Lol you basically proved my point.
Your position has nothing to do with healthy diets, you just think you're morally superior, and you try to mask your real agenda with bogus nutritional info.

Firstly, you have zero understanding of how to derive the concept of rights. You clearly have never read any philosophy and yet you're taking a very extreme (and volatile) ethical position.
Please, before acting all high and mighty, at least acquire a BASIC understanding of the subject you're preaching about.

Animal "happiness" is not the same as human happniess. To make such a claim is absolutely absurd. Human happiness has an intellectual component. It's an emotional response to the achievement of value. Values are derived from the branch of philosophy called ethics. Animals don't have value systems or philosophy, they are not rational creatures. Humans have a rational faculty, we are the only creatures with the ability to think, and we are the only creatures who possess rights.

The ability to feel "pain" is not what determines if a creature has rights. That's just a completely bogus and arbitrary claim that animal rights activists love to make because they have an incredibly shallow understanding of ethics.
Sentience is also not the only factor which determines rights. To be sentient is merely to be aware. That alone has no implications on the question of moral rights.

To award rights to animals would not be progress in human morality but just the opposite. It would signal our ignorance of philosophy and would reflect serious flaws in our thinking.
The fact that you equate animals with humans just shows how much self loathing you must have.

And way to equate blacks with animals LOL... poor choice of words in addition to being an arbitrary argument.




None of you have covered jack shit. You guys aren't even capable of defining ethics let alone deriving the concept of rights

This post was edited by Paran0id on Apr 14 2012 11:58am

>.<. omg.. lol at the bold. I mean..why the hell would anyone equate humans with animals? I mean, it's not like humans are animals or anything.. Definitely not.

There can't be more than 1 reason to take a stand on something? I'm vegan because i do not condone the abuse, drugging and slaughtering of animals. While at the same time, being a college athlete, i find veganism to be a much healthier diet.
Also, there are more than 1 different philosophies of ethics. Just because the philosophy that you agree with doesn't give creatures who feel pain the right not feel pain, doesn't mean its right. Hence why its just philosophy. For instance, i try to be as utilitarian as possible, depending on the situation. Which means that i take into account animal suffering and happiness. And no shit they aren't rational. lol. I'm not saying that they deserve rights like we have (like the right to vote, the right to own property, etc. obviously), but i am saying that they have the right not to suffer for reasons that are easily avoidable.
Again, read a book. Broaden you horizon. You have an extremely narrow view of philosophy.

Also, that analogue with blacks was used to show how ridiculous it is to say that animals don't have right just because they're animals, or because they are less than us. That's what we did to blacks and that's how we ethically proved that they don't deserve the same rights as us.

You guys speak of plants as if they weren't living, breathing things. Murderers.

Its so easy to troll vegetarians/vegans.

About this morality...
All animals are going to die someday anyway, and all animals really have to look forward to is eating, mating, and pooping. If I was an animal I prolly wouldn't even mind if someone ate me for sustenance if i lived a decent life.
That said, I still think plant based diets are a good idea.

I also heard something about 'we evolved to eat meat and gain its benefits.' That's wrong, we just happen to be able to digest both as a result of evolutionary pressure.

The bad part is.. is that i don't think he's trolling. I think he's serious.

Wow. So your response to me is: I have a "narrow" view because I am taking a specific position. This is a common argument made by people who do not have a though out view point (example: you.)
Ironically you are also taking a specific position, which is that animal "suffering" is some objectively measurable criteria for determining rights.

what in the fuck does it mean to say "creatures who feel pain have the right not to feel pain"?
Before you make such a claim, you have to explain WHY the feeling of pain endows a creature with moral rights.
For that, you would have to show me that you can rationally derive the concept of rights.
You have failed to do this, because you haven't thought this far ahead. You've arrived at your belief system completely emotionally. You don't like to see animals in pain and based entirely on this emotional response you've come to the conclusion that they have rights that are being violated and that it is unethical to cause pain to animals, on principle.

You use the argument of utilitarianism. First of all, utilitarianism is idiotic so I'm not surprised to learn that that's how you live your life. Secondly, it's a completely arbitrary argument. A utilitarian who likes eating meat can justify eating meat based on the value of the plaasure he gets from eating it. In this case your own argument works against you because you're arguing for hedonism, which you are at the same time trying to argue against by claiming that people should "avoid" this type of pleasure if they "can".

It makes no sense to say that animals have the right to not be hurt if it can be "avoided."

"Avoided" by what criteria? A lot of slaughterhouses have shitty conditions for animals because they are poor. There are places that treat animals better but that also costs more money.
What about scientific research? Many animals have "suffered" when being tested on.

What determines whether it's ethical to hurt animals is the productivity of the act.
Someone who just tortures animals for some sick pleasure is clearly acting unethically and is displaying some mental shortcomings. Not because he is violating the animal's non-existent rights, but because he is attributing value to causing pain to a living creature solely for the purpose of causing pain. This type of person is engaging in destructive rather than productive activity, and so he's not acting morally.

But if you gain some kind of actual value from an animal, such as good tasting food or useful knowledge, it's not unethical. You simply have to weigh your value of the animal's "feelings" against the value of whatever product you get from exploiting the animal.

Who are you to judge for other people whether their treatment of animals can be "avoided"? Sure, I could go without eating a burger for lunch. But I like the taste of the burger. You would say I'm acting immorally because I could "avoid" eating the burger.
Typical spoiled vegan brat, that's what you are. Vegans love acting morally superior and love claiming that they know better what's best for people .

Drugging an animal, biologically altering (i.e, they alter chickens breast muscles so they grow so large that the chicken cannot walk) and then killing the animal, so you can eat ONCE is unethical. You end a life, so you can eat once. All because you don't like the taste of vegetables, or you didn't want to go out of your way to get something vegan. How arrogant are you?
I don't see how that's just emotional either. Obviously it plays a part, but not all of it.
Humans can sustain without eating meat (in a healthier way, too. but we will leave this aside). Animals feel pain ( if you don't agree with this, i don't know what to tell you..). It is immoral to cause unnecessary pain, based on the circumstances, and you should avoid doing so, unless it endangers your (or your families, etc) well being. Therefore, you shouldn't kill animals to provide subsistence.
Seems pretty logical to me.

I honestly don't feel the need to go through each thing you said and respond because it's utterly pointless. I chose not to harm animals and be vegan, as it benefits me twofold. One, its healthier. Two, i feel better morally for not doing so. (also, i never said i live my life as a utilitarian, but i can see why you thought that (bad wording on my part). But i meant that in things like where it involves animals, i try to be utilitarian. Also, anyone who argues that their personal taste ranks higher on a suffering/pleasure scale than an animals life is just hopeless.)
Also; "Typical spoiled vegan brat". lolwut?

Lol okay so now anybody who is not vegan is "arrogant."
You are exposing you and your ilk more and more with each idiotic reply, and only further proving why people can't stand you.
How is genetically altering chickens unethical? You keep talking about ethics yet you can't explain why something is ethical or unethical. Because it's unethical to eat animals? Circular argument. Explain why. Oh wait you can't.

Once again, I asked why the feeling of pain should endow a creature with moral rights, and you have once again evaded the question.
Your argument is 100% emotional and mystical. All you have said is that you don't like animals to feel pain, and therefore it is principally "unethical" to cause pain to animals, regardless of the circumstance.

You have failed to define any kind of objective standard of "suffering", claiming that humans don't require meat and therefore any suffering caused to animals is unethical.
You have not backed up this argument one tiny bit. You keep reverting back to your emotional response to animal pain.

And yeah I like the taste of meat. That makes me arrogant and unethical? You are applying your own standards of what constitutes a proper diet and attributing it to everyone else based on a completely undefined moral standard which you have created out of thin air, with no attempt to even answer my question of how you attribute rights to animals in the first place.

And the reason I call you a spoiled vegan brat is because you have absolutely no consideration for peoples' individual and unique positions in life.
You think that a peasant in a poor country can/is/should be concerned with this vegan nonsense? You think he can afford it? According to you, it is unethical to cause pain to animals, on principle. Therefore all people around the world are acting unethically because they don't follow the dietary advice of some little college shit head who never had to worry about his survival or has ever lived in the real world.

All in all you have provided zero evidence for your case. All of your arguments are from assertion, circular, emotional and/or mystical. You have neither derived the concept of rights nor ethics.
Like all preachy vegans, you are an intellectual lightweight and unable to explain your own position on a coherent level.

NEXT.

This post was edited by Paran0id on Apr 21 2012 05:42pm

The fact that i need to answer this question for you is just proves that i'm wasting my time even talking to you.

Also, there is no excuse to continue this primitive act if you can afford it. If you need to hunt to feed your family, go for it. That's not who i'm against. I'm saying if you can afford it (i.e, you outside of a third-world country), there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be. Unless you're an arrogant, egotistical person. Which judging by your "insults" seems to be true. And act like you've ever had to actually worry about survival.. You kidding me? I clearly said earlier " It is immoral to cause unnecessary pain, based on the circumstances, and you should avoid doing so, unless it endangers your (or your families, etc) well being." So obviously, if you need to hunt to survive, you should. But people living in the western world don't need to. And even if they do, go for it. But biologically altering and mass producing animals to the point where they can't even walk is just utterly despicable.

Lastly, even if i sat down and wrote you a perfect essay on it, you would still just assert your own opinion and completely disregard my argument. Its like arguing with a Christian. No matter what you say, they're always right.
Next?

You haven't made a single real argument, though. Every "argument" you've made is by assertion. I'm not asking for an essay, just a single coherent, reasonable argument.
Your entire theory rests on the idea that eating meat is immoral. You havn't explained how or why it is immoral. You've only alluded to some emotional and incoherent argument about "pain."
When asked to address my concern with pain as an objective standard you have evaded the subject. You've also evaded the subject of why the feeling of pain should endow a creature with rights, and why it is immoral to cause something to feel pain. Only if you address these points can you claim to have made an actual argument that's not just an assertion.

And based on your insanely weak premise you are concluding that anyone who doesn't accept your lifestyle (anyone who eats meat when it can be "avoided") is "arrogant" and "egotistical."
Whether or not the act of eating animals can be avoided is actually irrelevant. Who determines whether it can be avoided? And why should one care to avoid it? The only reason to avoid it is if one concludes that it is unethical to eat meat. But of course, you have not given the slightest evidence as to why such an act is unethical, for reasons stated above.
Now you're claiming that "based on the circumstances" it's immoral to cause pain to animals. Who is to determine what those circumstances are? You? That's how all vegans think. You guys think that YOU have the ability to set the standard of what is necessary for everybody else, and anyone who deviates from your enlightened morality is evil.

And what does my being able to "afford" not to eat meat have to do with anything? That's an arbitrary assertion which you set up so you could follow it up with your emotionally charged, ad hominem attacks against carnivors.

This post was edited by Paran0id on Apr 21 2012 11:36pm