If you care about animals and the environment, then it makes no sense to needlessly harm them. Don't you think it's fucked up to harm an animal for pleasure? Michael Vick fought dogs for pleasure and we all hate him for it. Why are people who buy animal products for pleasure any better than him? The animals in animal agriculture are treated worse. What's the difference?Fedoras said:its cool if your into being vegan and saving animals and shit
but imma stick to my usual diet, also a vegan way of life would cost much more in the area i live in than just buying my usual foods
Bears, lions, tigers and snakes have no moral agency and they need to eat meat. We know it's wrong to needlessly harm others for pleasure and it isn't necessary for us. If animals morally matter, then you cannot harm them without a compelling reason. Appealing to nature is not a compelling reason, it's a logical fallacy.Agony said:Animals that are carnivores eat other animals... it's in our nature. It's in a bears nature (they eat fish). It's in a Lion's nature. A tiger's nature. A snake... Human. It's simply nature itself. Try to convince a Lion to go vegan.
However, I'll still probably never eat hotdogs because of the way they kill them. Don't like 'em much anyway.
Agony said:Animals that are carnivores eat other animals... it's in our nature. It's in a bears nature (they eat fish). It's in a Lion's nature. A tiger's nature. A snake... Human. It's simply nature itself. Try to convince a Lion to go vegan.
However, I'll still probably never eat hotdogs because of the way they kill them. Don't like 'em much anyway.
Everyones argument to me is ''we're meant to eat meat cause other animals do.''Cann!bal said:Bears, lions, tigers and snakes have no moral agency and they need to eat meat. We know it's wrong to needlessly harm others for pleasure and it isn't necessary for us. If animals morally matter, then you cannot harm them without a compelling reason. Appealing to nature is not a compelling reason, it's a logical fallacy.
Do you think you can justify consuming animal products knowing it's unsustainable and is needlessly destroying the planet? Isn't the most logical conclusion that we transition to a sustainable model that doesn't destroy the planet - that model being veganism? If you recognize we should and that we have a duty to transition, then why do you think you're void of responsibility to take on that duty to go vegan?
What do you mean? The other animals are slaughtered just as terribly.
https://youtu.be/ju7-n7wygP0
It doesn't matter if you think it's permissible to kill animals because if you claim to even remotely care about animals or the planet then it makes no sense to exploit, torture and murder them for pleasure and needlessly harm the planet knowing it is not sustainable and incredibly destructive.Professor said:[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]First off, thank you for changing the tone in your OP. It's much less accusatory/offensive and more so a presentation of why you choose to be a vegan--a respectable way to introduce a debate. The following excerpt is from the Bible and explains why a lot of people, including myself, see no harm in eating animals.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]- Genesis 9:2-3[/font]
[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]It's all fine and dandy if you don't want to eat at Texas Roadhouse, I'm more than happy to eat your helping. I'm all about getting that protein![/font]
I would have said the same thing when I was non-vegan. That doesn't really mean anything. Did you watch the first video I linked in the OP? Put yourself in their shoes, watch it and tell me if that's morally acceptable.old said:my moral compass tells me there's nothing wrong with eating this fine slab of medium-rare meat on my plate. I do enjoy those "staple vegan foods" you mentioned as well, though! Glad you're passionate about something.
Please, enough with the hyperbolism. There are way more pressing issues than whether I have hamburger or lettuce for dinner. It DOES matter whether I think it's permissible because that's why I eat it. Sure, it's worth making adjustments if an animal is being "tortured", but are you even considering the devastating unbalances that would occur if everyone went vegan? Probably not because that's not in the nature of bigotry. The effects would be far worse than if we continue to have pork chops and steak. [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]We have a moral responsibility to not harm other HUMANS. Dietary needs sound pretty compelling to me. You believe too much of what you hear lmao.[/font]Cann!bal said:It doesn't matter if you think it's permissible to kill animals because if you claim to even remotely care about animals or the planet then it makes no sense to exploit, torture and murder them for pleasure and needlessly harm the planet knowing it is not sustainable and incredibly destructive.
We have a moral responsibility to not harm others or the planet without a compelling reason and pleasure cannot constitute a compelling reason. You have no choice but to be vegan if you are to be a decent human being.
That's not how supply and demand works and all plants have protein.
Animal agriculture is the leading cause of global warming, species extinction, world hunger, habitat destruction, ocean dead zones and deforestation. 150,000,000,000 animals are exploited, tortured and murdered each year due to animal agriculture. And consuming animal products is destroying public health. I challenge you to find something more pressing than animal product consumption. Regardless, even if there was, it doesn't mean they're no longer issues that need to be addressed.Professor said:Please, enough with the hyperbolism. There are way more pressing issues than whether I have hamburger or lettuce for dinner. It DOES matter whether I think it's permissible because that's why I eat it. Sure, it's worth making adjustments if an animal is being "tortured", but are you even considering the devastating unbalances that would occur if everyone went vegan? Probably not because that's not in the nature of bigotry. The effects would be far worse than if we continue to have pork chops and steak. [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]We have a moral responsibility to not harm other HUMANS. Dietary needs sound pretty compelling to me. You believe too much of what you hear lmao.[/font]
Lol don't even start on supply and demand, you really don't want to get into economics with me.
"That's not how supply and demand works" What are you even referring to??
Cann!bal said:Animal agriculture is the leading cause of global warming, species extinction, world hunger, habitat destruction, ocean dead zones and deforestation. 150,000,000,000 animals are exploited, tortured and murdered each year due to animal agriculture. And consuming animal products is destroying public health. I challenge you to find something more pressing than animal product consumption. Regardless, even if there was, it doesn't mean they're no longer issues that need to be addressed.
I explicitly just demonstrated it doesn't matter if your god thinks it's permissible, because if you claim to remotely care about animals or the planet, then it makes no sense to needlessly harm them or destroy the planet.
The world is not going vegan overnight. It took white people hundreds of years to realize it's wrong to enslave black people. Another hundred to get equal rights and they're still discriminated against. Why would the world suddenly go vegan and realize it's wrong to needlessly harm animals and destroy the planet? That makes no sense. Stop trying to strawman me, dude. It's such a waste of time.
We clearly don't have a moral responsibility to not harm only human animals if you think it's wrong to harm a dog, cat, dolphin, elephant, etc. And you even elaborated it's wrong to torture them, so you're just contradicting yourself. Like I said in the OP, they either morally matter or they don't. There's no in between. If they matter, then we cannot harm them without a compelling reason. If they don't matter, then it's okay to treat them however we want.
We don't need animal products to live, so no - you're wrong.
http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/Professor said:Hmm, perhaps correlation is a better term for many of those variables you mentioned. Unless you can provide credible data or a scientific journal, I'm going to assume correlation, not causation, since global warming isn't even proven to be real. You throw the term "torture" around quite loosely...
The fact that you just compared eating meat to enslaving an entire race...
You aren't debating a 12-year-old. You can throw empathetic terms such as "needless killing" and "torture" as much as you want, but I want to see a scientific journal to back your reasoning. I know what you're arguing for, and I didn't contradict myself at all--I said torture was wrong as any morally conscientious individual(s) would agree. Harvesting to nourish our bodies, however, is a whole new subject. Despite your efforts to connect the terms, they aren't mutually exclusive.
There are so many things that you use every day which have traces of animals in them to some degree.
You are such a joke. First off, "cowspiracy.com" is not a scientific article lmfao. I actually find it extremely humorous that you would cite "Cowspiracy" as a credible scientific, peer edited source. I can imagine a bunch of 35-year-old high school dropouts running from butcher shop to butcher shop with their picket signs and Kodak cameras. Secondly, thanks for linking me to NASA's climate change page, but when they mention agriculture as a contributing factor to climate change, it's a much broader term than just limited to butchery. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that butchery is a very small sector as it pertains to climate change, IF ANY.Cann!bal said:http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Watch this video. (And if you're too cowardly to watch it then ask yourself, "If it's not good enough for my eyes then how is it good enough for my stomach?" It is torture. I am not using it loosely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju7-n7wygP0
Being offended by my comparison doesn't mean it's wrong. Explain why it is wrong.
You said we don't have a moral responsibility to take care of non-human animals but also exclaimed we should not torture them. That's a contradiction. They either matter morally or they don't. If they matter morally we cannot justify harming them in the absence of a compelling reason and you have no reason except pleasure and pleasure cannot constitute a compelling reason to harm others.
It's murder, not harvesting. Don't try to sugarcoat it and make it pretty and nice. We don't need animal products. They are destroying the planet; they are awful for our health; and they are attained by exploiting, torturing and murdering innocent animals. The world is a better place without them.
We live in a non-vegan world where animal exploitation is rampant and widespread. It is impossible to be 100% vegan at this moment in time but this in no way creates a quota so you can needlessly harm others for pleasure.
It's a movie, not a scientific article? Every single one of their claims come from a scientific peer reviewed source. Watch the movie already so you don't keep speaking out of your ass. cowspiracy.com/factsProfessor said:You are such a joke. First off, "cowspiracy.com" is not a scientific article lmfao. I actually find it extremely humorous that you would cite "Cowspiracy" as a credible scientific, peer edited source. I can imagine a bunch of 35-year-old high school dropouts running from butcher shop to butcher shop with their picket signs and Kodak cameras. Secondly, thanks for linking me to NASA's climate change page, but when they mention agriculture as a contributing factor to climate change, it's a much broader term than just limited to butchery. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that butchery is a very small sector as it pertains to climate change, IF ANY.
It's food--nourishment your body needs in order to sustain and thrive. Don't put words in my mouth, I never said we didn't have a moral responsibility to take care of non-humans. I said we have a duty of care to humanity. You're a fool for placing yourself at the same level as a swine. [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]You try so hard to "debate" yet always fall short of doing so. You don't debate, you mindlessly blabber misconstrued hearsay and expect to be respected for it. I would also like to point out that I've successfully manipulated you into resorting back to using pitiful tactics littered by wild accusations and no actual fact-based level-headed debate.[/font]
Awesome, dude. What got you to go vegan?Revo said:Vegan for almost 2 Weeks and i never felt better!
Chaos is eternal. Slavery, rape, murder, war, etc. will always happen but that doesn't mean it's okay to needlessly perpetuate violence. We know harming others for pleasure is wrong and we care about animals and the planet, so it makes no sense to harm them.Simple said:Yeah, but if we go vegan that doesn't mean the suffering of animals will stop because it won't. What do you say to someone who wants to go vegan, but they have no efforts due to the fact not all animal suffering will be gone, @Cann!bal?
Cann!bal said:You're honestly fucking retarded. I don't get why people act like you're smart. You deny climate change, tote your Bible as an argument, and you think pleasure is a compelling reason to abuse others. You aren't even remotely smart.
Get off the internet if you can't take insults or stop acting like a helpless victim and man the fuck up.Professor said:I’m so fucking sick of you thinking you can say that type of shit to me and it be okay. I neither have the time nor the inclination to continue tolerating your insults and childish temper tantrums. I don’t even know why you post in the debate/philosophy section. You don't listen with the intent to understand; you listen with the intent to reply. Putting aside veganism, sexual fluidity... all the things that you hold dear... let's consider one simple fact: no opinion, ideology, theory, nor conceptualization of yours will ever have any impact on my life, no matter how much you sit here and insult me. I'm the director of my life and you have no role in it.
How dare you have the audacity to scorn me simply for not being vegan as you are, especially after I gave a brief but very reasonable rationalization for why not? You so blindly dismissed the Bible passage as a silly standard of ideology, yet here you are arguing about an ideology of your own preference. Who the hell are you to say which one is okay and which one is not?
How dare you have the audacity to lecture me because you see yourself as a self-appointed autocrat with the right to set the moral and ethical standards by which we are to also abide? In case you weren't aware, you're just 1 person in a world populated by 7.3 billion. Neither myself nor any of the other 7 billion+ people gives even the slightest degree of concern over how you would like to live your life. It’s a big world and you’re nothing more than a meager ant, so you can spend as much time as you want on a web forum to ramble your grievances. It doesn’t matter. The line is crossed when you start condemning me for not being a vegan like you, which you’ve made it clear that somehow not being like you is what is what makes me moronic, as you’ve stated multiple times when I disagree with you. Liberate yourself, scumbag.
How dare you have the fucking audacity to insult my intelligence because I won’t bear credence upon the joke you consider to be a “factual source”? Who the fuck cites cowspiracy.com as a great source of facts? You would’ve been called out and extensively humiliated by the professor, at the very least, for pulling shit like that in college. You’ve had the audacity to attack the principles and virtues which structure my being, attacked my lifestyle for no other reason I can see other than differing from yours, and now you’re insulting my intellect. LOL YOU think YOU have the right to insult MY intelligence hahaha? You clown, we aren’t even in the same league. You’re not my peer. I’m on the Dean's List studying law at a prestigious university, as well as having made our D1 baseball team, meanwhile you sit on your ass criticizing my diet, misconstruing my words when I try to talk civilly with you, and insult my intellect when I disagree with you, yet the highest level of education you've mustered the ability to complete is fucking middle school.
Never again are you to make the mistake of believing you have any degree of input in my life choices.
Never again are you to make the mistake of insulting my intelligence.
Never again are you to make the mistake of telling me what my body does and does not need in order to sustain. I find my limits and I push my body beyond them each and every day. I essentially live in a perpetual state of discomfort, getting 4-5 hours of sleep at night at most and pull 2-4 all nighters per week. Add what I told you in the previous paragraph. You don’t have the slightest clue of what it takes to develop a sickening work ethic and what my body needs to sustain that level of extreme activity for so long without crashing. No, I could not remove meat from my diet and sustain the life I have passionately chosen to live.
If there's one thing for certain in this whole ordeal, it's that you are the perfect person to advocate for the matter-- you're no more worth arguing with than the swine you defend as an equal to yourself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?