[Debate] human eating meat is good for food chain...

minamoto

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,838
Kin
19,488💸
Kumi
2,932💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
i------------->.

You must be registered for see images


if you wanna save animals ...you gotta thin down their numbers...but u gotta not do it in bad way like killing...we should intervene in good ways through hunting them and eating.....or breeeding them and eat them...

also if agriculture provide us with enough food..i think maybe only then we should talk about moral arguments of eating meat..

also what is moral pretext behind shooting boars????...becuz too much boars and wild pigs will ruin nature and it's balance...



i'm not telling u what to do..im just giving u hypothesis to tiscuss..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxxi

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,088
Kin
1,103💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Have you learned nothing

If the livestock industry did not exist we would have enough crops to feed another 10 billion humans.
The majority of crops grown worldwide goes to livestock feed. 1/3 of the global water supply goes to livestock.

There are no animal species that are pests. We are the pest. We make sure their habitat gets diminished so much so that they are seen as a pest.

You guys are like children, really. stubbornly ignorant
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrovio

Astrovio

#mangafacts
Veteran
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
3,742
Kin
2,637💸
Kumi
734💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Yes, it's the cycle of life.
Of course ☺
You must be registered for see images

Have you learned nothing

If the livestock industry did not exist we would have enough crops to feed another 10 billion humans.
The majority of crops grown worldwide goes to livestock feed. 1/3 of the global water supply goes to livestock.

There are no animal species that are pests. We are the pest. We make sure their habitat gets diminished so much so that they are seen as a pest.

You guys are like children, really. stubbornly ignorant
You know it's true when they agree to a minamoto bait thread, just ignore them.
 

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,802
Kin
290💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Have you learned nothing

If the livestock industry did not exist we would have enough crops to feed another 10 billion humans.
The majority of crops grown worldwide goes to livestock feed. 1/3 of the global water supply goes to livestock.

There are no animal species that are pests. We are the pest. We make sure their habitat gets diminished so much so that they are seen as a pest.

You guys are like children, really. stubbornly ignorant
Your narrative awfully reminds me of those of other eager activists. Regardless of what it is, that one thing you preach just happens to be a solution to just about any issue we face. Bad education, economy etc? No worries, just need more women empowerment is but one example that came from the late Hitchens. Surely women empowerment is a very important issue (one we are actually supposed to fix unlike veganism) but to suggest that on its back rests everything else is silly and simplistic if not, as you'd say, childish. Combined with the holier than thou tone it should be easy to figure out why people don't give vegans much time of day.

Not saying you are wrong on these things but the way you're going about it isn't a very good one.

As for the topic, for someone who claims to love nature you're awfully against all the brutal and violent things that are essentially apart of it. There is nothing unnatural about slaughtering animals nor is there anything innocent or poor about them. You're making a moral case here that is based on a perceived intrinsic value of every animal's life. Ethics has nothing to do with nature beyond mere pragmatism. If the lions could they wouls exterminate any other species they come accross and we've had a lot of cases where if a carnivore loses his natural predator it goes on to damage the rest of the population since there is little to control it.

Ethics in pure naturalism do not have much persuasive force as far as actual moral obligations go. It is merely useful fictions we use to organize our lives in a manner most pleasant to us. Applying our rules to animals as if they are relevant to our artificial discussion is silly.

It is only if you introduce a supernatural component like a moral realm, platonic objects or some divine entity that you get anything concrete when it comes to moral duties. This however is not something you should expect just everyone to agree on.
 

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,088
Kin
1,103💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Your narrative awfully reminds me of those of other eager activists. Regardless of what it is, that one thing you preach just happens to be a solution to just about any issue we face. Bad education, economy etc? No worries, just need more women empowerment is but one example that came from the late Hitchens. Surely women empowerment is a very important issue (one we are actually supposed to fix unlike veganism) but to suggest that on its back rests everything else is silly and simplistic if not, as you'd say, childish. Combined with the holier than thou tone it should be easy to figure out why people don't give vegans much time of day.

Not saying you are wrong on these things but the way you're going about it isn't a very good one.

As for the topic, for someone who claims to love nature you're awfully against all the brutal and violent things that are essentially apart of it. There is nothing unnatural about slaughtering animals nor is there anything innocent or poor about them. You're making a moral case here that is based on a perceived intrinsic value of every animal's life. Ethics has nothing to do with nature beyond mere pragmatism. If the lions could they wouls exterminate any other species they come accross and we've had a lot of cases where if a carnivore loses his natural predator it goes on to damage the rest of the population since there is little to control it.

Ethics in pure naturalism do not have much persuasive force as far as actual moral obligations go. It is merely useful fictions we use to organize our lives in a manner most pleasant to us. Applying our rules to animals as if they are relevant to our artificial discussion is silly.

It is only if you introduce a supernatural component like a moral realm, platonic objects or some divine entity that you get anything concrete when it comes to moral duties. This however is not something you should expect just everyone to agree on.
It isn't as simplistic as you think I portray it to be. You simply haven't stood under the foundation of all that it stands for for you to truly grasp the bigger picture. Don't forget that a vegan goes years discussing the topic and doing his or her research as opposed to non-vegans who barely thought about the issue, never taking into consideration the possibility that their tradition, culture, and mind-set might be fundamentally corrupt.

The bottom line is compassion. You love your dog, yet you eat a pig which is more intelligent than a dog.

An appeal to nature does not take away from the fact that you support an unnatural barbaric industry. The animals we breed are not natural. They wouldn't do well in the wild and were specifically bred as a commodity. If a lion does not eat meat, it dies. You eat it for taste alone. Not for health, not for survival. A predatory animal that hunts in the wild doesn't excuse your usage of animal products. The comparison is just silly, and deep down you know it. We are the only species that violate the reproduction system of other species and rob them of their milk and flesh without actually needing it.

@bold: My attitude matters not when I'm correct and provide proof and context to help you get ahead. If you get stuck on my attitude as Avani did, you rob yourself of the possibility to learn.

If you think I do this for my ego, you're gravely mistaken. I do this to put an end to the madness in our world.



You must be registered for see images


Any and every argument you come up with, I will correct you. Feel free to give it a go.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Astrovio

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,802
Kin
290💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
It isn't as simplistic as you think I portray it to be. You simply haven't stood under the foundation of all that it stands for for you to truly grasp the bigger picture. Don't forget that a vegan goes years discussing the topic and doing his or her research as opposed to non-vegans who barely thought about the issue, never taking into consideration the possibility that their tradition, culture, and mind-set might be fundamentally corrupt.
As I said before, I found veganism appealing until I saw how easily things go wrong with it and end up in you laying on a hospital bed. In other words, I was thinking about becoming a vegan but found it dangerous and among other things unnatural. (We are omnivores after all.)

The above however is not the main reason why I am not currently a vegan. On that we're talking below.

The bottom line is compassion. You love your dog, yet you eat a pig which is more intelligent than a dog.
But compassion to me is very self-interested thing. Even if we're talking altruism we're still deep down doing it because we wish to be a part of a society that will also selflessly help us in a time of need like we are currently helping others. I love my dog (pushing 13 years and going strong u.u) but I don't love him because he's a dog, I love him because he is my dog. I love him as a pet. I might help a starving dog or a cat or what have you but I will be hard pressed to help a trapped snake or a wild boar for example.

The reason why I'd help a dog or a cat even if they're not mine is because I have an affinity for them due to having one of their species as a pet. It makes me think, if my dog ever gets in this situation I'd want someone to help him like I'm helping this animal. Even if I didn't have a dog but merely wanted one I'd still help because I have an attachment to dogs. Why do I have such bias to dogs? Well for purely selfish reasons of course, I think they're cute, I enjoy hugging and playing with them, I like how helpful they can be etc.

Now a snake on the other hand or a wild animal or even cattle do not evoke such feelings in me so I do not feel inclined to help them. If I saw a snake I'd either kill it or avoid it. If I saw a wild boar I would run away because those things are dangerous. In other words I wouldn't want anything to do with these creatures because they are of no interest to me and they might pose a threat.

I have compassion for my fellow man (and we all witness how hard it is to have even that these days) and would help them but a pig or a cow means nothing but food tohere.If I somehow didn't like fluffy cute creatures like dogs and cats and instead felt repulsed by them like I am with spiders or snakes I would treat them likewise. Compassion doesn't come into play here.

An appeal to nature does not take away from the fact that you support an unnatural barbaric industry. The animals we breed are not natural. They wouldn't do well in the wild and were specifically bred as a commodity. If a lion does not eat meat, it dies. You eat it for taste alone. Not for health, not for survival. A predatory animal that hunts in the wild doesn't excuse your usage of animal products. The comparison is just silly, and deep down you know it. We are the only species that violate the reproduction system of other species and rob them of their milk and flesh without actually needing it.
Which might have something to do with the fact that we are also the only species capable of doing so. What would you say if suddenly all animals evolved over night and reached the level of our cognitive capacity and started acting the same way? Would you still insist that what we do is unnatural in such a scenario?
 

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,088
Kin
1,103💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
As I said before, I found veganism appealing until I saw how easily things go wrong with it and end up in you laying on a hospital bed. In other words, I was thinking about becoming a vegan but found it dangerous and among other things unnatural. (We are omnivores after all.)

The above however is not the main reason why I am not currently a vegan. On that we're talking below.



But compassion to me is very self-interested thing. Even if we're talking altruism we're still deep down doing it because we wish to be a part of a society that will also selflessly help us in a time of need like we are currently helping others. I love my dog (pushing 13 years and going strong u.u) but I don't love him because he's a dog, I love him because he is my dog. I love him as a pet. I might help a starving dog or a cat or what have you but I will be hard pressed to help a trapped snake or a wild boar for example.

The reason why I'd help a dog or a cat even if they're not mine is because I have an affinity for them due to having one of their species as a pet. It makes me think, if my dog ever gets in this situation I'd want someone to help him like I'm helping this animal. Even if I didn't have a dog but merely wanted one I'd still help because I have an attachment to dogs. Why do I have such bias to dogs? Well for purely selfish reasons of course, I think they're cute, I enjoy hugging and playing with them, I like how helpful they can be etc.

Now a snake on the other hand or a wild animal or even cattle do not evoke such feelings in me so I do not feel inclined to help them. If I saw a snake I'd either kill it or avoid it. If I saw a wild boar I would run away because those things are dangerous. In other words I wouldn't want anything to do with these creatures because they are of no interest to me and they might pose a threat.

I have compassion for my fellow man (and we all witness how hard it is to have even that these days) and would help them but a pig or a cow means nothing but food tohere.If I somehow didn't like fluffy cute creatures like dogs and cats and instead felt repulsed by them like I am with spiders or snakes I would treat them likewise. Compassion doesn't come into play here.



Which might have something to do with the fact that we are also the only species capable of doing so. What would you say if suddenly all animals evolved over night and reached the level of our cognitive capacity and started acting the same way? Would you still insist that what we do is unnatural in such a scenario?
So, you were taken aback by some anecdotes? In your case, you should try reading the countless of testimonies by people who were bedridden with various kinds of illnesses, adopted the plant-based lifestyle and literally reversed the situation.

As for the latter part; You do not need to love animals for you to respect them. I don't like snakes either, I wouldn't try to pet or hold them if they were tame, let alone wild. That does not mean I have to disregard their right to life and respect.

I mean, I could show you a video of cows, rams, pigs and other farm animals running after a ball playing like they're dogs, regardless of their cuteness or lack thereof, you can atleast recognize the same will to life and happiness as dogs have. They all experience reality as your dog does, they're all capable of feeling emotions, fear and happiness alike.

Here you go
You must be registered for see medias

As for your final paragraph; Your what-if scenario is meaningless. Instead of thinking up a hypothetical situation, why not rather focus on the facts. The fact being that we are the only species that use and abuse every animal as we see fit with the excuse that 'we can, so why shouldn't we'.

Your dog and mine enjoy their lives, while a cow goes through this
You must be registered to see images

Final note: Here's a previous world-record holding dog that lived over 25 years old on a vegan diet. .
 

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,802
Kin
290💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
So, you were taken aback by some anecdotes? In your case, you should try reading the countless of testimonies by people who were bedridden with various kinds of illnesses, adopted the plant-based lifestyle and literally reversed the situation.

As for the latter part; You do not need to love animals for you to respect them. I don't like snakes either, I wouldn't try to pet or hold them if they were tame, let alone wild. That does not mean I have to disregard their right to life and respect.

I mean, I could show you a video of cows, rams, pigs and other farm animals running after a ball playing like they're dogs, regardless of their cuteness or lack thereof, you can atleast recognize the same will to life and happiness as dogs have. They all experience reality as your dog does, they're all capable of feeling emotions, fear and happiness alike.

Here you go
You must be registered for see medias
But as I said, why should this mean anything to me? I don't love my pet because its cognitive capacity requires me to. Whatever it may be it is far lower than ours and I am not convinced by the research that claims to have proven that animals have self-awareness in a fashion similar to us so even if they did feel these emotions without a personhood attached to them I do not consider them to be worthy any moral consideration on their own.

As for your final paragraph; Your what-if scenario is meaningless. Instead of thinking up a hypothetical situation, why not rather focus on the facts. The fact being that we are the only species that use and abuse every animal as we see fit with the excuse that 'we can, so why shouldn't we'.
You're presenting a moral case here which rests partly on us being the only species who do these things and us acting like that being an example of unnatural behavior. The reason why hypothetical scenarios matter in discussions on ethics (and philosophy in general which is why every moral argument is going to have to be subjected to them) is because they help us grasp how meaningful the principles we discuss are. In your example, if us being the only species is merely a matter of evolutionary happen-stance, that is no other species managed to get to our stage and in an alternate turn of evolutionary history they would have gotten to it, then the idea that it is unnatural or morally corrupt is meaningless unless you wish to insist that all species in such a scenario would be unnatural and immoral in which case it becomes less clear what you even mean by 'unnatural'. You call others ignorant but fail to consider the basic conceptual analysis of the principles that lay at the foundation of your argument and its many unwarranted assumptions.

Heck, for what it's worth you might be talking to a moral anti-realist here so what good would your arguments do? You might insist that you're not presenting a moral case but I wonder what are you doing then?

Your dog and mine enjoy their lives, while a cow goes through this
You must be registered to see images

Final note: Here's a previous world-record holding dog that lived over 25 years old on a vegan diet. .
Also, I've noticed you like to show gruesome scenes in an attempt to shock the conscience of your interlocutors. All you're really doing most of the time though is making them feel grossed out, not in a moral but merely in an aesthetic sense. Similar to how pro-lifers go around showing dismembered babies and expecting the pro-choice side to simply surrender the abortion debate because the process we're discussing is ugly. Again, simplistic and unconvincing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avani

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,088
Kin
1,103💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
But as I said, why should this mean anything to me? I don't love my pet because its cognitive capacity requires me to. Whatever it may be it is far lower than ours and I am not convinced by the research that claims to have proven that animals have self-awareness in a fashion similar to us so even if they did feel these emotions without a personhood attached to them I do not consider them to be worthy any moral consideration on their own.



You're presenting a moral case here which rests partly on us being the only species who do these things and us acting like that being an example of unnatural behavior. The reason why hypothetical scenarios matter in discussions on ethics (and philosophy in general which is why every moral argument is going to have to be subjected to them) is because they help us grasp how meaningful the principles we discuss are. In your example, if us being the only species is merely a matter of evolutionary happen-stance, that is no other species managed to get to our stage and in an alternate turn of evolutionary history they would have gotten to it, then the idea that it is unnatural or morally corrupt is meaningless unless you wish to insist that all species in such a scenario would be unnatural and immoral in which case it becomes less clear what you even mean by 'unnatural'. You call others ignorant but fail to consider the basic conceptual analysis of the principles that lay at the foundation of your argument and its many unwarranted assumptions.

Heck, for what it's worth you might be talking to a moral anti-realist here so what good would your arguments do? You might insist that you're not presenting a moral case but I wonder what are you doing then?



Also, I've noticed you like to show gruesome scenes in an attempt to shock the conscience of your interlocutors. All you're really doing most of the time though is making them feel grossed out, not in a moral but merely in an aesthetic sense. Similar to how pro-lifers go around showing dismembered babies and expecting the pro-choice side to simply surrender the abortion debate because the process we're discussing is ugly. Again, simplistic and unconvincing.
@bold: And sadly, this mind-set alone makes you part of the problem and slows down the process of healing our world. It puts a stop to every reason for prolonging the debate. If the golden rule (do unto others) does not appeal to your humanity, the conversation is simply over.

You can think up hypotheses all you want, and try to outbrain the main point, all you do is deflect from the fact that we created a system so brutal, that if the roles would've been switched between humans and farmed animals, it would outclass the worst of horror movies.

The images I share bring perspective that showcase the hidden reality. Even though you might have seen a similar image or video some time in your life, you always get desensitized because the cruelty is not marketed at all as opposed to the real story behind that carton of milk or piece of flesh.

But I digress. If all your brain processes is the grossness of the slaughter footage and not the victim's perspective, you're a lost cause.

If you find any real argument against the cause, I'd be happy to indulge but if its going to be just more mental gymnastics, don't bother.
 

Marin

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,802
Kin
290💸
Kumi
2,001💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
@bold: And sadly, this mind-set alone makes you part of the problem and slows down the process of healing our world. It puts a stop to every reason for prolonging the debate. If the golden rule (do unto others) does not appeal to your humanity, the conversation is simply over.

You can think up hypotheses all you want, and try to outbrain the main point, all you do is deflect from the fact that we created a system so brutal, that if the roles would've been switched between humans and farmed animals, it would outclass the worst of horror movies.

The images I share bring perspective that showcase the hidden reality. Even though you might have seen a similar image or video some time in your life, you always get desensitized because the cruelty is not marketed at all as opposed to the real story behind that carton of milk or piece of flesh.

But I digress. If all your brain processes is the grossness of the slaughter footage and not ie victim's perspective, you're a lost cause.

If you find any real argument against the cause, I'd be happy to indulge but if its going to be just more mental gymnastics, don't bother.
Way to dismiss any actual critique of your ethics and point your finger at those who don't share your sentiments and assumptions. As I said, simplistic and unconvincing. For someone having a problem with @Avani dismissing you because of your attitude it's some sweet irony that you dismiss those who don't feel what you do after seeing a picture.

Regardless, I won't bother with you anymore. Have a nice day.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Avani

YowYan

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,088
Kin
1,103💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Way to dismiss any actual critique of your ethics and point your finger at those who don't share your sentiments and assumptions. As I said, simplistic and unconvincing. For someone having a problem with @Avani dismissing you because of your attitude it's some sweet irony that you dismiss those who don't feel what you do after seeing a picture.

Regardless, I won't bother with you anymore. Have a nice day.
A hypothetical situation that has no chance of occuring in the real world is not an actual critique.
Any actual criticism leaning towards studies about health, species overpopulation, physical performance, ethics, environmental statistics, etc. that have been presented so far were all corrected. I don't dismiss you over an attitude, I dismiss you over the fact your argument is void. Your hypothesis did not debunk or bring in question any part of veganism, therefore it's relevancy for the debate is void.
 

minamoto

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,838
Kin
19,488💸
Kumi
2,932💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Have you learned nothing

If the livestock industry did not exist we would have enough crops to feed another 10 billion humans.
The majority of crops grown worldwide goes to livestock feed. 1/3 of the global water supply goes to livestock.

There are no animal species that are pests. We are the pest. We make sure their habitat gets diminished so much so that they are seen as a pest.

You guys are like children, really. stubbornly ignorant
my protection is over...get eaten alive by meatotorians...you asked for it after all..
 

minamoto

Active member
Supreme
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,838
Kin
19,488💸
Kumi
2,932💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Way to dismiss any actual critique of your ethics and point your finger at those who don't share your sentiments and assumptions. As I said, simplistic and unconvincing. For someone having a problem with @Avani dismissing you because of your attitude it's some sweet irony that you dismiss those who don't feel what you do after seeing a picture.

Regardless, I won't bother with you anymore. Have a nice day.
you are also soloing yoyawn??? teh poor boy he'z gettin soloed by every1..
 
Top