difference between human beings and animals is the human being's ability to reason and rationalize, which stems from self consciousness in some form. One could potentially argue, I suppose, that some species of monkey or dolphins may have this ability as well, but I think the fundamental difference is that human beings can see themselves within the context of their own species. That is to say that, a dog sees itself as a dog, but not as, say, a Cocker Spaniel, whereas human beings not only see themselves as human, but they see themselves as a particular within that species.

This is rather tengential now that I've expanded it, but let us return to the point at hand; I would say that there is a fundamental difference between animals and human beings, highlighted above, and that a human's ability to rationalize would not necessarily make it wrong to eat animals, it would just allow someone to hold us responsible for eating animals, in the same way that we are morally responsible if we are racist. One cannot, I don't think, hold a lion responsible for eating some other animal in the strictest sense, since the lion acted on instinct without the ability to rationalize it's actions. Physical and causal responsibility, yes - moral responsibility, no.

I guess what I'm clumsily trying to say is that you can hold poeple morally responsible for eating animals but you can't necessarily say that, morally, eating animals is wrong, while I would argue that you can say that racism is morally wrong as a principle of humanity. Maybe I just like chicken... But really, it does seem counterintuitive to assert that eating chicken is comparable to hating black people, doesn't it?

jusolson00 · 11-12-2005, 07:55 AM

Okay, i'm just going to throw my perspective in on this convo as another point of view. first off I'll tell you my occupation. I am a rancher/farmer. I own 400 cows and therefore raise 400 calves each year that will go to slaugther. I have a serious problem with people using the cruelity to animals arguement, and how they seem to make it out that nobody cares for these animals. I will tell you first hand that I care deeply about all 400 of my animals. why? because they are my lively hood.., they are my lifestyle, and if they do good, so do I. My cows get plenty of acres of grass during the summer, which mind you is alot more room than most humans get!! When the sun is shining and the weather nice, they are the most content things around. And when it comes time for me to sell my calves, I know that the next guy in the chain is going to take good care of them also, as he depends on them for a living. Now keep in mind I realize that some of you have this misconception that all the animals are being treated cruelty because of some video propaganda that PETA has replayed over and over. This is human error, just as it occurs in many other facets of our society. It is not the norm and should not be view as such. Yes it's unfortunate that it happens, and I hate to see my animals suffer, just as i hate to see other humans suffer, but it happens.. All we can do is try our best not to let it happen. This doesnt mean we should stop eating meat. Well thats the end of my rant. hope it shed some insight to this topic.

10-27-2005, 12:10 AM	#166 (permalink)
Spiker439 Upright	First off I apologize if anyone has already begun this line of thought, I was far too lazy to read all the posts. Isn't this elaborately stated question just another way of asking "How are animals different than humans"? It's just an application of that premise, if I'm not mistaken. As far as I'm concerned the only difference between human beings and animals is the human being's ability to reason and rationalize, which stems from self consciousness in some form. One could potentially argue, I suppose, that some species of monkey or dolphins may have this ability as well, but I think the fundamental difference is that human beings can see themselves within the context of their own species. That is to say that, a dog sees itself as a dog, but not as, say, a Cocker Spaniel, whereas human beings not only see themselves as human, but they see themselves as a particular within that species. This is rather tengential now that I've expanded it, but let us return to the point at hand; I would say that there is a fundamental difference between animals and human beings, highlighted above, and that a human's ability to rationalize would not necessarily make it wrong to eat animals, it would just allow someone to hold us responsible for eating animals, in the same way that we are morally responsible if we are racist. One cannot, I don't think, hold a lion responsible for eating some other animal in the strictest sense, since the lion acted on instinct without the ability to rationalize it's actions. Physical and causal responsibility, yes - moral responsibility, no. I guess what I'm clumsily trying to say is that you can hold poeple morally responsible for eating animals but you can't necessarily say that, morally, eating animals is wrong, while I would argue that you can say that racism is morally wrong as a principle of humanity. Maybe I just like chicken... But really, it does seem counterintuitive to assert that eating chicken is comparable to hating black people, doesn't it? Last edited by Spiker439; 10-27-2005 at 12:15 AM..

09-29-2005, 06:38 AM	#161 (permalink)
florida0214 Crazy Location: South Florida	Eating meat is good. (As long as its not a cock sausage) it is food. Experimenting. Well not so good. I guess it beats the hell out of experimenting on humans. Which is done.

10-05-2005, 01:22 PM	#162 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	I'm not sure I can agree with the angle at large of the OP. Devil's advocate taken to understanding, I would say we are justified simply because we are justified. How are we justified in anything that we, as human, do? Cultural divides will always do just that, divide us. Animals, shpanimal! The same can be said for so many things we do. It's silly how a 16 year old girl being pregnant in the US is a socially outcastable offense, when 100 years ago, 16 years old was a more than normal age to be popping the first one out. At any rate, I can't have this debate without going off on too many tangents. My basic belief. We do what we do because we can... and THAT is human nature.

10-07-2005, 05:16 AM	#163 (permalink)
adysav Insane	Plants are living beings too, just because they don't have a central nervous system to feel pain or get upset doesn't mean that you aren't maiming and killing a living being. Plants are related to us, albeit distantly, so why should they bear the brunt of our dietary needs? As you said the lion has no choice but to eat animals, we have no choice but to eat plants or animals. If you choose animals over plants you are being speciesist, which I think was the whole point of this thread, yes? Sorry if this repeats anyone elses argument but I couldnt be arsed reading 5 pages of posts. P.S. I wasn't aware CSflim was a professional troll ;P

10-15-2005, 05:30 AM	#165 (permalink)
adysav Insane	Quick question for CSflim: If we discovered a species of cute fluffy animal that didn't have the necessary facilities to undergo suffering (senseless nerve endings, constant stream of endorphines to the brain, whatever), would it be wrong to eat them? Hypothetically speaking of course.

11-12-2005, 07:55 AM	#167 (permalink)
jusolson00 Tilted	Okay, i'm just going to throw my perspective in on this convo as another point of view. first off I'll tell you my occupation. I am a rancher/farmer. I own 400 cows and therefore raise 400 calves each year that will go to slaugther. I have a serious problem with people using the cruelity to animals arguement, and how they seem to make it out that nobody cares for these animals. I will tell you first hand that I care deeply about all 400 of my animals. why? because they are my lively hood.., they are my lifestyle, and if they do good, so do I. My cows get plenty of acres of grass during the summer, which mind you is alot more room than most humans get!! When the sun is shining and the weather nice, they are the most content things around. And when it comes time for me to sell my calves, I know that the next guy in the chain is going to take good care of them also, as he depends on them for a living. Now keep in mind I realize that some of you have this misconception that all the animals are being treated cruelty because of some video propaganda that PETA has replayed over and over. This is human error, just as it occurs in many other facets of our society. It is not the norm and should not be view as such. Yes it's unfortunate that it happens, and I hate to see my animals suffer, just as i hate to see other humans suffer, but it happens.. All we can do is try our best not to let it happen. This doesnt mean we should stop eating meat. Well thats the end of my rant. hope it shed some insight to this topic.