It's extremely simple.Originally Posted by Yamaneko
Allow your friend Devil Man to educate you.
'I am not losing any sleep' means 'I am not going to let it bother me.'
This statement makes absolutely no sense.
It makes perfect sense.
When an animal eats food out of its own [img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img][img]/xxx.gif[/img], I consider that repulsive.
Oh, that is VERY intellectual, isn't it Nominus Experse? 'Animals are disgusting and the thought of eating a repulsive creature disgusts me'.
Feh...
How foolish thou thinking is!
Clearly you have never heard of the PURE EVIL that is broccoli. Or asparagus. Or spinach. Or cucumbers. Or tomatoes. Or carrots.
Vegetables aren't much better then Meat, man!
Broccoli will ALWAYS be 100,000 times more disgusting then any of Mother Nature's creatures, young one!
DON'T CALL INNOCENT, TASTY CREATURES REPULSIVE
And broccolli contains certain chemicals that certain people can taste, and others cannot. Those that taste these chemicals can't see how others can stand what they deem as disgusting.
And all those vegetables you listed contain vital vitamins and minerals, not to mention fiber and the like, to keep you healthy. Meat contains only iron, zinc, and other small amounts of minerals.
My thoughts are to simply balance your diet effectively via being an omnivore or veggetarian. You can't survive by only eating meat.
Recall the phrase, "You are what you eat."
It bears merit. Furthermore, the thought is exactly that - a thought. It's a personal opinion that doesn't need facts or intellectual backing to exist. We can pretend that we have facts and the like, but it all comes down to choice and personal disposition.
...
I'd like to add that I don't mind animals being killed for food at all, humans are omnivores and the ones that are being unusual are vegetarians, but really, some places are just excessively cruel. If that were my prime reason for wanting to be a vegetarian, I'd only eat meat from places where I know that the animals aren't fattening to the point where their legs break, or fried alive, or had their beaks snapped off, etc. I'm not into PETA practices (it'll be a million years until you find me living in a tree or going to TGIF in a cow suit), but their KFC video made me sob, it was so horrifying. So yeah. I'm not a very hardcore vegetarian, my reasons are more personal, I still crave meat at times, and I couldn't care less if people eat meat because like I said, humans ARE omnivores and that's just natural, but I still think that excessive cruelty needs to be cut down.
Just look at it like this: how much does the flavor of the meat change if the animal is just killed quickly and as painlessly as possible as opposed to if the animal is tortured and killed slowly and painfully? I'd warrant on not very much if at all.
Ok well most farm grown for eating meat is fed on a food that contains offal from dead members of the herd, not their faeces.
I saw a program on TV the other night and well for the 3 minutes or so I watched they were showing how sheep are killed in UK abbatoirs for meat. They put this clamp thing on the sheeps neck and from the moment the animal is clamped it is completely unconcious they then hang the animal up and slit it's throat to kill it. What I saw didn't look painless even though the program insisted it was, I don't see why alternative methods to this could be used, silenced pistol to the back of the head, (knock the animal out but rather than slit the throat, shoot it) a lethal dose of anaesetic/toxin that would be harmless to humans?
I was amused by that image, actually :p.
Are you referring to using electricity to kill animals when slaughtering them? If so, I don't thunk that's a very bad approach, really. It's quick, and it doesn't make a lot of mess, meaning it's hygienic too. I certainly don't have first hand experience, but I doubt they feel more discomfort when electrocuted instead of getting a steel bolt shot into their brains.
I'm an omnivore myself, but more on the carniside of it :p, I love the taste of meat, especially cows and such. I don't have any problems seeing an animal being killed for the sake of feeding me either. It comes natural to me, just like it's natural for a wolf to kill for food, and I don't think I would have had a problem killing an animal for food by myself.
I also hope you who are against the killing of animals don't happen to wear anything made of leather by accident, such as a belt, or parts of your shoes.
Last edited by Mirage; 11-11-2006 at 03:58 PM.
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
Do you drive a car? Do you use electricity that you don't really need? Do you ever eat out when you could eat in?
Everybody does something harmful or wasteful every day. Most people do a gut-check cost-benefit analysis to consider whether stopping or restricting something is worth it. In the vast majority of cases, most people decide that it's not worth it to them. Sounds perfectly logical to me. Things can be bad, but either not worth the effort of stopping or better than any alternative.
No, I mean dunking them in burning liquid and frying and boiling them to death. Electrocution would be more humane than boiling something alive.I was amused by that image, actually.
Are you referring to using electricity to kill animals when slaughtering them? If so, I don't thunk that's a very bad approach, really. It's quick, and it doesn't make a lot of mess, meaning it's hygienic too. I certainly don't have first hand experience, but I doubt they feel more discomfort when electrocuted instead of getting a steel bolt shot into their brains.
I'm an omnivore myself, but more on the carniside of it
I also hope you who are against the killing of animals don't happen to wear anything made of leather by accident, such as a belt, or parts of your shoes.
But with that said, the cruelty is not my main reason for becoming a vegetarian. I just wanted to bring up a point. My view of cruelty in killing animals for food is similar to my view of animal testing. As bad as it sounds, it needs to be done in the present for medical testing (just as obviously some animals have to be killed for food, it's the food chain and humans are omnivores), though the cruelty could be cut down quite a bit. But testing animals for cosmetic reasons? Please. Find some money-grubbers to do that, there are plenty. I find animal testing for cosmetic reasons stupid and disgusting, just like I find being excessively cruel to animals when killing them to make food, when you can kill them more quickly and humanely for the same purpose.
Last edited by Rye; 11-11-2006 at 04:39 PM.
It makes perfect sense.This statement makes absolutely no sense.
No, certainly not. If we applied that logic to humans, then murdering people wouldn't be a crime anymore.
It's logical, you just don't understand it. If you believe that nobody is morally superior to anyone else regardless of what they eat, then to say that you're morally superior to a human that eats another human, because you don't eat other humans, would be a total contradiction.No, because in order to provide a logical argument it must first be grounded within practical reality. Dreaming up radical scenarios in order to prove a point against legitimate logic, i.e. eating vegetables does not make you morally superior and vice versa (in fact the moral question is off the table), is a waste of time and contributes nothing to the debate.
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.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.
Yes, but nobody is actually saying that, so this is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. The obvious implication in the assertion made by Yamaneko and Chemical is that choices between what we <i>currently</i> have as sources for food are not inherently morally superior/inferior to any other choices in that category. Drawing an absurd, extreme conclusion from a point in order to justify another point is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. logical fallacy.
Drawing an absurd, extreme conclusion from a point in order to justify another point is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. logical fallacy.
It's absurd to maybe you maybe, but not other people. It makes completely perfect sense to me. And maybe it's a 'really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. logical fallacy' to you, but certainly not to me. She made a statement and backed it up brilliantly.
Anaisa makes an excellent point.
It's not a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., nor a logical fallacy. Somebody else not being capable of understanding the logic behind it, doesn't make it a logical fallacy. It's a clear comparison. An I didn't say that's what was said, I said if that's what you believe. An it clearly is what they believe. If they don't, then fine, their point stands. But if they do, it's as I've said, hypocritical.Yes, but nobody is actually saying that, so this is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking.. The obvious implication in the assertion made by Yamaneko and Chemical is that choices between what we <i>currently</i> have as sources for food are not inherently morally superior/inferior to any other choices in that category. Drawing an absurd, extreme conclusion from a point in order to justify another point is a really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking. logical fallacy.
o hai ad hominem
Recognized Member
Cannabilism (sp?) is not the topic of this thread at all so why is it even being discussed here? Take that to another thread please.
Hello Pika Art by Dr Unne ~~~ godhatesfraggles
If she eats fish then she isn't a vegetarian.
I think exactly the same as you. xD Although it wasn't the cruelty that made to be vegetarian, but never mind.
The topic of this thread though, is who else here is a vegetarian, an what your reasons are for being one. So if we're to stick to those exact specifications, a great deal of this thread is off topic. Not just the cannibal discussion.
Posting Permissions
