That's extremely sad, if I'm not worth more than a cow. That's a really harmful attitude to have. If a child and a cow were both drowning together, who would you save first? I'd want both to be saved, but I'd go for the child first.
I care about animals and am big on animal welfare, but yea.
I tend to agree with the Universalist perspective, which says a human is worth more than a cow. Most of the time, at least. Not that I can think of any example where it wouldn't be.
Basically, it's whatever's better for the greater good. If doing testing on three rats will save lives, do it. If eating one person will keep ten more alive, do it.
Yes, I don't think that Vegetarians are any more morally superior than myself bu I haven't given my oppinion anywhere about canibalism. (you brought it up, I've been trying to tell you it wasn't part of the discussion) Anywhere. I never even stated I felt morally superior to anyone, infact I've been vying for moral equality between Vegetarians and Meat Eaters. Your accusation is thus ridiculous and ignorant.Originally Posted by Anaisa
Read it but don't look at it.....? An you're claiming my posts don't make sense! You think a vegetarian is no more morally superior to you for not consuming animals, but you think you're better than a cannibal because you don't consume humans. You think that because you consider humans to be of much higher worth than animals. But certain vegetarians don't. So them considering themselves to be morally superior to you for not eating animals, is the same as you thinking you're superior to a cannibal, for not eating humans.
I'm educated about what I'm addressing, it's you who's failing to grasp it. An it's only out of the realm of debate as far as you're concerned, because you don't understand how eating a human can be compared to eating an animal. To somebody who values the lives of both animals an humans, it makes perfect sense. So it's not me who is being ignorant, but rather you, which is why you're failing to understand the comparisons between eating humans, an eating animals.[/QUOTE]Schlup: I welcome "statements outside of the realm of debate."
Under the circumstance that they're educated about the dialog they're adressing and understand it as opposed to reacting in an accusatory and ignorant manner.
EDIT: Ehn I don't want to talk about cannibalism anymore.
What are (or atleast were you adressing?) Since you don't seem to remember, let me tell you. You were adressing a post of mine. You were adressing the fact that I stated individuals should NOT be considered morally superior to eachother based on consumption habbits (within the context of vegetarianism/meat eating). Thus to bring in a moot point such as canibalism is ... well moot, and ignoring about the issue you initially chose to adress.
I am totally capable of understaing "how eating a human can be compared to eating animal" but I have delibrately chosen not to discuss this matter under the circumstance that it has nothing to do with the arguement I have been adressing. So yes... yes it is you who is ignorant.
See: Raistlin's post.
See: Leeza's post
See: Yamaneko's post.
The point is that all of us are trying to make you see that canibalism is not suitable or pertinent to the discussion of Vegetarianism and Non-Vegetarianism.
If you are going to adress morality under these circumstances you need to strengthen it with evidence and information within this realm.
Human is off the menu.
Why? Because Leeza said so.
Why? Because human isn't accepted in our culture (where as eating meat is).
Why? Because. It's not legal.
Why? Because! Because! Because!
Boldly go.
I love my Steak and Potatoes, and don't plan to change!
It's more harmful to think that its ok for humans to slaughter animals, than it is to think animal life should be valued as much as human life. Whole species of animals can become extinct or endangered thanks to that attitude. My attitude isn't responsible for killing or endangering anybody. If a cow an a child were drowning, an I had to save one first, it would be the child. Because the cow is probably going to get murdered an eaten if I save it anyway.The greater good for humans that is. Although it's not actually the best thing for humans. Since tests on another human would be far more accurate, an we have prisoners who could actually serve a purpose an be tested on instead of animals. Of course I'm only talking about people in prison for terrible crimes.
If we're following the rule of don't bring anything up unless it's part of the discussion, most posts in this thread shouldn't be here, since it's supposed to be about vegetarians an why their a vegetarian. So you saying you don't think vegetarians are more morally superior to you, is not fit for what is supposed to be discussed either. You have given your opinion about cannabilism, because you've said it doesn't belong in this thread, an it can't be compared to humans eating animals. You've made it totally obvious that what I'm accusing you of, is true. If it's not, then you'd say otherwise.
No, I'm totally clear on what I'm saying, an that's blatantly obvious. I'm well aware I was addressing your post, hence me quoting it, an responding to it. It's not a moot point. It's a moot point to you, because you think it's acceptable to kill an eat animals, but not humans. Which makes you a hypocrite, which makes your entire stance on the matter moot.What are (or atleast were you adressing?) Since you don't seem to remember, let me tell you. You were adressing a post of mine. You were adressing the fact that I stated individuals should NOT be considered morally superior to eachother based on consumption habbits (within the context of vegetarianism/meat eating). Thus to bring in a moot point such as canibalism is ... well moot, and ignoring about the issue you initially chose to adress.
If you could understand how eating a human can be compared to eating an animal, you'd understand why it is part of the argument. An you have chosen to discuss the matter. If you hadn't, I wouldn't be responding to your post about it now would I.I am totally capable of understaing "how eating a human can be compared to eating animal" but I have delibrately chosen not to discuss this matter under the circumstance that it has nothing to do with the arguement I have been adressing. So yes... yes it is you who is ignorant.
No, you may think it's not pertinent to the discussion. It's not pertinent to what is supposed to be being discussed, but neither are the majority of posts in this thread.See: Raistlin's post.
See: Leeza's post
See: Yamaneko's post.
The point is that all of us are trying to make you see that canibalism is not suitable or pertinent to the discussion of Vegetarianism and Non-Vegetarianism.
The evidence an information is clear. Murdering an eating animals is considered to be fine. Murdering an eating humans is a crime. If you think that is acceptable, you obviously don't have the morals that are required to make a suitable judgement on how animals should be treated.If you are going to adress morality under these circumstances you need to strengthen it with evidence and information within this realm.
Well then if you agree, you shouldn't be making posts about it.Human is off the menu.
Why? Because Leeza said so.
That's the whole point!Why? Because human isn't accepted in our culture (where as eating meat is).
Why? Because. It's not legal.
Meat eaters aren't capable of understanding how animal life should be as valued as human life, if they could, they wouldn't be meat eaters.Why? Because! Because! Because!
So how come PETA and other such animal rights groups advocate and accept violence against humans if humans and animals are equal?
I'm not a member of peta, an after having some dealings with peta myself, I question their motives. But humans are violent towards animals, so them being violent back to humans is equal. Their only advocating violence against humans, because of the way they treat animals.So how come PETA and other such animal rights groups advocate and accept violence against humans if humans and animals are equal?
Actually, if you look at the group that is currently acting against Huntingdon Life Sciences they tend to attack the families of the people who work there, or the people only related on the periphery (delivery truck drivers for example). Most of the time any kind of attacks are against people who are entirely uninvolved in the experiments on animals, such as the threat to bomb a nursery where children of the staff and scientists are sent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4290174.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1494924.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1185715.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2205442.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/c...re/4299447.stm
I lol'd at you saying that violence against humans is ok, way to completely invalidate any kind of moral superiority you have by not eating meat.
Last edited by Lindy; 11-12-2006 at 03:38 PM.
Yeah, and LOL, you are going wayyyyyy off topic Mr ex-boyfriend of Xander. LOL.
And SHE, as in ANAISA, isn't saying violence against humans is okay. She is explaining to you why PETA thinks it is justified.
And she disagrees with it.
LOL. Super-smart Lindy can't even read a Post properly.
........................................__......................................................
.................................,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,..................................................
...........................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,..........................................
......................,-~*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,......................................
..................,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\.....................................
................;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllllll\....................................
................\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/...........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,................................
.................\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*.............`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,...............................
...................\llllllllllll,-~*........................)_-\..*`*;..)..............................
.....................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................../...............................
.....................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;.................../.\..............................
.................../.../..../..../..,-,..*~,.`*~*..................*...\.............................
...................|.../.../..../.*`...\................................)....)¯`~,....................
...................|./..../..../........).........)`*~-,............../.....|..)...`~-,..............
.................././.../....,*`-,.....`-,....*`....,---......\...../...../..|..........¯```*~-,,,,
.................(............)`*~-,.....`*`.,-~*.,-*.......|.../..../..../...............\..........
..................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*.............|.,*...,*....|.................\.........
......................*,.........`-,....)-,..................,-*`...,-*.....(`-,..............\........
........................f`-,........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*.....,-*......|....`-,...............\.......
I never said violence against humans was acceptable whatever the circumstance. If a human was kicking a kitten, an I stopped them by kicking them in the face, that would be fine by my standards. However, bombing a nursery because some children there are related to someone who hurts animals, is despicable, an certainly not something I agree with.
I used to be vegetarian, my mother made me be. Since she stopped that I decided I don't really have a problem with eating animals. But animals can feel pain, and they can suffer, so I should damn well hope they are treated well before they are killed.
WTF? Why are we talking about cannabilism? I thought this thread was about the consumption of animals, and strictly animals.
Going off on some tangent such as this seems like a long-winded and terribly faulted method of trying to validate a flawed point.
And PETA makes me laugh - a kind of laugh that you force yourself to take so as not to cry from the sheer patheticness of it all. Animals are not people. Most livestock seem to have the brain capacity of a cucumber. You could argue that this is due to the breeding practives, and much of it is, but if something is seriosuly that unaware, I have to wonder why it isn't labeled nothing more than "FOOD".
I've seen chickens with personalities and character. And I've seen cows with such things also. But they weren't being raised for food. When something is raised for food, I see no reason to call it anything else.
It could be deemed as wrong to raise things specifically for food, but in this present day and age, we cannot possibly detach ourselves from these farms. There are too many mouths to feed. And look at what it would do to the economy...
Is it morally superior? I don't think so. Furthermore, morals are something personal and can and are interpretted differently.
My thoughts are eat what you want, but don't deem yourself more pure simply because you don't eat meat. More likely than not, you still subsidize the meat industries in some form or another anyways...
...
Clearly, the only solution is to find a way to manipulate DNA to breed completely brain-dead animals. They’re not missing anything, and we get to pump them full of chemicals and generally treat them like giant meat-bags without activists getting on our asses about it. It’s win/win.
They are actually working on methods to basically "grow" meat; in other words, they are growing the muscle tissue instead of the animal. Much more efficient in terms of labor and costs, and it would be quite humane, obviously, since the only thing involved is the DNA and tissue made.
They can grow skin and the like, so they are making steps towards greater things. The focus is organ replishments, but the technolgy is a very interesting farming prospect.
...
Posting Permissions
