prince-Dari wrote:

AceEdwin: The point is that I value the lives of people, I don't value the lives of the animals going into my food that aren't endangered, so more animals dying for food makes no difference to me. It seems wasteful to just put animals in a bag and leave them to die though.

Swaffy agrees.

Ark is a caring soul.

Alternative example, go! How about the Bali Tiger?

Tigers weren't hunted for meat. They were only hunted for their fur by the Europeans, and the natives in self defense (wild tigers are one of the only animals that see humans as prey).

I live across a ranch that raises highland cattle. I've also seen dozens of ranches all across New Hampshire and hundreds across the entirety of New England. What you just described is just a stereotype of what large companies like Tyson or McDonalds do with their cattle.

The ranches that aren't owned by large companies don't keep their cattle indoors. In fact, they don't even need to feed them or give them water. The cattle get that themselves through natural grazing. Another benefit to this is that it defaults the need of using 10x the amount of food to produce meat due to the fact that we don't grow grass for food.

I won't deny shipping is an environmental cost. However, I only see this happening in cities. Now, I can't say anything about this (I don't live in a city like most of you guys do), but during the times we buy steak, it is always from a local butcher. I don't even remember the last time my family bought beef from a store.

I see us as very reliable partners in the animal kingdom. I've never seen us ditch a species due to them being obsolete. We still raise the same cattle, chickens, pigs, and dogs that we have for a long time. And even when they end up without a wide scale practical use (for example, dogs), we still end up being kind and giving them a home.

Then it turns into a "Last word in" contest.

I said moral logic, not morals in logic.

In a philosophy course, you learn that morals and logic can go hand in hand, can go separately, or it can go one way, or it could go the other (woah, I see quantum in there). However, during no time can they be considered the same thing (hence, no "Moral Logic"). They are both different parts of the subject at hand. Comparisons have nothing to do with either of these (it's more of rhetorics). Similies, analogies, and metaphors can be used to describe something in a very vague way. But these usually compare them to one or two parts of the subject, which leaves speculation to the entire other parts that are left open. This then makes a false view that the sides have an extreme liberal viewpoint.

It's commonly used in politic and religion to get massive amounts of gullible, radical supporters. However, outside of politics and religion, there aren't many of those people.

Alternative example, go! How about the Bali Tiger?

Indeed, the gases emitted by the animals themselves are substancial, but not game-changing. However, you fail to take into account the rest of the enviromental costs that animals cause. Clean water used in agriculture takes a fair amount of energy to produce and transport, and producing a ton of meat costs in the region of ten times what it would cost to produce the same amount of, say, wheat. Not to mention the energy cost of battery farming.

Ah, but what happens when suddenly humans think you are past your time. In a way, humanity has entered an entirely new stage of evolution, have we not? We've developed culture and technology, and using those creations, we evolve faster than any species on our planet currently (except maybe the common cold). What I'm saying is, we're pretty unreliable partners. One year, we'll stroke our dogs, the next year we'll nuke 'em, that sort of thing.

It's not forcing if you're both doing it, that's what I say.

Basically, I'm saying that you were right when you said morality had no basis in logic (that was you wasn't it, I can't remember exactly), so in a moral debate, all you can really do to change someone's mind is to compare, and use words in such a way to appeal straight to the superego.

"Words is important."

"Games is not""

And as a rebuttal, while a few of the dodos that died during the time were by human hunters. The Dodo bird went extinct mostly due to animals that we eventually stopped hunting (mostly boars and pigs) that ate their eggs.

So by that 'moral logic', it is okay to kill off certain minorities for a higher chance of survival?[/sarcastic example]

We've raised animals for thousands of years without any impact to the global temperature. While I won't deny that certain cattle do contribute a considerably large amount of methane to the atmosphere, the total impact compared to JUST the use of fossil fuels is estimated at about 8-13%. Not including all the other kinds of things that impact the globe.[/real reason]

Besides, most of our meat comes from fish, poultry, and wild animals. Cattle do not fit into such a large portion compared to any of these (I bet chicken alone is the largest percentile).

It isn't a poor idea. Domestication is a very great idea. Most of the species has a guarantee to survive comfortably without high stresses for survival, while we are provided with lesser conveniences. Dogs, chickens, and cattle all benefit from what we provide them (in fact, much more than the mundane things they provide us).

Comparing alternative viewpoints need to be moderate, otherwise you are forcing an opposing view to take a liberal stance against your view (and we all know how well that backfires in politics). However, what I am finding hard to understand is your last sentence.

You say you disagree that there is "more to a moral debate than comparisons and word games"?

Can you explain this further? I don't want to imply this if you meant something completely different.

As a better counter, if cows and other farm animals died out, we'd get a lot less methane in our atmosphere, a gas that increases the greenhouse effect at ten times the rate that carbon dioxide does. Global warming is a pretty big threat to all species. By keeping our farm animals, we are dooming lots of other species to death.

Global Warming is a MYTH made up by the con-artist media in an attempt to dumb us down.

Also, as a counter, if we hadn't eaten meat a long time ago, the dodo would still be alive.

As a better counter, if cows and other farm animals died out, we'd get a lot less methane in our atmosphere, a gas that increases the greenhouse effect at ten times the rate that carbon dioxide does. Global warming is a pretty big threat to all species. By keeping our farm animals, we are dooming lots of other species to death.

Besides, it's a poor idea to evolve in such a way that makes you reliant to the species whom changes the most (I know how evolution works, don't take it seriously).

Anyway, from what I think, you're never going to be able to do more in a moral argument than put your own views forward and challenge the views of others. If a guy says something is right, you can't prove him wrong. But you can bring up counter-examples that force consideration of alterative viewpoints right? That's all I'm doing. When I talk about globabl warming and health benefits and all that jazz, I'm not talking about morality really, am I? Not to everyone, at least. I'm talking about advantages and disadvantages, which works in a political assembly, but not when you're talking to a few individuals and trying to change their lives. So in essence, I dispute your insinuation that there is more to a moral debate than comparisons and word games.

You can't come into a moral debate like this with your only ammunition being those comparisons. How do you expect us to take that seriously? These things are not black and white, and that is the exact reason why there is no such thing as "Moral Logic". These kinds of word games don't prove anything, provide a horrible example of the situations at hand, and basically try to set the other person up for the same type of argument (which would be put into a vicious cycle until the debate become irrelevant). And, by result, makes the "Traditional" argument seem the more valid one (which in this case would be eating meat is okay). I don't want this kind of debate to fall into that kind of trap.

Now to get away from these word games, here is another reason eating meat is fine: Without our reliance on meat, the cow, chicken, and pig would be extinct. If we all stopped buying meat right now, dozens of animal species would die as a result of them needing to rely on us. Despite us taking the resources they create such as meat, eggs, or milk, we give them something that is more valuable than that: Health, warmth, food, survival.

Aceedwin wrote:

Not at all, but justifying something morally by saying that it happens a lot elsewhere is insane. That's the point I'm making. What's the difference between saying animals can be killed because they are being killed elsewhere, and saying Jeows can be killed because they're being killed in concentration camps?

Basically you missed the point. I wasn't equating humans to animals, I was simply applying your moral logic to another situation.

Moral logic is practically an oxymoron. This is like deciding pro-life vs pro-choice, whether suicide should be acceptable, whether or not people should be able to smoke, or whether offensive books should be banned at school.

It goes beyond a simple comparison. You can, by most arguments, apply the "Hitler Comparison" to almost anything to make your side look good. But, again, the analogy is still but a way to turn a moral issue into a black and white statement. Here is some pretty good information on this sort of thing:

Wait a second, didn't I reference Godwin's law in the original post that I made that comparison. I could've sworn I did. Oh well, the point still stands. If it makes you feel better, I'll make a non-Nazi version:

So by your moral logic, it's okay to kill a few people of a certain nationality for your own enjoyment if millions of those people are being slaughtered around the world.

Anyway, Dari made it seem to me that he believed animal killing was justified by the fact that it was happening on a great scale. The idea seems to be that morally wrong actions stop being wrong the more people do them. I wanted to see if he would accept that conclusion.

So your only empathetic interest in animals is based around a wish to uphold genetic diversity? Cool beans.

As to that last sentence, by buying any product, economically speaking, you are voting with your money to keep that product in production. By leaving the product, you are wasting some food. By taking it, you are making sure there will be another one in its place the following day.

Actually their chicken nuggets are real chicken now. I know because I remember seeing the advert a while ago "Now made with 100% real chicken breast"

The funny thing is you actually believed them!!!!!

The point is that I value the lives of people, I don't value the lives of the animals going into my food that aren't endangered, so more animals dying for food makes no difference to me.

*sigh*

the Native American practices i mentioned before are sounding better now. they showed a lot of respect for the things they killed, they offer/ed thanks to both their deity and to the animal itself for giving its life, then made sure the body went to good use, like using parts for clothes, weapons etc etc. (in addition to a deep respect for animals to begin with, don't think it was limited to hunting/food rituals)

i'm not saying that people need to go back to something like that (but i personally/honestly wouldn't mind that) but it's just something nice to think about. it seems wrong to be so apathetic to a being that gave its life so you could just eat it in one of your thousands of meals.

AceEdwin: The point is that I value the lives of people, I don't value the lives of the animals going into my food that aren't endangered, so more animals dying for food makes no difference to me. It seems wasteful to just put animals in a bag and leave them to die though.

Swaffy agrees.

Aceedwin: The point is that I value the lives of people, I don't value the lives of the animals going into my food that aren't endangered, so more animals dying for food makes no difference to me. It seems wasteful to just put animals in a bag and leave them to die though.

Fine we'll go to macdonalds, I mean lets be honest you can't class that as meat.

I prefer Wendys. Can we go there instead and get a Baconater?