Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

Clock-la · Jul 21, 2011 7:07 PM

I eat meat and im happy to, but i know vergiterians and i habve no issue with them, but my other friend sophie oddly she just feels like she MUST hate them ._. she's on odd child

Neotyguy40 · Jul 21, 2011 7:12 PM

ontels wrote:

Dosent that make you feel bad? That you would end a life that could have cone on for many years just for a meal that you could get without killing?

Despite popular belief...

A single animal does give more than one meal. My father shot a 275 lb white tailed deer last winter.

We are still eating it today. We haven't even needed to buy any steak for the past half year.

I would say the average deer feeds us with a little over a hundred servings. Of course, we are a 4 person family, so it won't last that long, but my point is the same.

Aceedwin · Jul 21, 2011 7:21 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

Time for you to come up with a new argument than just using condescending words like "illogical" or "hedonistic". It doesn't prove anything, and anyone can just say "Using a toilet is illogical", or "There is no reason to go into space", or "Playing video games is completely hedonistic."
You would have doctors prescribe meat for everyone who needs it? Sounds like a waste of time. I think the majority of the world has been on a sports team at least once in their life. Not to mention everyone who is underweight or has an eating disorder. That will add up to be much more than "less than 1%".
Economics 101: If that much more food was made, there would be a huge amount of supply, and prices would drop. This would cause many farmers to go bankrupt due to them needing to sell their produce at a much lower price. This would cause less farms and supply and demand would eventually balance itself into the point we have now. Only effect this would have is many farms would go out of business. The only thing that could save hunger is by donations or the country becomes wealthier. Extra food production will follow in it's heels, not the other way around.

1. What other words can I use to describe actions that endanger one's own health, as well as the wellbeing of one's species?

2. That was more than anything just a little supposing. If you want a better plan, how about this. We genetically engineer plants to produce more protein and fat. Boom, problem solved.

3. Except I thought of that. Biofuels, as I said. We have a lot of use for the land we have. Some people who had lifestock could easily go into other uses of land. If the whole carbon economy actually was taken seriously, we could have people who buy land to let it become woodland.

prince_Dari wrote:

EeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeNOPE.
Think of it this way;animals get eaten in nature all the time, most of the time it is out of necessity, sure, but what difference does it make? Animals get eaten anyway, what difference does a few more make?

You know what, you're right. And by that same, completely correct and sensible logic, the Nazi officer who shot a Jew in the face for fun during the holocaust was completely fine to do so. After all, six million Jews were being killed, so what difference does one more make.

Lol, Godwin's law.

And Stormy, no I'm not actually a vegetarian. I know, hypocritical, but I'm too lazy to change my habits. I think I might at some point, but not for now.

Stormy · Jul 21, 2011 7:24 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

1. What other words can I use to describe actions that endanger one's own health, as well as the wellbeing of one's species?

What? How? If anything, wouldn't refusing to eat meat endanger your health? And actually, didn't you just admit that it doesn't help our species, since you'd need to come up with a "solution" to fix the economic consequences and all?

2. That was more than anything just a little supposing. If you want a better plan, how about this. We genetically engineer plants to produce more protein and fat. Boom, problem solved.

First of all, this needs to actually be possible. Is it? Second, that would be fairly expensive for the farmers, wouldn't it?

Aceedwin · Jul 21, 2011 7:38 PM

A simple solution to reright the economy, and the benefits would flow forth. And as we have said, there are plenty of healthy vegetarians even without the genetic engineering I'm suggesting.

I don't know if it's possible, but we can make bacteria give out insulin, and insulin is a pretty complex protein. We can genetically modify cows to put nutrients in their milk. I think we could manage it. And genetically engineering isn't too expensive, especially since you can then use the seeds from your first harvest to get your next one. I think that's right, but I don't know much about actual agricultural practices, just the genetic engineering part.

Stormy · Jul 21, 2011 7:40 PM

Yes, there are healthy vegetarians, but that doesn't make eating meat unhealthy.

You just seem to be proposing a lot of unnecessary work for this to happen, and that's if it even would work out as perfectly as you describe. Seems to me like all the money and work required to change all this would outweigh any benefits.

Aceedwin · Jul 21, 2011 7:44 PM

The way we eat it now it is. You know, maybe if we just as a society cut down on our meat eating, say by 40%, but didn't eradicate it entirely, we can get much of the benefits, but at virtually no cost. That said, the moral problem persists, if you let it.

Stormy · Jul 21, 2011 7:48 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

The way we eat it now it is.

By "we," do you mean the American stereotype who eats McDonald's bacon double cheeseburgers for every meal? Because not everyone is like that. It's not hard to eat a healthy diet that includes meat

You know, maybe if we just as a society cut down on our meat eating, say by 40%, but didn't eradicate it entirely, we can get much of the benefits, but at virtually no cost. That said, the moral problem persists, if you let it.

That seems like a better idea, but there's still the problem of convincing everyone to do it (which I believe you already mentioned in an earlier post so don't take this as me arguing this point). I'm still yet to be convinced that eating meat is a moral issue, though.

Aceedwin · Jul 21, 2011 7:52 PM

I'm British, I wouldn't put myself in a we that only featured American stereotypes. That'd be horrible (lol, pseudo-racism).

I don't know, I think we just need Al Gore to get really riled up about it so he makes another dramatic movie that shows cows as destroyers of worlds.

Stormy · Jul 21, 2011 7:57 PM

Lol, right, just what we need: people getting scared about nothing and less focus on issues that actually matter right now. tongue Although, I'll bet the resulting arguments would be pretty entertaining.

Neotyguy40 · Jul 21, 2011 8:16 PM

I think your concept of vegetarianism is a bit too utopian to be realistic. It sounds like these sociological arguments are very similar to Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto. It is simply too ideal to have any practical application. Sure, it may sound good in theory, but so does the concept of "One single government", "One single religion", "One single class", "One single standard for any piece of technology", "One single language."

One of the first things you learn in any basic philosophy class is that the reasons why these don't work is because the concepts are ignorant. Ignorant of other ideas, ignorant of other cultures, morals, and ways of thinking. That is pretty much what this entire thread is about.

We can't simply judge an entire other culture based on a single viewpoint. Sure, we may see some fish being put into plastic bags without any food. But we don't see it through there eyes, and you need to emulate their way of thinking. Countless wars and diplomatic failures have been attributed to the fact that people refuse to look at another viewpoint. Heck, that is what caused Hitler to start the Holocaust in the first place.

I'm not saying you need to accept their morals. But rather just don't 'accept' what your society gives you on your plate.

Aceedwin wrote:

I think we just need Al Gore to get really riled

Your not going to help any argument that way...

Clock-la · Jul 21, 2011 9:51 PM

Theres no sutch thing as the perfect culture anyway...

prince-Dari · Jul 21, 2011 11:24 PM

Aceedwin wrote:

You know what, you're right. And by that same, completely correct and sensible logic, the Nazi officer who shot a Jew in the face for fun during the holocaust was completely fine to do so. After all, six million Jews were being killed, so what difference does one more make.

In other words you believe that the life of an animal is of equal worth to the life of a person, according to your argument anyway. Eating animals for pleasure requires only the death of animals, that doesn't mean that I support killing people, I never said that.

Aceedwin · Jul 22, 2011 9:25 AM

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.

Clock-la · Jul 22, 2011 9:39 AM

ok ok i have the solution.

Lets all go out and get a big juicy hamburger big_smile

Neotyguy40 · Jul 22, 2011 10:10 AM

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:

Relevant.

Clock-la · Jul 22, 2011 10:14 AM

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

Swaffy · Jul 22, 2011 4:51 PM

I liked McDonalds until I figured out that their chicken nuggets use fake
chicken. Then I said "screw this" and went to Chik-Fil-A.

Latias fan · Jul 22, 2011 8:50 PM

Clock-la wrote:

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?

prince-Dari · Jul 22, 2011 8:56 PM

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" and thinking "What the hell was it made with before?". Burger King is so much better than McDonalds anyway.

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 · Jul 23, 2011 12:02 AM

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.

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Jul 23, 2011 12:38 AM

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.

Clock-la · Jul 23, 2011 11:23 AM

prince-Dari wrote:

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!!!!!

Aceedwin · Jul 25, 2011 11:39 AM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Neotyguy40 · Jul 25, 2011 3:33 PM

Considering your only arguments seem to be phlebotinum comparisons not much has been said other than, "It's wrong".

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.

#176 Jul 21, 2011 7:07 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#177 Jul 21, 2011 7:12 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#178 Jul 21, 2011 7:21 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#179 Jul 21, 2011 7:24 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#180 Jul 21, 2011 7:38 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#181 Jul 21, 2011 7:40 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#182 Jul 21, 2011 7:44 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#183 Jul 21, 2011 7:48 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#184 Jul 21, 2011 7:52 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#185 Jul 21, 2011 7:57 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#186 Jul 21, 2011 8:16 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#187 Jul 21, 2011 9:51 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#188 Jul 21, 2011 11:24 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#189 Jul 22, 2011 9:25 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#190 Jul 22, 2011 9:39 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#191 Jul 22, 2011 10:10 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#192 Jul 22, 2011 10:14 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#193 Jul 22, 2011 4:51 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#194 Jul 22, 2011 8:50 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#195 Jul 22, 2011 8:56 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#196 Jul 23, 2011 12:02 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#197 Jul 23, 2011 12:38 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#198 Jul 23, 2011 11:23 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#199 Jul 25, 2011 11:39 AM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

#200 Jul 25, 2011 3:33 PM

Re: Live Creatures Sold as Keychains

Board footer