Vegetarianism

[pahl]

Im not a vegetarian, but i have to admit i cant find good enough arguments against not being it, atleast me not being it. :eek:

Humans are animals, so why should any other animal be treated different then other humans? I belive humans are the same as animals, (and not plants) because i belive in the evulotion.

If your a theist then of course you dont agree, but otherwise i think that people who belive that humans are fundamentally different from other animals are just trying to escape their own mortality.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: pahl Im not a vegetarian, but i have to admit i cant find good enough arguments against not being it, atleast me not being it. :eek: Humans are animals, so why should any other animal be treated different then other humans? I belive humans are the same as animals, (and not plants) because i belive in the evulotion. If your a theist then of course you dont agree, but otherwise i think that people who belive that humans are fundamentally different from other animals are just trying to escape their own mortality.

Wouldn't that be an argument in favor of meat eating? Animals eat each other, after all.

[brien]

I have an idea that the vegans would force meat eaters to quit meat if they could do it. I also have an idea that no meat eater would ever force a vegan to eat meat. And that my friends, perhaps is the main difference between the two types of people. One reason I am gald to be a carnivore.

[brien]

Quote by: pahl Im not a vegetarian, but i have to admit i cant find good enough arguments against not being it, atleast me not being it. :eek: Humans are animals, so why should any other animal be treated different then other humans? I belive humans are the same as animals, (and not plants) because i belive in the evulotion. If your a theist then of course you dont agree, but otherwise i think that people who belive that humans are fundamentally different from other animals are just trying to escape their own mortality.

Humans are animals, so why should any other animal be treated different then other humans?

For one reason, by reason of our intelligence, we are on top of the food chain. I rather enjoy the choice.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin That still doesn`t answer CaptC`s "yes/no" question put to you. I think he has asked several times already -- right, CC?

Oh but I did earlier in this debate when we were arguing about the responsibility we have to cause animals to be born/killed by creating the market for it. I believe animals should be able to live, but as I have said in the past, if I were a cow or a chicken, I'd rather have the market there for me to be born in the first place, even if it were to mean I would have to die just to be fed to a human. If we ceased eating meat, the markets would cease to exist, causing no more breeding of these animals that some vegetarians are trying to "protect" but in fact, they are the ones that will lead to the demise of these animals, because having a life is better than not having a life at all.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Nerves are needed to feel what we define as pain. Plants do not have nerves. Animals do. How can they be the same then? Please direct us to a scientific site/journal/article respected amongst peers in the scientific community that states plants are "able to feel and to suffer" despite lacking the equipment to do so.

How do we know plants don't have different types of nerves than humans or animals? It'd make sense because plants are completely different than humans or animals. One could say that because plants have the ability to sense something touching it, that is one of the 5 senses we as humans poses. Touch. Because we can feel, we can suffer. So again, it makes sense to say that because plants have the ability to sense something touching it, it may have the ability to suffer.

Don't take my word for it though, read this:
Can Plants feel pain?
Q&A on bio.net

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Could you others please point out to Kubedawg that there is no scholarly or scientific evidence showing that plants feel pain and that therefore we are under no obligation to accept that in arguments -- since it is not proven -- even remotely not accepted by scientists. If you others could point this out to him, perhaps it would let us move on from this point and its absurdity that probably most are tired of seeing dragged up again and again.

Like I've stated before, just because something is not proven, and is widely accepted that it's true, does not make it so. Just because something is not accepted, does NOT make it UNtrue. It just means there is a positive and a negative, like everything else that is unproven. And no it is not neurotic to believe in a negative, as science has proven to be wrong in the past, and will most likely prove wrong in the future on many different subjects.

[pahl]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Wouldn't that be an argument in favor of meat eating? Animals eat each other, after all.

Yea, im not saying its wrong, or that there are no arguments for eating meat. Just saying that i dont think there's such a big difference between humans and animals.

Quote by: Brien For one reason, by reason of our intelligence, we are on top of the food chain. I rather enjoy the choice.

Yes, but some people are less intelligent then others, some are much less intelligent because of certain disorders or head trauma and such. And there are some highly intelligent animals (not quite as smart as humans though).
I recall seeing a documentary of a gorilla that was taught sign-language and could communicate with its keeper and even form new words from already known ones.

Point is, i dont think difference in intelligence is a valid point. But that you have to draw the line somewhere is, or you would have a hard time eating or doing anything. I just think that in the society i live in i could afford to draw the line, that distinction between whats immoral to kill and whats not, so that it includes animals too.

[Kamehameha34]

@SHW


There is one point that you haven't addressed; at least not that I've witnessed:

Your only objective argument is that the slaughter of animals for sustinence causes pain to the animals. I have acknowledged that, and I have a proposal: If someone perfected a system in which animals suffered minimally, or not at all in the harvesting process, would that satisfy your 'animals feel pain' argument?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos It is not inconsistent, it is complex. A variety of instincts combine with life experiences to determine our values. The manner in which this happens is complex, and unique to each person.

Yes, the complexity makes the outcome inconsistant according to each person -- hence "instinct" as it concerns protecting members of our own species is irrelevant.

I think you and I have gone over this "instinct" point before and it is clear that human instinct is hotly debated amongst scholars. Perhaps if we do have it, it is so weak that our will is constantly thwarting it and therefore that is what makes it so hard to identify in us. Some behaviourists claim that the only real instincts we display as a species may be those that are observed in infants e.g. sucking, and grasping.

Your feeling to protect the species is just that, a feeling -- it is not reason.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Humans cannot get around that we are a predatory species that has evolved such high intellect to better hunt down and cruelly disembowl an innocent animal. It's called survival.

I guess the same can be said about us being territorial and greedy with intent to increase territory if opportunity arises. Still, we seek to outlaw or prevent the means by which we traditionally have used to protect what we have or to take from others.

Reason, law, ethics, and morals are there to help us "get around" our predation of the weak.

If you want to be a vegetarian, fine, but don't tell me that it's mean to eat a steak.

No need for imperative grammar in a debate by the participants, GM. As you know it is unenforceable from your end. Let Admin issue the orders.

That said, it is more than mean -- it is morally and ethicaly wrong to feed the system that treats sentient animals as if they were machines. Have you looked into what the animals go through? "Mean" is something reserved for kids bullying one another on a playground. "Abhorrant" and "cruel" are better are more appropriate to describe the ingredients that went into the production of your steak.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: brien I have an idea that the vegans would force meat eaters to quit meat if they could do it. I also have an idea that no meat eater would ever force a vegan to eat meat. And that my friends, perhaps is the main difference between the two types of people. One reason I am gald to be a carnivore.

I have an idea that Abolitionists would force slave holders to release their slaves if they could do it. I also have an idea that no slave holder would ever force an Abolitionist to own slaves. And that my friends, perhaps is the main difference between the two types of people. One reason I am glad to be a slave holder.

The thing I like about "reason" is that: it is timeless and cuts across issues exposing the weaknesses or strengths of arguments on the foundations of reason. Historical backdrops are nice, too, you know... to bring color and crystalize the whole thing.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg if I were a cow or a chicken, I'd rather have the market there for me to be born in the first place, even if it were to mean I would have to die just to be fed to a human.

You make it seem so matter of factly and quite clean of misery: born, live, killed, eaten.

Those of you reading this, which would you prefer?:

1. Born into a system as a commodity, held in small cages/pens, crammed together, never permitted to satisfy any urge other than eat, piss, shit, or scream, held in amonia or mathane filled room all your life, have sensitive parts of your bodies, burned, snipped or ripped off without anethesia(sp?), have your young taken from you at the moment of birth or shortly after, deprived of natural socialization, fear the sun the first time you see it, wait in line as you smell and hear or see others in front of you being butchered, go through the butching process concious because you are at a slaughterhouse with a fast line speed and the knocker didn`t get you very well, hungup sidedown by one foot so that your weight pulls the leg out of its pelvic socket, legs cut off while still concious with a chainsaw or lowered into boiling vat alive to be drowned in boiling water etc...

2. Never born at all.

If we ceased eating meat, the markets would cease to exist, causing no more breeding of these animals that some vegetarians are trying to "protect" but in fact, they are the ones that will lead to the demise of these animals, because having a life is better than not having a life at all.

Our modern farm animals have no ecological contribution to the Earth for Earth`s sake. There is no suffering in extinction. I and I would guess most would prefer to NOT experience misery caused by exploitation from birth to death, and if it meant no life in the first place, then nothing would be missed except the misery.

Like I've stated before, just because something is not proven, and is widely accepted that it's true, does not make it so. Just because something is not accepted, does NOT make it UNtrue. It just means there is a positive and a negative, like everything else that is unproven. And no it is not neurotic to believe in a negative, as science has proven to be wrong in the past, and will most likely prove wrong in the future on many different subjects.

You are still using what is known as the "appeal to ignornance" argument. Look it up if you are not familiar with it. It may help one`s debating skills to be aware of it.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: pahl Point is, i dont think difference in intelligence is a valid point.

That`s right, Pahl. It isn`t. In fact, it never has been. After all, we don`t eat the stupid, retarded, or braindead amongst us.

What animal exploiters don`t want to clearly admit is that:

We do to animals what we do because we can.

It comes down to "might makes right," but wanting to pride ourselves on being above such a primitive system, we try to mix in a lot of hurdles that the animals just can`t clear. In effect, we define them as not being just like us so therefore we can do to them whatever we wish.

But, slowly, that is changing.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 @SHW There is one point that you haven't addressed; at least not that I've witnessed: Your only objective argument is that the slaughter of animals for sustinence causes pain to the animals. I have acknowledged that, and I have a proposal: If someone perfected a system in which animals suffered minimally, or not at all in the harvesting process, would that satisfy your 'animals feel pain' argument?

No, because you have not understood my argument.

My argument is based on the "principle of equal consideration of interests." Just as we have an interest in living our lives without interference of force, coercion, detention (which lead to pain, misery, suffering and exploitation), etc...and would not like it if someone imposed those things upon us, non-human animals also have an interest in living their lives as such and therefore we should not impose that upon them which we would not like another to impose upon us.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I believe we have an instinct to protect members of our species. You say it is not proven, but that does not mean it is not so. There are many things that are unproven but true.

Yes, but that is not "reason." And since it is just a "belief," it is not "proof" or any support for an argument. This almost sounds like Kubedawg`s argument that since we do not know that plants don`t feel some kind of pain different from our own, we must weigh it evenly with the scientific evidence that we do know. In the end, what you are putting forth with Kubedawg, albeit a different point, is the "appeal to ignorance" argument. That is flimsy thinking -- or at least in its use for debate.

How would we prove that we have instinct to protect other humans?

Don`t ask me. That is the person who believes it chore, not mine.

Though I do give you credit for qualifying your statement with the "I believe..." header. If my memory is correct, when you firts posited the point you did so as an absolute.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin You make it seem so matter of factly and quite clean of misery: born, live, killed, eaten. Those of you reading this, which would you prefer?: 1. Born into a system as a commodity, held in small cages/pens, crammed together, never permitted to satisfy any urge other than eat, piss, shit, or scream, held in amonia or mathane filled room all your life, have sensitive parts of your bodies, burned, snipped or ripped off without anethesia(sp?), have your young taken from you at the moment of birth or shortly after, deprived of natural socialization, fear the sun the first time you see it, wait in line as you smell and hear or see others in front of you being butchered, go through the butching process concious because you are at a slaughterhouse with a fast line speed and the knocker didn`t get you very well, hungup sidedown by one foot so that your weight pulls the leg out of its pelvic socket, legs cut off while still concious with a chainsaw or lowered into boiling vat alive to be drowned in boiling water etc... 2. Never born at all.

This is why we need to develop better treatment of the animals before they are killed. In fact, I know someone who works at a slaughterhouse and I've been there, and seen the process, and it's not at all how you described. Only a few are like how you described, at least all except poultry. The environment the pigs and cattle are in are clean and good, and often they are fed better than humans. From watching a couple almost unbearable videos of animals being harmed, it's still not enough to shake my opinion that most places aren't like that. What I see in those videos is propaganda for the most part. [/quote]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin You are still using what is known as the "appeal to ignornance" argument. Look it up if you are not familiar with it. It may help one`s debating skills to be aware of it.

So are you. Hypothetical situation. If scientists proved how plants can feel, and can suffer, then your appeal would be to ignorance all along, even with all the scientific studies to try and prove otherwise. Just because it's not been studied, or that we are not able to understand plants in that way, does not change the possibility that plants might have the ability to feel and suffer. Therefore, both our sides are known as the "appeal to ignorance" even with science leaning the table in your favor.

[another day]

Quote by: Waychel I hate the term, but my diet is what some people call "pescotarian" - meaning that the only meats I regularly consume are chicken and fish. I don't have any health or animal rights reasons for my diet. Chicken and fish are just the only two meats I have a taste for. If I'm going out to eat with someone though and they want steak, I always go along with it, because I do not want to be an inconveniance by being offputting. I find strictly vegetarian diets to be extremely unhealthy. Having your diet consist entirely of vegetables, fruits and grains is just as bad for your body as having it exist entirely of meat products. I don't know where people came up with the notion that depriving your body of the nutrients and proteins it needs from a certain foodgroup was "healthy". I think the real misconception among vegetarians is that they overlook the fact that what kills people is not meat, but an over-abundance of it accompanied by a lack of exercise.

Lol...no vegetarians eat only fruit veggies and grains...what do you think tofu is for? its high in protein. You can be a vegeterian and be just as healthy as a meat eater...you just have to be alot more conscious of your diet though. Its definitly a pain in the ass.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg This is why we need to develop better treatment of the animals before they are killed. In fact, I know someone who works at a slaughterhouse and I've been there, and seen the process, and it's not at all how you described. Only a few are like how you described, at least all except poultry. ... What I see in those videos is propaganda for the most part.

Slaughterhouses have one of the highest, if not THE highest worker turnover rate of all industries. It comes close to 90%. The work clearly gets to them.

Furthermore, slaughterhouses do not open their doors for the general public to see what is going on at their plants. If they have nothing to hide, why not let at least allow AWists in to monitor how the animals are killed?

Again, testimonials are weak support and no proof at all in debate.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin
You are still using what is known as the "appeal to ignornance" argument

So are you.

Huh? Where? Point it out.

If scientists proved how plants can feel, and can suffer, then your appeal would be to ignorance all along,...

Obviously Kubedawg, you are unaware as to what is meant by the "appeal to ignorance" argument or HOW IT IS attributed to the user. It is not or never is meant to be based on the future "if" and "then" construct and made to be hindsight.

It would be nice if the other mature debaters here could point this out to Kubedawg.

Therefore, both our sides are known as the "appeal to ignorance" ...

No, they are not. Yours is. If the "appeal to ignorance" were so loosely defined as you do, then every argument would be an appeal to ignorance because you are applying it to possibilities that may be proven in the future and then look back on an issue with hindsight. That is not an appeal to ignorance.

[Epistemologist]

I'm not a vegetarian per se but I always try to minimize my usage of meat. That is, I especially try not to eat pork and beef because they can be seen as impure and they are often causes of many medical problems e.g. tapeworm from cow meat, which is rather disgusting. I also don't like their taste. I like chicken, though, and I get lots of protein from that.

However, I'm not a crazy PETA extremist; I don't cry when I see pictures of slaughterhouses. Indeed, I think that humans are superior to animals. But still, if I don't really need to eat them, then what's the point?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin That`s right, Pahl. It isn`t. In fact, it never has been. After all, we don`t eat the stupid, retarded, or braindead amongst us.

The question of whether intelligence matters is a subjective value. Sentience is what I value highest. If I had to kill an animal, I would rather kill a mouse than bonobo. How about you?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos The question of whether intelligence matters is a subjective value. Sentience is what I value highest. If I had to kill an animal, I would rather kill a mouse than bonobo. How about you?

If the situation is one that where one must make a choice for whatever reason that is forcing us to do so, naturally I would choose to kill the animal I think is less sentient. Primates are highly self sentient and aware animals. While I don`t doubt mice are sentient, I would say it is a safe bet primates are more so.

However, since we are no situation in which we must make that decision between a mouse and a bonobo in our diets, that brings it merely to an "if" game. We can go around and construct them and they support nothing in the end except that people sometimes may have to make decisions of choice.

As for sentience, if I had to kill a concious person and a non-aware person in a vegetative state for whatever reason we could think of for the "if" game, I would most likely choose the person in the vegetative state to kill. How about you?