User Controls
We have a moral obligation to stop eating meat
-
2018-03-20 at 10:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I think if there's one conclusion to be had from this thread, it's not that you should or shouldn't be eating meat, it's that Infinityqueer and Speedy Nigger are retarded and need to be heavily medicated to keep them from ever picking up a writing instrument again.
I am curious about one thing, recently I made a thread full of links to research into how plants may be intelligent and may even have a form of consciousness. What do you think about that? Would you ever consider yourself to be morally obligated to stop eating plants? -
2018-03-20 at 10:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Yes it is, and the jury's still out. See Obbe's thread for more information on the latter.
No, it's not, moral claims with a goal require people to assert them. You're advocating a specific morality just by suggesting otherwise.
what youre saying is people shouldnt eat animals...and they shouldnt eat plants...
youre an idiot. -
2018-03-20 at 10:17 PM UTC
-
2018-03-20 at 10:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I am curious about one thing, recently I made a thread full of links to research into how plants may be intelligent and may even have a form of consciousness. What do you think about that? Would you ever consider yourself to be morally obligated to stop eating plants?
I'm aware that plants enjoy a more complicated existence than we generally credit them for, but based on existing literature that I've seen, I'm not convinced that they suffer and I don't think they can be considered moral agents. If this were proven beyond a doubt, however, I would have to reevaluate a lot of what I think I know, and it would also prompt me to make dietary considerations. -
2018-03-20 at 10:27 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Yes it is, and the jury's still out. See Obbe's thread for more information on the latter.
Yes what is? Is it wrong to eat meat, or is it wrong to eat plants? Why not both? Why not neither?
For the sake of argument, I posit that it is immoral to eat plants. Plants may be incapable of independent movement and expressing themselves vocally, but they do not want to be eaten (fruits are of the plant; they are not the plant in itself). Many plants are poisonous, many are covered in barbs and thorns.
When you eat plants (with the exception of fruits) you are going against the plant's wishes as a living being. Why should another living being give up its life to sustain yours?
Originally posted by Zanick No, it's not, moral claims with a goal require people to assert them. You're advocating a specific morality just by suggesting otherwise.
Which "specific morality" did I advocate when I made the following amoral statement?:It's not wrong to eat meat. It's not wrong to eat plants.
I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps you could specifically point it out. -
2018-03-20 at 10:28 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I apologize for not reading this whole thread but can you explain in as simple a way as possible why you believe eating meat is wrong?
Don't be sorry. You can try to read it all if you want, but more than half of it is drivel from the aforementioned morons.
My position on animal rights is deontological: I believe that we have an obligation to recognize animals as moral agents, making harming them a crime. This means that if it has an interest in living and suffers, we are not entitled to kill it.
I am an abolitionist: I believe we must end the relationship of exploitation with animals in our factories, farms, and testing laboratories as they are unconscionable and our actions constitute a holocaust. -
2018-03-20 at 10:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by Enema Bandit Yes what is? Is it wrong to eat meat, or is it wrong to eat plants? Why not both? Why not neither?
For the sake of argument, I posit that it is immoral to eat plants. Plants may be incapable of independent movement and expressing themselves vocally, but they do not want to be eaten (fruits are of the plant; they are not the plant in itself). Many plants are poisonous, many are covered in barbs and thorns.
When you eat plants (with the exception of fruits) you are going against the plant's wishes as a living being. Why should another living being give up its life to sustain yours?
Which "specific morality" did I advocate when I made the following amoral statement?:
I'm just not seeing it. Perhaps you could specifically point it out.
Well, you not only negated my position but also took it a step further. Specifically, I was referring to this moral claim:
Originally posted by Enema Bandit It's wrong to impose a morality fad on others, though.
When you say that it's wrong to do something, you're making a moral claim - just like I am, except the morality you advocate by denying those on the margins is by default the prevailing morality.
As for the plants, I don't agree that they suffer, which is a big deal in my conception of moral agency. -
2018-03-20 at 10:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Don't be sorry. You can try to read it all if you want, but more than half of it is drivel from the aforementioned morons.
My position on animal rights is deontological: I believe that we have an obligation to recognize animals as moral agents, making harming them a crime. This means that if it has an interest in living and suffers, we are not entitled to kill it.
I am an abolitionist: I believe we must end the relationship of exploitation with animals in our factories, farms, and testing laboratories as they are unconscionable and our actions constitute a holocaust.
jesus fuck, youre delusional
what are you going to do about antibiotics? vaccines? cleaning your house? deodorant? -
2018-03-20 at 10:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I'm aware that plants enjoy a more complicated existence than we generally credit them for, but based on existing literature that I've seen, I'm not convinced that they suffer and I don't think they can be considered moral agents. If this were proven beyond a doubt, however, I would have to reevaluate a lot of what I think I know, and it would also prompt me to make dietary considerations.
there have been studies of plants 'suffering'
some sort of EKG or some shit of plants before, during, and after being eaten by some kind of bug -
2018-03-20 at 10:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock jesus fuck, youre delusional
what are you going to do about antibiotics? vaccines? cleaning your house? deodorant?
I didn't say "do away with any product which has ever relied on animal research" even though you seem to have read that. I don't believe that we should continue killing animals, testing on them, or otherwise exploiting them for our gain. There are alternatives that we could be using, but it's more convenient to slaughter millions of innocents than to adjust our resources even slightly.
Originally posted by infinityshock there have been studies of plants 'suffering'
some sort of EKG or some shit of plants before, during, and after being eaten by some kind of bug
If you can find a source that says that plants suffer, I'll give it an honest look over, but I'm not about to go digging myself for the literature because I don't actually think you're very literate and I'm suspicious of any positive claims you make. -
2018-03-20 at 10:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I'm aware that plants enjoy a more complicated existence than we generally credit them for, but based on existing literature that I've seen, I'm not convinced that they suffer and I don't think they can be considered moral agents. If this were proven beyond a doubt, however, I would have to reevaluate a lot of what I think I know, and it would also prompt me to make dietary considerations.
Originally posted by Zanick Don't be sorry. You can try to read it all if you want, but more than half of it is drivel from the aforementioned morons.
My position on animal rights is deontological: I believe that we have an obligation to recognize animals as moral agents, making harming them a crime. This means that if it has an interest in living and suffers, we are not entitled to kill it.
I am an abolitionist: I believe we must end the relationship of exploitation with animals in our factories, farms, and testing laboratories as they are unconscionable and our actions constitute a holocaust.
Based on what I have read plants do respond to pain. I don't know if they can be considered "moral agents" but I don't know if animals can be either. But I think it's probably all relative. What a human, tiger, or a potato would consider "right or wrong" is probably all relative and not absolute.
If it were proven to you beyond a doubt that all living things suffer or have a "consciousness" would you feel obligated to stop eating any living things? Would you consider that to be suicide? Would you consider that a right or wrong thing to do?
I agree that the treatment of animals in factory type farms is wrong. I don't like it. But I understand thing better when I use metaphors, so, listen to this:
I work in construction. When new young people come into construction they are usually treated pretty poorly. I don't agree with such behavior and I don't participate in it. I believe it is wrong to treat people in such a way. But it's the way things are. I don't tell anyone they have a moral obligation to be kind to each other. I don't believe anyone does. When I choose to opt out of these behaviors that's a choice based on the way I personally view the world and how I want to react to it.
I believe something similar is happening when a person chooses to become a vegan - they are opting out of a behavior due to their own personal beliefs. I don't believe there is any obligation to not eat meat at all. Some people think it's wrong, so they don't do it. That's all it is.
Thoughts? -
2018-03-20 at 10:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick When you say that it's wrong to do something, you're making a moral claim - just like I am, except the morality you advocate by denying those on the margins is by default the prevailing morality.
Being normal is not a moral choice. It is inherently amoral.
However, it is wrong to impose your own half-baked, extremist morality on the rest of society. Communism is responsible for more than a hundred million unnatural deaths, not to mention the destruction of cultures, and Islam far more. It's important to deal with troublemakers before they have a chance to cause trouble. -
2018-03-20 at 11:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Based on what I have read plants do respond to pain. I don't know if they can be considered "moral agents" but I don't know if animals can be either. But I think it's probably all relative. What a human, tiger, or a potato would consider "right or wrong" is probably all relative and not absolute.
Issue313 raised a similar point about moral agency earlier; what it means and how it can be applied varies by philosopher. Animal rights advocates argue that the concept should be extended to include nonhuman moral agents, on the basis that they have an explicit interest in living and they clearly suffer when their lives are threatened. I agree with this argument.If it were proven to you beyond a doubt that all living things suffer or have a "consciousness" would you feel obligated to stop eating any living things? Would you consider that to be suicide? Would you consider that a right or wrong thing to do?
Then I might have to reconsider my plant intake, but I think it's very unlikely.I agree that the treatment of animals in factory type farms is wrong. I don't like it. But I understand thing better when I use metaphors, so, listen to this:
I work in construction. When new young people come into construction they are usually treated pretty poorly. I don't agree with such behavior and I don't participate in it. I believe it is wrong to treat people in such a way. But it's the way things are. I don't tell anyone they have a moral obligation to be kind to each other. I don't believe anyone does. When I choose to opt out of these behaviors that's a choice based on the way I personally view the world and how I want to react to it.
I believe something similar is happening when a person chooses to become a vegan - they are opting out of a behavior due to their own personal beliefs. I don't believe there is any obligation to not eat meat at all. Some people think it's wrong, so they don't do it. That's all it is.
Thoughts?
The prominent moral theory I'm referencing when I speak of the deontological argument is Kant's categorical imperative. Essentially, you do the right thing if you think it would be good that everyone else did it too. This is why we'd rewind movies before returning them to the store, chose not to defecate in the public pool, and started carrying around nondisposable water bottles to reduce pollution. It's also why I don't eat meat. Why wouldn't I advocate you stop eating meat when the whole point of my decision is predicated on the notion that others should too? The entire history of moral causes has been a struggle on the part of some people to convince others that there exists a more correct way of conducting themselves. -
2018-03-20 at 11:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick I didn't say "do away with any product which has ever relied on animal research" even though you seem to have read that. I don't believe that we should continue killing animals, testing on them, or otherwise exploiting them for our gain. There are alternatives that we could be using, but it's more convenient to slaughter millions of innocents than to adjust our resources even slightly.
If you can find a source that says that plants suffer, I'll give it an honest look over, but I'm not about to go digging myself for the literature because I don't actually think you're very literate and I'm suspicious of any positive claims you make.
i was talking about you stating anything that was 'alive' needs to be given protected status like niggers
microorganisms are alive
i dont know the source. its something i read and dont remember when or where -
2018-03-20 at 11:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Then I might have to reconsider my plant intake, but I think it's very unlikely.
no, really. say it was scientifically proven that plants have the same previously mentioned sensations and senses, as they relate to flora.
then youll kill yourself to avoid having to make any of them suffer through supplying your nutritional needs, right? -
2018-03-20 at 11:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by Enema Bandit Being normal is not a moral choice. It is inherently amoral.
However, it is wrong to impose your own half-baked, extremist morality on the rest of society. Communism is responsible for more than a hundred million unnatural deaths, not to mention the destruction of cultures, and Islam far more. It's important to deal with troublemakers before they have a chance to cause trouble.
When racists didn't want black kids in their children's classrooms, it was seen as wrong to make their schools the center of a social experiment. Moral reform only happens when the righteous margins convince the skeptical centrists of their view. The 'normal' people are now seen as stubborn, enforcing the lines of segregation we now detest. Some of those 'normal' people can be seen in the background of protest coverage, screaming "nigger" at first-graders. So whether you see yourself as normal or extreme, your actions are colored with moral conviction. If you're convinced that the prevailing strain of morality in society should be beyond question, you're part of a problem so big you can't see it. -
2018-03-20 at 11:21 PM UTC
Originally posted by infinityshock no, really. say it was scientifically proven that plants have the same previously mentioned sensations and senses, as they relate to flora.
then youll kill yourself to avoid having to make any of them suffer through supplying your nutritional needs, right?
How about this: if and when you provide a source for your claims, and if it turns out to be confirmed by additional studies, I'll kill myself. But first, I'll kill you as a favor to the world. You'll never eat another plant or animal, and you'll never log on here again. That is the only compromise I will consider. Feel free to post that source now, but I would do so carefully. -
2018-03-20 at 11:29 PM UTCI only eat humanely killed farm animals that are raised right and loved until they are slaughtered in affection.
-
2018-03-20 at 11:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Zigzagoon I only eat humanely killed farm animals that are raised right and loved until they are slaughtered in affection.
There are animal rights activists who would applaud you for your efforts at minimalizing their suffering. These activists are called welfarists. They're a mixed bag, but they generally are okay with small-scale animal farming, humanely conducted animal testing, breeding animals responsibly, etc.
This is to be contrasted with abolitionists, who would settle for no less than the end of all of that. -
2018-03-20 at 11:35 PM UTC
