Veganism

[BlueTangerine]

@BlueTangerine

You still didn't answer why the fuck you think your kids will ever Thank you for depriving them of meat, of fish, if your that strict on it I assume milk, eggs and cheese. No cod in butter sauce and mash potatoes. No omelette with bacon in, no cheese and ham toasties. No fucking pepperoni pizza! No spag bol. No mac and cheese. No pork chops. No steak. No fish from the chippy. No milkshakes! You're being fucking cruel.

Because I think the evidence is overwhelming and I don't want my kids to have the stuff I have on my conscience. The argument that the cost is acceptable because of how nice it tastes is ridiculous

 

[Yaya_Tony]

Because I think the evidence is overwhelming and I don't want my kids to have the stuff I have on my conscience. The argument that the cost is acceptable because of how nice it tastes is ridiculous

They won't have it on their conscience they likely won't give a shit. Let them make their own minds up as they grow older. You've spoken about "facts" a lot in this thread. The fact is you're imposing your own beliefs on your children.

And it does taste nice.

 

[Damocles]

It isn't arbitrary though. How can you believe animals with nervous systems braains and millions of neurons can not feel pain? I don't understand. It really feels like rationalizing rather than being rational.

I don't think they don't feel pain, nor can you rule out flies feeling pain. In fact there's decent evidence to suggest that almost every thing that is alive feels "pain" in some way, shape or form depending on your definition of the world.

I'm saying their pain is secondary in importance to my comfort or food supply. You're doing the exact same thing with other animals, you're just seemingly unwilling to admit it.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

It isn't arbitrary though. How can you believe animals with nervous systems braains and millions of neurons can not feel pain? I don't understand. It really feels like rationalizing rather than being rational.

Given that so much land is used for commercial farming are you not a little sad for the billions of animals that starve or are mangled in the industrial harvest of your veg? Wouldn't the logical conclusion of your position be to not eat anything, or wear any clothes, or breath any air? All of these things impact in a negative way on other species. The only answer is to cease to exist. I'm not recommending that by the way, just in case you reach the same conclusion. I'm highlighting the flaw in the logic you use to justify not eating meat.

 

[west didsblue]

Because I think the evidence is overwhelming and I don't want my kids to have the stuff I have on my conscience. The argument that the cost is acceptable because of how nice it tastes is ridiculous

Evidence of what?

 

[york away to this!]

we have sharp teeth for a reason...

 

[BlueTangerine]

I don't think they don't feel pain, nor can you rule out flies feeling pain. In fact there's decent evidence to suggest that almost every thing that is alive feels "pain" in some way, shape or form depending on your definition of the world.

I'm saying their pain is secondary in importance to my comfort or food supply. You're doing the exact same thing with other animals, you're just seemingly unwilling to admit it.

I'm not unwilling to admit anything. I dont believe flies feel pain, I believe they have reflexes . My comfort also comes first and if there was nothing else to eat I would have to kill to survive.

People going on about the moral high ground or holier than thou stuff make me laugh. I am making an argument. I think it's fair to say my outlook on life is negative and that includes myself. The game is pointless and full of waste, and acknowledging that is hard.

 

[BlueTangerine]

Evidence of what?

That animals feel pain in a significant way.

 

[Yaya_Tony]

I'm not unwilling to admit anything. I dont believe flies feel pain, I believe they have reflexes . My comfort also comes first and if there was nothing else to eat I would have to kill to survive.

People going on about the moral high ground or holier than thou stuff make me laugh. I am making an argument. I think it's fair to say my outlook on life is negative and that includes myself. The game is pointless and full of waste, and acknowledging that is hard.

In what way do flies not feel pain. They notice when I try to swat the pesky fuckers.

In a nutshell you're still talking out of your arse. Because you've got nothing new to come up with.

 

[Phil1]

I'm not unwilling to admit anything. I dont believe flies feel pain, I believe they have reflexes . My comfort also comes first and if there was nothing else to eat I would have to kill to survive.

People going on about the moral high ground or holier than thou stuff make me laugh. I am making an argument. I think it's fair to say my outlook on life is negative and that includes myself. The game is pointless and full of waste, and acknowledging that is hard.

You are making an argument that many, many disagree with. You calling people cunts because we choose to eat meat is what comes across as having the moral high ground. Glad it makes you laugh, from reading your posts you could do with one every now and again.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I'm not unwilling to admit anything. I dont believe flies feel pain, I believe they have reflexes . My comfort also comes first and if there was nothing else to eat I would have to kill to survive.

People going on about the moral high ground or holier than thou stuff make me laugh. I am making an argument. I think it's fair to say my outlook on life is negative and that includes myself. The game is pointless and full of waste, and acknowledging that is hard.

I understand what you're saying, but perpetual knuckle chewing and hand wringing about all the ills of a world that has never fundamentally changed since humans decided to walk on two legs, really is a pointless exercise. As far as meat eating is concerned, these very humans did exactly that, as they were, and still are omnivores.
It's my experience that vegetarians, vegans etc; are by nature squeamish, and then presume that this condition is an indicator of the evils of meat eating, so their default position is to try and promote their position as morally just.

 

[smudgedj]

Because I think the evidence is overwhelming and I don't want my kids to have the stuff I have on my conscience. The argument that the cost is acceptable because of how nice it tastes is ridiculous

Where is this evidence?

 

[Damocles]

I'm not unwilling to admit anything. I dont believe flies feel pain, I believe they have reflexes . My comfort also comes first and if there was nothing else to eat I would have to kill to survive.

People going on about the moral high ground or holier than thou stuff make me laugh. I am making an argument. I think it's fair to say my outlook on life is negative and that includes myself. The game is pointless and full of waste, and acknowledging that is hard.

People are getting uppity because you're proclaiming your argument as the only logical one (which it isn't) and that is makes you morally superior (which it doesn't) and others are too blind to see it. I just choose to concentrate on your argument because I believe it to be logically rather than ethically flawed.

You don't believe flies feel pain but have reflexes. The distinction between pain and reflexes is an incredibly blurry one, something that I don't think you appreciate scientifically. Most people working in the field for decades have an extremely hard time differentiating, both are just reactions based to external stimuli.

I believe that the expression of genetically learned reflexes is an expression of pain. This is a belief and not a fact because something you haven't mentioned is that there's no such thing as pain in animals as a fact. Pain is a name we give to certain stimuli of the human brain and whilst it's logical to assume that animals must feel something close to this, we don't KNOW. We just work under the assumption that the human reaction to pain is also the animal reaction to pain because we're anthropologically driven to understand the world by our own biology, as I pointed out in the thread where I posted a pic of Earth at different light wavelengths. Pain in animals isn't as clear cut as you have made out in your argument. Consciousness is even more murky and the scientific consensus at present is that animals do not possess consciousness as we understand it or that is in any way comparable to humans.

As a man who puts a bit of stock in scientific consensus, this is good enough for me until compelling evidence from an unbiased source changes my mind.

My overall point though is simple. You don't understand pain in animals because no person in the world does. Therefore it's extremely likely that your line is just as bogus and arbitrary as everybody else's unless you're carrying a PhD in Animal Behavioural Psychology and 30 years of published research in your back pocket, and you're murdering animals that feel pain or have some form of consciousness and doing so without giving it a second's thought.

So the only options ethically are to classify consciousness as we understand it or by reclassifying consciousness as life itself which means everything from washing yourself to any sexual excretion is immediately considered unethical, or to classify the development of language and intelligence to a human standard as the bearer for where we draw the line.

I'd argue that my stance that no animals have consciousness and are all subject to the laws of nature is much more developed as an argument then yours which is some animals are exempt based on arbitrary guidelines that are completely invented, not supported by anything scientifically and have no defining quality to them apart from your own subjectiveness.

 

[smudgedj]

Kill your own meat! you appreciate it a lot more...it's healthy too, on many different levels

And it's easier than you think.

 

[andyhinch]

Wtf am I reading, kill them, eat them and bloody well enjoy it, something I've never posted before but this thread should be locked, mod's get a grip :)

 

[west didsblue]

That animals feel pain in a significant way.

It's fucking obvious that animals feel pain, however that is irrelevant to whether we should eat them. The important thing is to ensure that the slaughter process limits any pain felt by the animal to the absolute minimum. I've read studies that show that a skilfully slaughtered animal would lose consciousness within a couple of seconds and it's arguable whether they feel any pain at all. If you can't live with the possibility that an animal might feel pain for a second or two then by all means be a vegan but I can quite easily live with that possibility and don't think it makes me a bad person.

 

[SWP's back]

Because I think the evidence is overwhelming and I don't want my kids to have the stuff I have on my conscience. The argument that the cost is acceptable because of how nice it tastes is ridiculous

Why would they have it on their conscience....

You say no one has free will.

 

[SWP's back]

I think it's fair to say my outlook on life is negative and that includes myself. The game is pointless and full of waste, and acknowledging that is hard.

Sounds like it's you with the problem, not others.

 

[BlueTangerine]

People are getting uppity because you're proclaiming your argument as the only logical one (which it isn't) and that is makes you morally superior (which it doesn't) and others are too blind to see it. I just choose to concentrate on your argument because I believe it to be logically rather than ethically flawed.

You don't believe flies feel pain but have reflexes. The distinction between pain and reflexes is an incredibly blurry one, something that I don't think you appreciate scientifically. Most people working in the field for decades have an extremely hard time differentiating, both are just reactions based to external stimuli.

I believe that the expression of genetically learned reflexes is an expression of pain. This is a belief and not a fact because something you haven't mentioned is that there's no such thing as pain in animals as a fact. Pain is a name we give to certain stimuli of the human brain and whilst it's logical to assume that animals must feel something close to this, we don't KNOW. We just work under the assumption that the human reaction to pain is also the animal reaction to pain because we're anthropologically driven to understand the world by our own biology, as I pointed out in the thread where I posted a pic of Earth at different light wavelengths. Pain in animals isn't as clear cut as you have made out in your argument. Consciousness is even more murky and the scientific consensus at present is that animals do not possess consciousness as we understand it or that is in any way comparable to humans.

As a man who puts a bit of stock in scientific consensus, this is good enough for me until compelling evidence from an unbiased source changes my mind.

My overall point though is simple. You don't understand pain in animals because no person in the world does. Therefore it's extremely likely that your line is just as bogus and arbitrary as everybody else's unless you're carrying a PhD in Animal Behavioural Psychology and 30 years of published research in your back pocket, and you're murdering animals that feel pain or have some form of consciousness and doing so without giving it a second's thought.

So the only options ethically are to classify consciousness as we understand it or by reclassifying consciousness as life itself which means everything from washing yourself to any sexual excretion is immediately considered unethical, or to classify the development of language and intelligence to a human standard as the bearer for where we draw the line.

I'd argue that my stance that no animals have consciousness and are all subject to the laws of nature is much more developed as an argument then yours which is some animals are exempt based on arbitrary guidelines that are completely invented, not supported by anything scientifically and have no defining quality to them apart from your own subjectiveness.

I'll try to post links later to what I've read and the conclusions it has made me form. All I was really saying was I think animals feel pain and distress and thus you are obligated to extend 'the golden rule' to them. Our Human nature isn't pretty or good and the only saving grace is our intelligence, it would be better if we didn't walk through our shit lives rationalizing our behaviour.

 

[Phil1]

I'll try to post links later to what I've read and the conclusions it has made me form. All I was really saying was I think animals feel pain and distress and thus you are obligated to extend 'the golden rule' to them. Our Human nature isn't pretty or good and the only saving grace is our intelligence, it would be better if we didn't walk through our shit lives rationalizing our behaviour.

You might have a shit life and want to over analyse every little thing in order to make it better. The majority of us just try and do the best for ourselves and our children. We all have our own definitions as to what that is.
Mine includes eating meat and I wouldn't have it any other way.