Quote (sean520 @ Apr 22 2012 09:02am)
I did. I made a completely logical argument. You chose to ignore it.. lol.
I'm saying that its unethical to cause UNNECESSARY pain. This determines the circumstances. You can make the argument that sometimes it is necessary to kill an animal for subsistence, and i would 100% agree with you. However, living in the world (the western world) that we live in now, it is very rarely necessary. We can live off of other things (which are quite delicious, you may be surprised to find out), very easily.
Not everyone who eats meat is arrogant and egotistical. But i think that you know enough about the subject to understand what goes on in slaughterhouses, etc., to make your own, educated decision. And yet you still decide to fund these places, saying that this kind of behavior is fine. This makes you arrogant and egotistical because you really think that your taste buds rank higher than animal lives. You really think that you are so much better, and so much more special than everything else on this planet that you think you can mass-produce, biologically alter, and slaughter every animal that simply "tastes good" to you. I would have to say this is pure arrogance.
I don't even know where to begin replying to this insane statement.
First of all, regarding your so-called "argument"
Quote (sean520 @ Apr 16 2012 05:56pm)
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.
That is not an argument because it rests on assertions. You have used this line of reasoning: A is bad. B requires A, Therefore B is bad. This is a logical statement.
But to turn it into an
argument you must explain why A is bad.
Your so-called argument is based on some unsupported assertions that there is some objective measure of animal "pain", and that it is immoral to cause pain on principle. Whether the causing of pain is "necessary" is not yet relevant to the conversation. You first have to explain why it is, on principle, immoral to cause animal pain. The argument also rests on an assertion that survival on its own determines what constitutes a "proper" (by what standards?) diet. There is more to eating food than just surviving. Flavour and enjoyment are very legitimate values to place on one's diet, so it makes no sense to call a diet "unnecessary" unless it is either a] unhealthy at a certain point or b] that certain diets are inherently immoral, and so anything beyond the level of sustenance become unnecessary. And so once again it's back to the drawing board for you. Before you can argue that a certain diet is "unnecessary" you must first explain why it is immoral to kill animals. Since you are using animal "pain" as the underlying concept in your moral crusade against meat eaters your first priority should be to explain why causing animal pain is immoral. And as I find myself repeating over and over like a broken record, you have failed to even ATTEMPT this even once in all of your replies. It is not self-evident no matter how much you wish to believe it is.
As for your argument about my thinking that my "taste buds rank higher" or that I think I'm "more important" than "everything else on this planet..."
I don't think it's even possible to respond to such an
insanely idiotic statement but I'll give it a shot.
by saying that my "taste buds rank higher" I guess you are trying to say that I value good tasting food over the life of the animal I am eating. This is entirely correct if you mean I put my own enjoyment above the pig's ability to live. I still value the pig though. I value the pig as much as it contributes to my own personal happiness. I value it as much as the pulled pork sandwiches it will make me.
Since the pig possesses no moral rights, the only reason to save it from slaughter is if I value the pig's well being more than the pleasure and sustenance I get from eating it. I'm sure you would reply by saying "but you're causing the pig pain! A moral person would value the pig's avoidance of pain more than the sandwich!" Of course, this ties back to you arbitrary assertions about the immorality of causing pain to animals. It would just be another argument from assertion. You still have to explain why it's inherently immoral to cause animal "pain" and then present an objective criteria for animal "pain" (you won't because it's impossible. I just want you to acknowledge this.)
But according to you, there is some automatic value which I should place on the pig, you're saying I should value the pig enough to allow it to live (free of pain, I'm guessing) simply because it is a pig. Tell me why I have a moral obligation to value the pig's well being. I know you're going to say "because it feels pain" but you know how I'll reply to that, so come up with something more substantial for once.
I see now that you're only 19 years old. I don't blame you. You're not the first 19 year old to think he has the world figured out. When I was 19 I also had a lot of insane opinions and I thought I knew better than everybody. Hell, when I was 19 there's a good chance I would have agreed with what you have said in this thread.