Vegetarianism

[Kamehameha34]

1. But I said I would need to look back, so you can find my response there.

2. You are discussing the environment, which I am not interested in at this moment. I don't think man using up natural resources faster than they can replace them effects vegetarianism, personally.

3.Belverron, it is not my intention to be "treating other posters like children", so having a thicker skin may serve to benefit you. I honestly don't see at all where I am portraying anything close to a "mightier than thou" attitude.

4. Vegetarians think about what they eat more that meat eaters. They have to. Can we agree on that? That said, it is an biased claim that a smaller percentage of vegetarians that meat eaters are obese/*Instert health disorder*, because someone could just as well eat meat and think about what they eat, with similar or better results.

5. It is considered animal cruelty to cause suffer to animals, so don't use that word. It is a biased term. Death is not suffering. Also, morals are subjective.

[StrongHeartsWin]

For readers just joining the debate, Kamehameha asserted I was turning this into an "environmental" argument, which I replied with a request for him to cite the place I did so by quoting me. Instead of him responding, belverron decided to reference it for him by digging this quote of mine up:

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin
As for your evidence, which animal is the most destructive to the Earth and to itself, always thinking of better and more efficient ways of destroying one another? Why do you think that animal will be around when the smoke clears?

However, my reply above was directly in response to Kamehameha`s assertion on intelligence and therefore it was quite within the bounds of acceptability to answer that since he set up his argument of intelligence within the paradigm of all of Earth`s environment. It is therefore he who went off on the tangeant leading to an "environmental argument." Even there though, he has judged wrong, because I have not put forth the reason here or in recent posts to choose vegetarianism out of concerns for the environment. Here are two posts of his that show he erroneously made that accusation and the point where he chose to go off on the tangeant:

Quote by: Kamehameha Infact, there is evidence to suggest that our vastly superior intelligence over all other species on this planet was contributed to the large amount of protein that our troglodytic ancestors consumed. Quote: We are experience a dilemma that comes with technology. The very fact that we occupy the position of the race[amongst all animals on Earht] that CAN cause such destruction does say something in terms of intelligence. Intelligence is a tool. It won't always be used wisely.

Quote by: belverron It was in his previous post, SHW [belverron chimes in that I attempted to turn it into an environmental issue] . I don't think it was asking too much of you to remember that, do you?

belverron, your defense of him is in error. Above I clearly outline why.

Do you even read all of his posts? He posted an interesting article about cannibalism that touched on the protein issue he brought up.

Yes, I have read all his posts very carefully, like I do with all those who debate me. I take debate seriously. belverron, where is the "interesting article" you said he posted on cannibalism? Is it in this thread? I went back a few pages looking for it but haven`t found it. Since you know where it is, could you direct me to it? Perhaps I am just missing it for some reason. I would be glad to read it if I can find it.

I asked him for excerpts of any research papers and link URLs to those but he has yet to post them. We can all bring up issues, but if it is there to support an assertion like he has done, one should also post where he got that from out of courtesy. So, Kamehama? Where is it/are those excerpts and URLs?

This is the second time I've asked you to stop treating other posters like children.

Where was the first time? In any event, I take issue with your statement. I do not treat my debate opponants like children. If I did, I`d be worried about hurting their feelings and handle them with kid gloves. I treat them like adults who can handle a number of debate styles other than ad hominem attacks. Don`t worry about protecting him or anyone here when it comes to simply debate tactics. If it is an ad hominem attack, then I welcome you coming to his aid. If not, let him swim or sink on his own. It is good for education and you might be wise to keep that in mind yourself. After all, this is a debate site with the name Volconvo, which was chosen due to the heated nature of arguement because of the controversial issues meant to be brought up. Obviously vegetarianism and Animal Rights rankles some people' skin and therefore such issues are quite at home in Volconvo.

I don't see why anyone tolerates your mighter-debater-than-thou attitude.

That is a subjective view. Though, admittedly, I am quite confident in my debating skills. But, is there a forum rule against confidence or thinking one is a better debater than someone else?

Please, try to stay focused on the issues. That is not me. If you want to make me famous here on Volconvo by making me the issue, then go ahead and create a thread titled, "Discussing StrongHeartsWin." But remember, even in such a thread as that the forum rules of "no personal attacks" (i.e. ad hominem attacks) still apply.

You're in a minority here, so it might benefit you to behave with some grace.

This forum has very objective moderators and admin. I haven`t sensed anything akin to "the majority" rules -- because the majority rules is not logic to rule by. "Majority Rules or the Majority is Right" minus democracy or guidelines is simply another name for "mob mentality." I do not support mob mentality. Do you? If not, then why bring up minority or majority? It is irrelevant -- unless you think the mods and admin resort to such without being objective.

You're not winning any friends with your supercilious attitude.

I actually looked that word up.

hmmm...well, I do think that eating flesh is the lesser moral choice for diet. Do people of higher morals occupy a higher position of being "good"? I think they do. If they relate that their opponant is choosing the lesser moral choice, then by declaring that they will project a degree of haughtiness or even selfrighteousness just due to the nature of having to declare the actions of their opponents wrong. I can`t help that. That is the nature of debates when morals are the main issue. Abolitionists surely seen as self-righteous, too, in their condemnation of slavery. Being self-rightious or haughty is not a bad thing in and of itself if that position is the right one. Like the arguments against slavery had to wait to be decided to be right, so do the arguments against animal exploitation. In both cases, the early proponants for both movements have never and will never see their haughty and selfrighteous attitude vindicated due to the length of the battle.

Are you here to make frinds, belverron? I am here to learn the arguements against my arguments, improve my arguments, and to give the arguments a hearing. I am here firstly for debate. What is the order in your reasons for being here reside?

[Kamehameha34]

1. Sorry, Belverron, I though you were talking to me =/. I have been accused of that before, so I went to defensive-mode.

2. Yes, Strong, you do lack a specific grace necessary for friendly debating. This is a place for working on arguments, not picking fights with people who don't agree with you with agressive statements, such as those that you've compared eating meat to public intercourse, or claiming that I fancy myself as "more inciteful" than Einstein for disagreeing with you.

3. You are being subjective in your stance. You use the philosephy "All life is valuable" as the staple of your argument. It may be reprehensible to think otherwise, for you, but you are not the moral model of the human race. See #4 before you respond to #3. (Please don't nit-pick about the statement "All life is valuable" being applied to you, because then we will get into a mess of technicalities that will get us to the same place: Subjective differences of opinion.)

4. Animals, as far as I am aware, do NOT suffer in the harvesting process. To cause suffer to an animal, as you would most probably know, is considered animal cruelty, a criminal offense.

5. The article included information of humans eating the marrow out of the bones of other animals, primarily other humans. This is said to have triggered our evolution.

english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/14863_cannibalism.html

[belverron]

I do apologize for going off-topic. I would like, SHW, for you to address the issues I brought up in post 177.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Are you here to make frinds, belverron? I am here to learn the arguements against my arguments, improve my arguments, and to give the arguments a hearing. I am here firstly for debate. What is the order in your reasons for being here reside?

Sorry to butt in, but I'm here to make friends and debate. I respect others sides, even if I don't agree with them. I separate the people who just personally attack a person from someone who has an extreme view on a specific subject. This is a community, not just a place to debate. Otherwise we wouldn't have the general discussion and such. Lets get back on topic. I'd like to hear your views from my previous statement here if you want.

[hobokitty]

I repsect a person's right to choose what they put in their body, because its their body! I do personally think that vegetarians exagerate a little about eating meat. I mean.. if we didn't have a economy system and had to rough it like the good ole days. I'm sure vegetarians would think twice before passing up some meat to cook and devower. Its only human nature.. Also to all those vegitarians out there who dont eat meat because they think its wrong to harm/eat an animal.. well guess what!! If an animal were hungery enough I'm sure they'd eat you. !

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: belverron I do apologize for going off-topic. I would like, SHW, for you to address the issues I brought up in post 177.

I guess you are meaning your 180 post in that apology, right? -- the one you directed at me, which I answered and inclueded pointed questions to you. Answering those questions would be revealing.

I will go back and answer your questions in #177, belverron. However, will you answer my questions to you sprinkled in the posts above?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Sorry to butt in, but I'm here to make friends and debate.

And that is fine, Kubedawg. Being here for one or the other or both does not put one above any other.

I respect others sides, even if I don't agree with them.

I find this kind of comment trite. Often people do not think when they make this comment. First, would you respect the other side`s ideas if those were ones that supported genital mutilation of young woman throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia Minor? How about those who support exploiting children in quasi slave-like conditions? I definitely do not respect those arguments and beliefs held by those persons or other morally defunct ideas and systems.

It is not about respecting others' opinions put forth in argument -- It is about respecting THE RIGHT TO ARGUE and VOICE THOSE OPINIONS. It may also be about the right to hold an opinion, BUT, we definitely have the right to try and destroy the reasoning on which those opinions rest on. Why would I respect something I would like see destroyed. Why would you respect the idea of slavery if you would like to see it destroyed?

This is a community, not just a place to debate.

Yes, it is. However, by reading the rules one will see what the main objective of Volconvo`s is. Look in case you haven`t already:

This site's main objective: To promote constructive debate between people with contrasting ideologies.

Otherwise we wouldn't have the general discussion and such.

Which are clearly secondary by deduction from the official stated objective of Volconvo.

Lets get back on topic. I'd like to hear your views from my previous statement here if you want.

I want to reply, Kubedawg, and probably will, but I sense you will eventually respond with testimonials -- once again to let you know, very weak form for debating.

[Captain Chaos]

StrongHearts...

Can you sum up, in a simple statement for me, why it is immoral to kill animals?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: hobokitty I repsect a person's right to choose what they put in their body, because its their body!

Would you respect the right of Idi Amin or Jeffrey Dahmer to consume the flesh of their choice? After all, you are basing your decision merely on the right to put something/anything into one`s own body. You didn`t attatch any moral considerations to it. I guess there aren`t any then, right?

I do personally think that vegetarians exagerate a little about eating meat.

What point do you feel they exagerate about? Be specific with a quote or excerpt from them so I can reply on specifics and not heresay or rumor..

I mean.. if we didn't have a economy system and had to rough it like the good ole days. I'm sure vegetarians would think twice before passing up some meat to cook and devower.

Sounds like you are taking liberty in doing some exageration yourself, hobokitty. Can you find any mainstream vegetarian org that states in a life or death situation for survival not of this modern world that they would be against consuming what is readily available? If so, please post it. IF not, perhaps you may want to rethink your statement on this.

Its only human nature..

A lot of things seem to be human nature, but we do try to blunt those, too. We are able to reason and choose in ways that free us from having to give in to passion and immediate desires.

Also to all those vegitarians out there who dont eat meat because they think its wrong to harm/eat an animal.. well guess what!! If an animal were hungery enough I'm sure they'd eat you.

Animals are captive to their passions and instincts. We are not. Are you saying we should reject the different abilities that which we are capable of and mimic animals?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: CaptainChaos StrongHearts... Can you sum up, in a simple statement for me, why it is immoral to kill animals?

First off, let me say it is not immoral to kill animals [of which humans, too, are animals] in an immediate life or death struggle for survival. Surely we can all think of scenarios where that can be seen, and is so not only in history but even in the present and will continue to be so in the future. I have to preface my answer to your question with this so that the abnomalies are given room for in today`s modern world. Furthermore, in lieu of the word “kill,” the word “exploitation” is the more appropriate word for that is what erases the prejudicial application of treatment of animals.

-------------------------------------------------------------

My answer to your question, CaptainChaos:

It is wrong to kill animals based on exploitation because it results in pain, suffering, or deprivation of life. Pain and suffering are unpleasant states. Just as we have an interest in not being the target of actions resulting in pain and suffering, so do animals. They, like we, seek to move away from the source which is causing it. We share that behavioral characteristic with them. We have evolved to empathise and have the ability to extend that across the species barrier to affect pain and suffering through being able to lessen it or in many cases eliminate it. The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests is one of respect for what we share with animals -- a desire to not live in a state of pain or suffering. This pain and suffering is one which is brought about through exploitation based on prejudicial reasoning. Man, the animal of higher reasoning, has an obligation and responsibility to apply reason consistantly and non-prejudicially so that it cuts across all issues to the point where it does not result in being neurotic or causes him to forfeit his life.

------------------------------------------------------------

That is basically it. With rebuttals, I will add more details, but I tried to keep it to one paragraph that covered the main reasoning/philosophical points in as short as space as possible. Sorry if it wasn`t short or simple enough. I needed more than three sentences.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeart It is wrong to kill animals based on exploitation because it results in pain, suffering, or deprivation of life.

So, if we treat them well before we kill them, then the pain and suffering could be eliminated?

As for deprivation of life, that is essentially restating the question. So, why is it wrong to deprive animals of life?


Instincts drive us to regard murder as wrong - but those instincts clearly do not drive many people to regard the murder of animals as wrong.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos So, if we treat them well before we kill them, then the pain and suffering could be eliminated? As for deprivation of life, that is essentially restating the question. So, why is it wrong to deprive animals of life?

It is not restating the question because it speaks to ownership. Ownership of life belongs to each animal and to take that deprives them of that. I am well aware that theoretically one`s life can be taken without pain or suffering, but that still does not address the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests. We have an interest in retaining ownership of our lives and so do animals. I specifically put "deprivation of life" in there not to restate the question but to cover ownership which the simple term "kill" does not put forth/imply.

Instincts drive us to regard murder as wrong

Then why is there so much of it and why do we need laws against it?

- but those instincts clearly do not drive many people to regard the murder of animals as wrong.

You are resorting to the argument of "majority rules." If it is a shifting perception, then how is it "instinct"? At one time your prejudicial use of the word instinct based on time did not drive man to look upon slavery/exploitation of man as property as wrong or even murder (look at the violent societies of primitive man in the not distant past whose biology was already the same as ours is now) -- but he did move away from it. But, only laws keep us from resorting to it. So, is slavery/exploitation instinctive if artificial controls are not in place?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Instincts drive us to regard ...

Captain Chaos, you also are taking liberties with the term "instinct." What are human natural "instincts" agreed upon by sociologists or anthropologists? I think you will find pretty unagreed upon thoughts oN the issue.

Surely you don`t mean "behaviour," do you? If so, human behaviour is influenced by much more than just our hard wiring.

Take a look at this thought on the propensity for humans to murder:

Killer instinct, in human behavior, is a reference to the human propensity to kill, murder. It may also refer to killing an opponent in a less literal sense (ie-I'm gonna kill him/her).

This instinct can either be a natural inclination, or a programmed response. In the case of inclination, one feels the inner need or desire to harm or kill another for no apparent reason (otherwise perfectly calm and lucid).
Source: HERE.

[belverron]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin For readers just joining the debate, Kamehameha asserted I was turning this into an "environmental" argument, which I replied with a request for him to cite the place I did so by quoting me. Instead of him responding, belverron decided to reference it for him by digging this quote of mine up: Quote by: StrongHeartsWin As for your evidence, which animal is the most destructive to the Earth and to itself, always thinking of better and more efficient ways of destroying one another? Why do you think that animal will be around when the smoke clears? However, my reply above was directly in response to Kamehameha`s assertion on intelligence and therefore it was quite within the bounds of acceptability to answer that since he set up his argument of intelligence within the paradigm of all of Earth`s environment. It is therefore he who went off on the tangeant leading to an "environmental argument." Even there though, he has judged wrong, because I have not put forth the reason here or in recent posts to choose vegetarianism out of concerns for the environment.

I did not address the validity of this argument, only that you accused him of referencing something you seemed to think buried in past posts when it was, in fact, in his previous post. And then, as if dealing with a child, you told him this was the second time you'd asked him to be clear about what he was referencing. Perhaps you are the one who needs to be ever so slightly more diligent in finding the preceding statement.

Yes, I have read all his posts very carefully, like I do with all those who debate me. I take debate seriously. belverron, where is the "interesting article" you said he posted on cannibalism? Is it in this thread? I went back a few pages looking for it but haven`t found it. Since you know where it is, could you direct me to it? Perhaps I am just missing it for some reason. I would be glad to read it if I can find it.

He has since reposted his article, but here it is.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin That is a subjective view. Though, admittedly, I am quite confident in my debating skills. But, is there a forum rule against confidence or thinking one is a better debater than someone else? ... This forum has very objective moderators and admin. I haven`t sensed anything akin to "the majority" rules -- because the majority rules is not logic to rule by. "Majority Rules or the Majority is Right" minus democracy or guidelines is simply another name for "mob mentality." I do not support mob mentality. Do you? If not, then why bring up minority or majority? It is irrelevant -- unless you think the mods and admin resort to such without being objective.

I wasn't referring to the mods. People will simply give you more credence if you don't behave like an ass.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I actually looked that word [supercilious] up. hmmm...well, I do think that eating flesh is the lesser moral choice for diet. Do people of higher morals occupy a higher position of being "good"? I think they do. If they relate that their opponant is choosing the lesser moral choice, then by declaring that they will project a degree of haughtiness or even selfrighteousness just due to the nature of having to declare the actions of their opponents wrong. I can`t help that. That is the nature of debates when morals are the main issue. Abolitionists surely seen as self-righteous, too, in their condemnation of slavery. Being self-rightious or haughty is not a bad thing in and of itself if that position is the right one. Like the arguments against slavery had to wait to be decided to be right, so do the arguments against animal exploitation. In both cases, the early proponants for both movements have never and will never see their haughty and selfrighteous attitude vindicated due to the length of the battle. Are you here to make frinds, belverron? I am here to learn the arguements against my arguments, improve my arguments, and to give the arguments a hearing. I am here firstly for debate. What is the order in your reasons for being here reside?

Self-righteousness was fine for the pulpit when black ministers moved against segregation. This is not a pulpit; it is a debate forum, as you are so intent on pointing out to everyone. And your job is not to declare the actions of an opponent wrong, it is to prove them wrong. The problem is that they are working from a different set of assumptions than you are, and you are not likely to make that point. So, you must assert with whatever strength you can that we are morally obligated to prevent the suffering of nonhuman life and work from there. Which is not the same as declaring this treatment of animals a wrong practice.

[belverron]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Animals are captive to their passions and instincts. We are not. Are you saying we should reject the different abilities that which we are capable of and mimic animals?

Doing math means we're not creatures of passion? Does exercising restraint, even, mean that we are not creatures of passion? I don't think so. Always we act in our own interests, out of our own passions. We act out of love of God, fear of retribution, respect born of sympathy for one another. And these are all passions with a logical twist put on them.

The only question is whether animals deserve our respect and sympathy to the same degree that humans do, and I do not believe that our species has an obligation other than to itself.

I value every human life because I know that each is unique; that makes it precious. It's all about supply and demand, really. If you lose a dog, you spend some money and buy another. It will treat you pretty much the same as the last. What's so special about that? Or about a cow? Sure, no one likes to see their pain, but do we miss them as we miss humans? I don't, and I don't think others should. It seems unhealthy.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: belverron I did not address the validity of this argument, only that you accused him of referencing something you seemed to think buried in past posts when it was, in fact, in his previous post. And then, as if dealing with a child, you told him this was the second time you'd asked him to be clear about what he was referencing.

BECAUSE, at that time it was not there! I am not sure if he went back and put it in with an edit, but I do know he did post it as a test URL after that. I sure did not come across it as a link previously. You made it a link for him just now. But, that is not the only assertion he made without providing any link when asked.

He has since reposted his article, but here it is.

Just read it. Actually, I have seen this article before. In fact, it supports my arguement in ways, not only with Kamehameha but also now with Captain Chaos.

I will use it later.

I wasn't referring to the mods. People will simply give you more credence if you don't behave like an ass.

This is borderline ad hominem, for I could insinuate the same charge to you in the same sentence structure. Focus on the issues, beveroon, and let my debate style be mine or let the responsibility of me not getting credence be a worry of my own. I will PM you when I want your personal advice. The mechanics are not the issue and my style, whether you like it or not, does not violate any forum rules.

Self-righteousness was fine for the pulpit when black ministers moved against segregation. This is not a pulpit;

Are you speaking figuratively with the term "pulpit" or are you speaking of a real church "pulpit" from whence they spoke against segregation? Surely they spoke against segregation in other venues than churches. They spoke in places, too, that allowed discussion and debate. Volconvo is JUST THAT! -- another venue.

Segregation is wrong. Exploitation which causes pain and suffering is wrong. Sorry, but you do not define the limits of what are acceptable arguments. You are resorting to some declarations of your own which you seem to be against below.

it is a debate forum, as you are so intent on pointing out to everyone. And your job is not to declare the actions of an opponent wrong, it is to prove them wrong.

Proof is the mea culpa -- an accomplishment that eludes most on most topics, especially as it pertains to social movments still in their infancy. That which are truths which are self evident is often resisted by the status quo and it is no secret that laws always lag behind advancements in social movements to grant rights. Barring final proof, advancing the arguments are themselves valuable.

The problem is that they are working from a different set of assumptions than you are, and you are not likely to make that point.

And that is why this is an ongoing debate. I have no idea when any particular individual will adopt my assumptions. That is the purpose of debate -- to keep putting forth arguments and improving them. I certainly was changed from a flesh eater to a meat eater after having to admit my previous assumptions were wrong and then adopt a new set. I will not guess what the audience will do. They, the participants or the onlookers will do what they will.

So, you must assert with whatever strength you can that we are morally obligated to prevent the suffering of nonhuman life and work from there. Which is not the same as declaring this treatment of animals a wrong practice.

Belveroon, have you been reading carefully? I have not just declared. What makes you think I am just declaring when I go through great lengths explaining my thoughts with words such as "because" or "if" "due to" or "whence" or "when" or "so"? -- all words that use steps in reasoning out thoughts on issues -- not to mention my quizitivie throw back questions questioning and challenging the reasons of others who engage me. Clearly you can see I am in a dance of engagement with my opponants and not merely a detatched declaration. I even go out of my way to direct them by name, showing you that I am directly answering them. Please note all that and you may know that I need no primer on mechanics on debate.

[Captain Chaos]