I mostly eat the layers of skin. I like it because it's salty, but not as bad for you as chips. Eat right and exercize, that is the way to a new healthy you!
I mostly eat the layers of skin. I like it because it's salty, but not as bad for you as chips. Eat right and exercize, that is the way to a new healthy you!
I know you'd all like to think your cute puppy dog is just as good as a human, but he's not. He's a dog and the only reason he doesn't piss andin your house is because you rubbed his nose in it, and conditioned him to want to go else where. Stop equating eating people with animals just because you're a complete narcissist, and want to explain how you're above every other human.
There may be some humans who aren't so bright, but every human on the planet, save for ones with mental defects and children, who we need to protect, is more intelligent than every, at the very least, cow, chicken, pig, horse, sheep, and other commonly eaten animals of the western world. EVERY ONE OF THEM, there's no cow more intelligent than all the other cows in such a way, that eating it would be like eating a human, just as there's no human alive who's so much more intelligent than the rest of us it puts him as a higher being.
I use similar analogies to show that humans are nothing more than animals. Freud showed that we're mostly free-flowing fools acting on our unconscious. Blah blah. So? If you refuting the hierarchy argument to disallow people from eating people (because criminals are people too, and the insane are people too, though we treat them differently and strip them of their rights, thereby rendering them 'inhuman'), what basis is your eating of animals? Comes back to my 'because we can and who's the one cutting them up? Us, not them' argument, which isn't an argument per se, obviously.
The difficulty in arguing this is the morals don't allow it. Harm principle logic already shows that killing plants is wrong, same with animals. E_A's logic already shows that I'm perfectly able to kill plants that feel nothing yet die anyway, but plants serve human goals and ends and therefore unlike animals, we ought to preserve plants but not eat animals to fuel human goals and ends (see the hypocrisy?). Or maybe there's an unspoken premise that things that don't feel pain don't deserve moral consideration.
My original conclusion was that I was a monster for eating, and it's still the most simple solution. Sure it doesn't coincide with the 'vegans and vegetarians are better than everybody else and they have to tell us about it' argument, but morals was never about making you feel good.
Oh wait.
Originally Posted by >>--heartshot--> ♥
*sigh* How could you mis-understand what I said so much? Oh, yeah, I know, you're doing it deliberately. Please keep these pathetically wrong statements coming, I do love them so. And how are you going to establish value? Intelligence alone does not make us better than animals. It's also combined with our general value.
Seeing-eye dogs are more valuable than normal dogs. Because they're existence directly improves the quality of life for a human being. To kill one is more wrong, because you deprive someone of a truly important service. Give or take, it's probably more wrong than stealing a car.
Whereas an actual human being will be many, many things in a lifetime. A friend, a lover, a parent, a productive member of society, or quite possibly a horrible SOB that should be removed as efficiently from existance as possible. Personally, I think we should use murderers and child molesters for medical experimentation, but that's just me.
And, as a side note, what gives you any reason to believe you're smarter than me? I have a genius level IQ, so I'm in the top 1% at least... never bothered to get tested further, didn't seem important. Of course, the ADD is a mixed blessing... eh, que sera, sera.
Well, it's good somebody finally said it. But you seem to be implying that every animal we ever ate is put through the squalor and abuse you see on the news magazine shows. There are laws here in the U.S. that name certain farming practices and killing methods as cruel and illegal. Okay, the laws may not be perfect, and everyone can agree that we should strive for the most respectful treatment reasonable, but a trip through any Midwestern countryside will show you that there are plenty of animals living decent lives.
And children learn by their parents teaching and disciplining them. Without that experience they aren't going to learn advanced communication, or to problem solve, or do any of the things you hold in such high regard to call us better than animals for. Tabula rasa, in a sense.I know you'd all like to think your cute puppy dog is just as good as a human, but he's not. He's a dog and the only reason he doesn't piss and
I don't see how equating humans and animals is putting myself on a pedestal. Oh, but wait, a twist! http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/Scienc...ls/Animals.htm !!! Here's a hint--click on primates! Here's another hint--humans are animals!
I'm not going to comment on that. I don't want to get banned yet.
It's the slaughterhouse that are worst. And the conditions in which they're kept. You can't going to see that from the countryside. I'm not disillusioned, though, I know not every slaughterhouse is as cruel as the ones Peta highlights, but when you're eating your meat, how do you know which slaughterhouse it came from? And please, not free-range. Having a cage within 10 feet of a window doesn't justify the exact same torture they still get.
Wait, we're going to clear this up right now..... Either.....
A: humans really are just animals- no better, no worse- and thus, the concept of morality, as it is alien to animal nature, is something that we should reject because we're not GOOD enough to be moral. And you cannot hold us to different standards than any other lifeform.
---or---
B: humans are the superior lifeform, we are moral creatures, as comes with the territory of being superior lifeforms. We can have things like justice and logic and cruelty, things that aren't natural, because we're something more than just animals. Morality and right/wrong aren't just lies, they have real values, and we should be beholden to them.
If we're only animals, like you say, then your entire point is moot because ANY definition of morality or compassion is just more chemicals giving us commands, and no more good or bad than the desire to eat or have sex. Ours to obey or ignore as we desire.
If we're better, like I say, then we can continue this debate on morality, something that can only EXIST if I'm right. We should do what's "right"- because it's right- and not just whatever we feel like. You can't be "half right" on this issue, it's a pretty clear division.
Oh, and I've been to slaughterhouses. Helped bring cattle TO them, actually. If I didn't know what was going to happen, I wouldn't be terribly afraid, either. Granted, it smells awful, but that's because it smells like cows (nasty animals) in an enclosed space. Never a good thing. I'm sure the dying part would suck, but it's very fast- two or three seconds, tops. And it would probably be on my top ten best ways to die. Losing only to the ones where I'm asleep, drugged to the gills, or my brain's destroyed before it has a chance to know what hit me.
Now, what they do to the bodies, THAT is disgusting. Absolutely gross and quite disturbing. But, it doesn't hurt the cow, as it's already dead. If the cow was alive when they started, I'd be for burning down the building, but a corpse is a corpse, just a few hundred pounds of dead flesh.
Last edited by udsuna; 03-05-2005 at 12:43 AM.
We are members of the animal kingdom. We are vertebraes. We are mammals. We are in the order of primates. Yes, we are animals. It's biology, and it's a shame you don't like it. But that's reality for you.
And despite what you'd like to think, most of us actually still do have morality even though we are animals.
Oh, I know. What the government can let people call "free range" and "organic" is a travesty. Luckily, though, most foods will have claims somewhere else on the package that they can be held accountable for. Luckily, this can only get better with time.
As for whether you can trust where your meat came from... well, you can't really know for sure whether or not or sneakers or clothes were made in horrible conditions when you buy them, either. You just have to come to terms with it, and have faith in humanity, and hope and work to make things better. That's my explanation. Don't mistake it for an argument; 'vegetarian vs. not' is based too much on subjective morals to be argued, I think.
Hopefully, I'll be able to avoid this thread now.
Recognized Member
Luckily, though, most foods will have claims somewhere else on the package that they can be held accountable for. Luckily, this can only get better with time. - omnitarian
I wonder how much PETA had to do with this?
You just have to come to terms with it, and have faith in humanity, and hope and work to make things better. - omnitarian
That's what PETA is trying to do...make things better.
Hello Pika Art by Dr Unne ~~~ godhatesfraggles
Yep, by burning down buildings, sending death threats, and giving a congradulations letter to that canibal guy. THAT is really great of them, isn't it.
Weird, we're back on topic now.Luckily, though, most foods will have claims somewhere else on the package that they can be held accountable for. Luckily, this can only get better with time. - omnitarian
I wonder how much PETA had to do with this?
You just have to come to terms with it, and have faith in humanity, and hope and work to make things better. - omnitarian
That's what PETA is trying to do...make things better.
Anyway, the 'claims' I was referring to were claims that fall under age-old false advertising laws, not anything animal rights activists did. Putting misleading statements on your packages will get you sued. Many "organic" meat packages have statements, which if they're false, are thoroughly misleading and will get them sued.
If PETA is truly trying to' make things better', they're either lying, or doing a real bad job at it. It's hard to believe that an organization is working for nothing more than fair treatment to animals when their motto decrees that eating animals in any circumstance is bad, when they punctuate their "meet your meat" video with nothing more than a phone number for a vegan lifestyle pamphlet, or when they cry out for 'tuna-safe tuna' and borrow Finding Nemo's "fish are friends, not food" to use as a slogan.
I said it before, and I'll say it again; just because you agree with some of their principles, doesn't mean you shouldn't be critical of their actions and more extreme views. "Pro-animal rights" and "anti-PETA" are not mutually exclusive.
Which is pretty tame compared to physically and psychologically torturing and murdering innocents for selfish pleasure.
*congratulations
*cannibal
Genius?
Edit: omni, isn't that slogan "pigs are friends, not food?" I know I had a Peta2 sticker that said that. B)
Well, I believe in the truth first, even when it doesn't suit my own ends, so I feel obligated to point this out. PETA used that phrase, or something like it, for YEARS before Finding Nemo came out.
And flying two planes into some buildings killing thousands is pretty tame compared to the western world completly ruining the muslim culture. Righty-o.
Posting Permissions
