Veganism: Is it morally wrong to eat/kill animals?

[squidmaster]

and every word you have said in this thread truly shows what a complete loony you are!!!

:loco:

^ he's since adopted a new sense of superiority by condemning the actions which have made us what we are. Apparently it's ethically wrong to not do a 360 on what we evolved to do.

evolved? evolved?!?!??! thanks for bringing your expertise into this thread. we were lost without you!

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
or you could also go to http://google.com

This one.

Do you believe in objective morality? Are right and wrong absolute? If so, what is the basis for this? Given that you already referred to morality's subjectivity previously, your grating personality and condescension is misguided: would you be this annoying in a conversation about which color is prettiest?

The other thing is that on the subject of anatomy, like most vegans I've met, you commit an obvious fallacy by comparing humans to either carnivores or herbivores and ignoring the existence of omnivores. We belong to that third group.

There's not much about you to suggest you're not simply in the selfish pursuit of the nice feeling of moral superiority.

the assertion of relativism/subjectivism is that no one is ever wrong or right, in consequence this means that no deed can ever be considered wrong or right. according to this you as someone perpetuating this bold but ultimately shortsighted claim, can not be wrong or right either, throwing every form of logical consistency right out the window, begging the question as why i should even bother listening to you.

you can’t rule out the existence of validity within the realm of relativism as relativism validates all ethical beliefs by default and at the same time eradicates any perceived incompatibility between them, meaning the ethics of a racist become compatible with those of an anti-racist, the ethics of a child molester become compatible with those of an anti-child molester, the ethics of a rapist become compatible with those of an anti-rapist etc. sounds great doesn’t it?

utilizing the reductio ad absurdum, this means that should you be molested, raped, tortured, held captive forever, beaten, partially eaten, drugged or stolen from - the perpetrator was neither right nor wrong in doing so, meaning any objections against said actions from you will be pointless as they are just a reflection of your opinions about not wanting to experience any of these things.

the perpetrator can not be judged or held accountable for their actions and you won’t be protected as relativism puts the abused on the same level as the abuser, attesting equal validity to both of their claims, judging neither.

relativism claims to take no ethical stance, while taking an ethical stance.

the core of your reasoning is based on a non sequitur fallacy, as the mere fact that different people will fundamentally differ in their attitudes towards things, can not, by itself, entail that there is no ethical appraisals whatsoever which are more justified than others.

nor can you conclude from this that all ethical reasonings or methods are of equal justification. in order to be consequential with your reasoning you’d have to brush off logic as subjective too, proving you don’t know what science means.

the fact that individuals, cultures, societies do differ also does not mean that there are no universally accepted values, or at least something like a uniformity of disproval of certain actions, at all or that the possibility to further expand on them does not exist.

promise breaking as well as certain acts of cruelty and even homicide are almost universally frowned upon, which is sensible as social cohesion is a necessary condition in order for human societies to survive.

anyway, given a minimal degree of open mindedness and rational discourse, even a disagreement over principles can be resolved.

i don’t get why this even has to be argued when subjectivism is not even a coherent theory to begin with, it’s circular reasoning:

i’m right, because i think i’m right.

why is it right?

because i think i’m right. duh.

makes so much sense, i’ll go back to eat a steak sandwich. you’ve truly shown me the light, not.

in closing, your claim that moral/ethical issues are only matters of subjective opinion with no other justification begs the question as why i should consider this to be a serious retort to my ethics at all. if it lacks relevance, it can’t serve as counter-argument to anyone who would provide a justification for their ethical stance.

if it’s intended to destroy all ethics but your own, then it becomes its own ethics and thus begs further justification other than “it’s my subjective opinion that all ethical views are subjective”.

moral relativism/ethical subjectivism remains defeatist bullshit that perpetuates oppression while hindering progression. it is little more than a pseudo enlightened cop-out of everything you could be held accountable for. hipster philosophy for sociopaths.

[joshh]

I'm a vegan now BECAUSE of my exposure to animal farming.

May this site educate the pretentious out of you.

http://www.hunter-gatherer.com/blog/there-no-such-thing-vegan

[slammin.e28]

When I see the thread title, I read it as "Vaginaism..."

Lawl....I find that ironic.

[squidmaster]

No, it's unhealthy to eat meat more than X amount. It would also be unhealthy to eat a diet comprised of 100% rice or 100% lettuce. Understand?

Uhh,
"any amount and any type -- appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/13/health/la-he-red-meat-20120313

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/14/news/la-heb-red-meat-why-bad-20120314

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/myth-or-fact-red-meat-is-unhealthy.html

not to mention all of the moral quandaries I've already discussed.

UNDERSTAND?

[future rs]

Yes it IS unhealthy AND bad to eat meat. What monkeys, or any animal, eats or once ate has absolutely no bearing on us as we OBVIOUSLY think it's crazy and wrong to eat humans, yet humans were well recorded cannibals. We have a choice and we have morals. Scapegoating these onto something else is a lazy way of not thinking about the impacts that your choices make on your surrounds.

Bringing morals into this? Your argument just became an opinion and not fact based.

And your comment about "Scapegoating these onto something else is a lazy way of not thinking about the impacts that your choices make on your surrounds." is extremely ignorant to how I live my life. but thanks for weighing in your OPINION.

Oh and you may want to hurry and get rid of that BMW 5 series you own. LEATHER INTERIOR!!!!!! :giggle:

[squidmaster]

May this site educate the pretentious out of you.

http://www.hunter-gatherer.com/blog/...ch-thing-vegan

abstaining from all animals products that I can (including no refined sugars unless specified that no bone was used) is doing a huge load more for everyone and everything than you'll ever accomplish by continuing your current life choices of devouring non-human animals.

[streetwaves]

Uhh,
"any amount and any type -- appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/13/health/la-he-red-meat-20120313

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/14/news/la-heb-red-meat-why-bad-20120314

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/myth-or-fact-red-meat-is-unhealthy.html

not to mention all of the moral quandaries I've already discussed.

UNDERSTAND?

Tell me: do vegans live longer and healthier lives than that of the elders on Okinawa?

[JasonC]

I must be really going to hell, now that i ate a deer heart last week!




Not going to lie, it was good :eeek:

[squidmaster]

Bringing morals into this? Your argument just became an opinion and not fact based.

And your comment about "Scapegoating these onto something else is a lazy way of not thinking about the impacts that your choices make on your surrounds." is extremely ignorant to how I live my life. but thanks for weighing in your OPINION.

Oh and you may want to hurry and get rid of that BMW 5 series you own. LEATHER INTERIOR!!!!!! :giggle:

I didn't perpetuate the sale of leather. I didn't contribute to the killing of that animal. I bought a second hand item at a lower cost to me and the planet than buying a new car.

please explain to me how your ignorant scapegoating is a great idea? explain to me how you're correct and I'm wrong rather than just saying "you're wrong because bacon!"

ignorant to how you live your life? you mean I don't know how or why you eat meat? that's dumb. that's really dumb. it's obvious that your argument is just automated self defense because you're too afraid to look at your life choices constructively.

[future rs]

everything with a grain of salt.

"Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine who wasn't involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail."

[joshh]

abstaining from all animals products that I can (including no refined sugars unless specified that no bone was used) is doing a huge load more for everyone and everything than you'll ever accomplish by continuing your current life choices of devouring non-human animals.

That's what's so funny about it. Even the American Indian was very healthy. Guess what, they ate meat. It's lunacy. You've chosen a path based on opinion not fact for what's "morally right". Not even what's more or less healthy.
Morality is subjective....lol.

[streetwaves]

:loco:


evolved? evolved?!?!??! thanks for bringing your expertise into this thread. we were lost without you!

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
or you could also go to http://google.com

the assertion of relativism/subjectivism is that no one is ever wrong or right, in consequence this means that no deed can ever be considered wrong or right. according to this you as someone perpetuating this bold but ultimately shortsighted claim, can not be wrong or right either, throwing every form of logical consistency right out the window, begging the question as why i should even bother listening to you.

you can’t rule out the existence of validity within the realm of relativism as relativism validates all ethical beliefs by default and at the same time eradicates any perceived incompatibility between them, meaning the ethics of a racist become compatible with those of an anti-racist, the ethics of a child molester become compatible with those of an anti-child molester, the ethics of a rapist become compatible with those of an anti-rapist etc. sounds great doesn’t it?

utilizing the reductio ad absurdum, this means that should you be molested, raped, tortured, held captive forever, beaten, partially eaten, drugged or stolen from - the perpetrator was neither right nor wrong in doing so, meaning any objections against said actions from you will be pointless as they are just a reflection of your opinions about not wanting to experience any of these things.

the perpetrator can not be judged or held accountable for their actions and you won’t be protected as relativism puts the abused on the same level as the abuser, attesting equal validity to both of their claims, judging neither.

relativism claims to take no ethical stance, while taking an ethical stance.

the core of your reasoning is based on a non sequitur fallacy, as the mere fact that different people will fundamentally differ in their attitudes towards things, can not, by itself, entail that there is no ethical appraisals whatsoever which are more justified than others.

nor can you conclude from this that all ethical reasonings or methods are of equal justification. in order to be consequential with your reasoning you’d have to brush off logic as subjective too, proving you don’t know what science means.

the fact that individuals, cultures, societies do differ also does not mean that there are no universally accepted values, or at least something like a uniformity of disproval of certain actions, at all or that the possibility to further expand on them does not exist.

promise breaking as well as certain acts of cruelty and even homicide are almost universally frowned upon, which is sensible as social cohesion is a necessary condition in order for human societies to survive.

anyway, given a minimal degree of open mindedness and rational discourse, even a disagreement over principles can be resolved.

i don’t get why this even has to be argued when subjectivism is not even a coherent theory to begin with, it’s circular reasoning:


makes so much sense, i’ll go back to eat a steak sandwich. you’ve truly shown me the light, not.

in closing, your claim that moral/ethical issues are only matters of subjective opinion with no other justification begs the question as why i should consider this to be a serious retort to my ethics at all. if it lacks relevance, it can’t serve as counter-argument to anyone who would provide a justification for their ethical stance.

if it’s intended to destroy all ethics but your own, then it becomes its own ethics and thus begs further justification other than “it’s my subjective opinion that all ethical views are subjective”.

moral relativism/ethical subjectivism remains defeatist bullshit that perpetuates oppression while hindering progression. it is little more than a pseudo enlightened cop-out of everything you could be held accountable for. hipster philosophy for sociopaths.

When given a strawman to attack, you really go for it. I never said I was a relativist.

The point is this: do you believe that morality is objective? What is the moral objection to the bare act of painlessly killing a wild animal and causing it no suffering?

[squidmaster]

Tell me: do vegans live longer and healthier lives than that of the elders on Okinawa?

you mean okinawa where sintoism and veganism first began in japan and spread? right.

"While modern Japanese people have started to incorporate more beef into their diets, traditional diets still focus on plant-based proteins, particularly tofu, which is low in saturated fat and rich in calcium.

Read more: http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt_200/201_eating_well.html#ixzz2CJJtX7xn"

"Japanese people don’t eat nearly as much red meat. [...]Less Milk, Butter, Dairy: Most Japanese people are lactose intolerant. In fact, people who can drink milk after becoming an “adult” are mutants anyways. People aren’t really meant to do dairy their whole life."

http://www.tofugu.com/2010/10/06/why-do-japanese-people-live-so-long/

also:
"Generally, the traditional diet of the islanders was 10-20% lower in calories than the Japanese average and contained 300% of the green/yellow vegetables. Although the traditional Japanese diet included large quantities of rice, in Okinawa, rice was consumed in smaller amounts and the staple was instead the sweet potato. The Okinawan diet has only 25% of the sugar and 75% of the grains of the average Japanese dietary intake.[1] The traditional diet also includes a relatively small amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake). Pork was highly valued, and every part of the pig was eaten, including internal organs. However, pork was primarily eaten on holidays, and the daily diet was mainly plant based.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

so the people of okinawa live longer because of their mostly plant based diets? CRAZY!
have any real arguments for me?

[streetwaves]

you mean okinawa where sintoism and veganism first began in japan and spread? right.

"While modern Japanese people have started to incorporate more beef into their diets, traditional diets still focus on plant-based proteins, particularly tofu, which is low in saturated fat and rich in calcium.

Read more: http://www.askmen.com/sports/foodcourt_200/201_eating_well.html#ixzz2CJJtX7xn"

"Japanese people don’t eat nearly as much red meat. [...]Less Milk, Butter, Dairy: Most Japanese people are lactose intolerant. In fact, people who can drink milk after becoming an “adult” are mutants anyways. People aren’t really meant to do dairy their whole life."

http://www.tofugu.com/2010/10/06/why-do-japanese-people-live-so-long/

also:
"Generally, the traditional diet of the islanders was 10-20% lower in calories than the Japanese average and contained 300% of the green/yellow vegetables. Although the traditional Japanese diet included large quantities of rice, in Okinawa, rice was consumed in smaller amounts and the staple was instead the sweet potato. The Okinawan diet has only 25% of the sugar and 75% of the grains of the average Japanese dietary intake.[1] The traditional diet also includes a relatively small amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake). Pork was highly valued, and every part of the pig was eaten, including internal organs. However, pork was primarily eaten on holidays, and the daily diet was mainly plant based.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_diet

so the people of okinawa live longer because of their mostly plant based diets? CRAZY!
have any real arguments for me?

You are fucking retarded. The whole point is that you said any amount greatly increases risk of death. The Okinawans eat a plant-based diet with small amount of meat... like I do.

The point again is that too much meat is bad, just like too much anything is bad. God damn you're an imbecile.

Show me proof that pure vegans live longer than the Okinawans elders and you'll have a point.

[iamsam]

squidbrain, do you also not drive cars? what about plastic (petroleum based) products? Do you use those? You must be on a computer made of wood right now I guess...