Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

Aceedwin · Jul 25, 2011 4:58 PM

"Words is important."

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.

G-Man_93 · Jul 25, 2011 5:20 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

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.

Neotyguy40 · Jul 25, 2011 7:48 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

"Words is important."

"Games is not""

Aceedwin wrote:

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

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.

Aceedwin wrote:

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.

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).

Aceedwin wrote:

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).

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).

Aceedwin wrote:

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.

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.

JazzJackrabbit · Jul 25, 2011 8:34 PM

I would like to propose a solution to the methane problem. We could harvest the methane coming from the cattle (like we do at landfills), and use it as a renewable fuel. Methane burns cleaner than oil and coal, so it's like killing two birds with one stone.

Aceedwin · Jul 26, 2011 10:04 AM

Oh I don't know about that. Depends on your definition.

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.

Neotyguy40 · Jul 26, 2011 3:03 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

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).

Aceedwin wrote:

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.

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.

Aceedwin wrote:

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.

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.

Aceedwin wrote:

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

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

Aceedwin wrote:

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.

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.

Latias fan · Jul 26, 2011 3:10 PM

Swaffy wrote:

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.

Aceedwin · Jul 26, 2011 3:24 PM

All right, I can't go on. There's only so many rebuttals a man can take.

#201 Jul 25, 2011 4:58 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#202 Jul 25, 2011 5:20 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#203 Jul 25, 2011 7:48 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#204 Jul 25, 2011 8:34 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#205 Jul 26, 2011 10:04 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#206 Jul 26, 2011 3:03 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#207 Jul 26, 2011 3:10 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#208 Jul 26, 2011 3:24 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

Board footer