Tantz Aerine
and you are probably right in that we should all be vegans

...er... when did I say that?

Someone
...or perhaps, I have read too much into all the teasing I have rather willingly invited :)

That's an understatement. 0_o

LIZARD_B1TE

Tantz Aerine
and you are probably right in that we should all be vegans

...er... when did I say that?

Someone
...or perhaps, I have read too much into all the teasing I have rather willingly invited :)

That's an understatement. 0_o

I apologise to have you so taken aback, then. I do tend to run away with myself on numerous times. Feel free to tell me to slow down in the future (I mean that- sometimes, if I feel strongly about something, I may not let go so do stop me).

About the vegans thing: you did not refute that the take on animals was wrong- you just added that the same applies to plants, ergo: plants should not be eaten just like animals should not, which leaves fruit, vegetables and nuts up for the taking.

Okay, did this post make me look weirder or less weird? heh heh heh

But don't worry- I'm not trying to turn a whole forum or accuse anyone or anything.

Fruits, nut, and vegetables are plants.

Some vegetables are plants. But fruit and nuts are not plants, but what plants produce. The stuff that the plants intend to have eaten by other organisms for their own proliferation.

This is basic biology stuff. I had to have it drummed into my head in college.

Tantz Aerine
Some vegetables are plants. But fruit and nuts are not plants, but what plants produce. The stuff that the plants intend to have eaten by other organisms for their own proliferation.

This is basic biology stuff. I had to have it drummed into my head in college.

So... the plants produce fruits and nuts, and the animal eats it.
The animal... erm... how do I word this....? um... disposes of its waste, and the seeds in the fruit/nut are spread around, fertalized, planted, etc.

I do believe the existance of a sewage system renders that tactic obsolete.

LIZARD_B1TE

Tantz Aerine
Some vegetables are plants. But fruit and nuts are not plants, but what plants produce. The stuff that the plants intend to have eaten by other organisms for their own proliferation.

This is basic biology stuff. I had to have it drummed into my head in college.

So... the plants produce fruits and nuts, and the animal eats it.
The animal... erm... how do I word this....? um... disposes of its waste, and the seeds in the fruit/nut are spread around, fertalized, planted, etc.

I do believe the existance of a sewage system renders that tactic obsolete.

True... *laughs* but the point was that the fruit is meant to be eaten ;)

human beings were meant to be omnivorous, so we should eat animals, but we should still feel bad for all the little cickens and cows that give their lives for us to eat. the least we can do is remember their pain when we eat that nice tasty chicken sandwhich.

Animals can eat us, too. Hell, sometimes they develop a taste for human flesh.

The difference between us and animals? We're smart enough to fight back!

And, honestly, there ARE some dumb animals out there. Like Turkeys. All it takes a bit of rain to kill them because they're so retarded!

LIZARD_B1TE
The difference between us and animals? We're smart enough to fight back!

That's not a difference... They fight back too, we just have better tools. There is no difference between us and animals, because we are animals as well.

Humans are humans however. We are what we are. We don't really need to make up differences between ourselves and other creatures because we already know what we are! I mean, you don't wake up one morning, see a fluffy little dog and immediately mistake it for another human do you? You don't need to define what makes you human. That doesn't stop us being just another animal though.

Retarded Turkeys eh? I'd hardly take the example of a stupid, domesticated, farm-reared, bird as a good illustration of non-human animal stupidity. Especially when we have enough humans who do pretty much exactly the same kinds of dumb things constantly. Drug addicts are a good example...

You're breathing more deeply into my teasing than Tantz was, Onzone.

No, this is the "Debate and Discussion" forum, not the "trade silly remarks" forum, (that's called the "top drawer" ;) ).
If you're not prepared to stand by what you write here, then post it in the Top Drawer instead.

Oh-kay? :)

We come here to argue about things and state opinions. That's the 'fun' of this forum, so if you don't want to join in with that side... there are other forums. That goes for everybody.

Friendly banter is fine (or even Bantams!), but be prepared to defend any statement you make regarding the topic under discusion! You may get hammered for it.

LIZARD_B1TE
Animals can eat us, too. Hell, sometimes they develop a taste for human flesh.

The difference between us and animals? We're smart enough to fight back!

And, honestly, there ARE some dumb animals out there. Like Turkeys. All it takes a bit of rain to kill them because they're so retarded!

Well, just because someone is dumber than you (if we assume this to be true) does not mean you have the right to eat or kill that someone, or in anyway take advantage of him. If you truly believe that, why don't you go ahead and eat a person with severe retardation, who will probably not understand (as well as a dumb turkey does) that you are trying to kill him? Why not shrug and say 'hey, I'm smarter than he is, let's have him for dinner!' Why not go around stealing apples from toddlers and money from ladies with Alzheimer's while you are at it?

Did you just compare eating meat to robbing old women and and children?

The problem with vegetarianism is that human beings are not supposed to eat only vegetables. We had evolved to be omnivorous creatures. Fine, if someone wants to be a vegetarian, that's cool. They can eat whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. But I find it kind of upsetting when people insist on making this a moral argument.

The best we can do is show love, respect, and gratitude to the animals we consume.

Tantz Aerine
Well, just because someone is dumber than you (if we assume this to be true) does not mean you have the right to eat or kill that someone, or in anyway take advantage of him. If you truly believe that, why don't you go ahead and eat a person with severe retardation, who will probably not understand (as well as a dumb turkey does) that you are trying to kill him? Why not shrug and say 'hey, I'm smarter than he is, let's have him for dinner!' Why not go around stealing apples from toddlers and money from ladies with Alzheimer's while you are at it?

Why not indeed, greedy ass kids and old people.
All kidding aside, though, Rich makes a good point: humans evolved to eat meat. People shouldn't use morality when it comes to vegetarianism, it's too relative. I've been a hunter since I was 8, I recognize that an elk is a noble and beautiful creature, but I also recognize that elk can feed a family of 5 for quite some time. Yes many animals are cute, but just as many are quite good on a grill with some lemon pepper. We're built for meat, nature or god, whatever you want to say, has made us with an omnivorous diet in mind.

KomradeDave
Why not indeed, greedy ass kids and old people.
All kidding aside, though, Rich makes a good point: humans evolved to eat meat. People shouldn't use morality when it comes to vegetarianism, it's too relative. I've been a hunter since I was 8, I recognize that an elk is a noble and beautiful creature, but I also recognize that elk can feed a family of 5 for quite some time. Yes many animals are cute, but just as many are quite good on a grill with some lemon pepper. We're built for meat, nature or god, whatever you want to say, has made us with an omnivorous diet in mind.

Yes, an elk can feed a family of 5, but so can 500g of rice and 2 litres of milk, for a while, if you know the way to cook it for 5 people and to last. I would accept what you said about being evolved as meat eaters if we were actually carnivorous- not omnivorous. Omnivore means you can sustain yourself on anything- and therefore choose what diet suits you.

It is not a matter of cuteness. I think a rat is anything but cute, and a pig rolling in mud is not my idea of a pet, but I think that since God, or nature, whatever you want to say, gave them enough intelligence to procure personalities (those with more than one pets will certainly have seen as much), I would respect these personalities as much as I respect them in a human.

But I am interested to know why morality is too relative in this case?

Rich
But I find it kind of upsetting when people insist on making this a moral argument.

The best we can do is show love, respect, and gratitude to the animals we consume.

Sorry, Rich- I didn't see your post immediately *ss*

Why are you upset? After all, you represent the majority, and here I am representing a staggering minority. If anything, it should not be aggravating you... besides, I think I faintly recall someone wishing for a voice to represent the other side of this argument. Wish granted :)

I am not sure how you can show love and respect and gratitude to the animal you consume- unless you mean you want to feel better about it yourself. I mean, how does the animal receive this gratitude and respect and love? And if you were lower in the food chain, and some other species killed you in mass, but being very respectful and grateful to you for it, would it really matter to you? I find this completely dissonant with the whole act of killing and eating. At least a tiger does is not chummy with the gazelles it hunts. Nor does it show them respect and love.

Tantz Aerine
Why are you upset? After all, you represent the majority, and here I am representing a staggering minority. If anything, it should not be aggravating you... besides, I think I faintly recall someone wishing for a voice to represent the other side of this argument. Wish granted :)

It isn't aggravating me, it's just that I don't understand how someone can accuse people who eat animals as immoral when we were evolved to do so.

Tantz
I am not sure how you can show love and respect and gratitude to the animal you consume- unless you mean you want to feel better about it yourself. I mean, how does the animal receive this gratitude and respect and love? And if you were lower in the food chain, and some other species killed you in mass, but being very respectful and grateful to you for it, would it really matter to you? I find this completely dissonant with the whole act of killing and eating. At least a tiger does is not chummy with the gazelles it hunts. Nor does it show them respect and love.

I disagree with you. By showing respect and love to the creature, we allow it to live happily before we must kill it. We may also show it respect to make sure it has a quick and painless death as well. The animal deserves to live peacefully and to not suffer when its time has come.

As for what would happen if we were on the recieving end? That is not something any of us could truly answer.

Tantz Aerine
Yes, an elk can feed a family of 5, but so can 500g of rice and 2 litres of milk, for a while, if you know the way to cook it for 5 people and to last. I would accept what you said about being evolved as meat eaters if we were actually carnivorous- not omnivorous. Omnivore means you can sustain yourself on anything- and therefore choose what diet suits you.

It is not a matter of cuteness. I think a rat is anything but cute, and a pig rolling in mud is not my idea of a pet, but I think that since God, or nature, whatever you want to say, gave them enough intelligence to procure personalities (those with more than one pets will certainly have seen as much), I would respect these personalities as much as I respect them in a human.

But I am interested to know why morality is too relative in this case?

Omnivores means we eat both, not either one. That would be an ambivore or a pannavore, something along those lines. We are at the point now where you can survive without eating meat, it isn't hard to find a substitute, so i suppose it has become a choice. The fact of the matter is though, omnivore or carnivore, we are still set up to take in meat. From our teeth to the enzymes in our stomach our bodies are made to consume meat.
As for the personality argument, that is precisely why it is a relative moral judgement. I see nothing wrong in eating an animal jus because it has a personality. There are some animals made for a specific purpose. I won't eat my pets because that isn't what they're for, but I don't have a pet pig or sheep because that's not what they're for either. It's morally relative because you see it as morally wrong to kill the animal and eat it when there is another alternative, whereas I see it as morally wrong to let any of that animal goes to waste or for it to suffer before giving up its life.
Our arguments are very similar, just for different sides. Yours is that the human-like traits of an animal should prevent us from sacrificing it. Mine is that our animal-like traits are justification for that sacrifice. Meat ain't pretty when it gets made, but that doesn't make all meat immoral.

Well then, KomradeDave, this is where our opinions and attitudes differ. I respect your opinion and I am glad that you respect mine. It is a courtesy not many afford me. I could argue further about when the human organism functions better and on what sort of food- but there is just as much controversy over this dietary issue as there is on meat eating.

However, without wanting to come across as a bigoted extremest or something, I have to say that what you said (some animals are made for eating, pets aren't made for that), that this too is a relative claim: what you have as pet is food for another culture, whereas what you eat is pet or sacred for other cultures. It comes down then, to what is more relative: what culture stipulates as the proper 'nature/God-given right' of homo sapiens, or the fact that we are making a conscious choice about killing and eating some animals whereas respecting (to some extent) some others?

Again, thank you for recognising my opinion as valid as yours. It's a rare virtue to be had :)

Rich
It isn't aggravating me, it's just that I don't understand how someone can accuse people who eat animals as immoral when we were evolved to do so.

I did not accuse you as immoral. Not once did I say 'you sadistic meat eating bastard, you should burn in hell for it!'

...nope, I checked. I never said that. What I did say, is that the 'we are made to do this' argument loses its validity when we very happily don't mind doing other things that nature did not make us to do, like fly, or go to outer space, or any number of not-so-natural things. All I said, is that my opinion is we do have a choice, and there are many arguments against killing animals. And having been a very avid meat-eater 90% of my life, let me tell you that I have been where you were, and I had to see the agony of death for animals that actually are considered the most humanely raised (they were from a flock of freely grazing lambs), and how they did not seem to understand that they had been loved and respected up to the point they were deemed ready to be eaten. I don't consider you or any other meat eater immoral. Besides, I have no right to pass judgement on anyone. I respect your opinion and your decisions. But I don't think I should lie and say I think it right... wouldn't that be hypocrisy?

Rich
As for what would happen if we were on the recieving end? That is not something any of us could truly answer.

I beg to differ; it is not such a hard thing to imagine yourself being in. There have been historical occurences that simulate the situation well enough. But I do accept and recognise it is not the easiest or the most pleasant thing to do.

And once more: I don't think you are immoral! Honest!

Tantz Aerine
However, without wanting to come across as a bigoted extremest or something, I have to say that what you said (some animals are made for eating, pets aren't made for that), that this too is a relative claim: what you have as pet is food for another culture, whereas what you eat is pet or sacred for other cultures. It comes down then, to what is more relative: what culture stipulates as the proper 'nature/God-given right' of homo sapiens, or the fact that we are making a conscious choice about killing and eating some animals whereas respecting (to some extent) some others?

Again, thank you for recognising my opinion as valid as yours. It's a rare virtue to be had :)

I don't want it to seem like I'm poking you with a stick but I didn't make myself as clear as I should have. I wasn't saying that certain types of animals were off limits. When I said "my pets" I meant specifically my pets. I have nothing against those that eat the types of animals I keep as pets, that's their deal. What I was saying is that I won't eat my cat because I got my cat as a pet. I don't treat my pigs as pets because I got them to be livestock. I readily admit that there could be someplaces where to positions of those two could possible be switched, and that doesn't bother me.
Also, thank you for being respectful as well. I try to do so at all times, especially with vegetarians (so there's always more for me! jfa).

KomradeDave
I don't want it to seem like I'm poking you with a stick but I didn't make myself as clear as I should have. I wasn't saying that certain types of animals were off limits. When I said "my pets" I meant specifically my pets. I have nothing against those that eat the types of animals I keep as pets, that's their deal. What I was saying is that I won't eat my cat because I got my cat as a pet. I don't treat my pigs as pets because I got them to be livestock. I readily admit that there could be someplaces where to positions of those two could possible be switched, and that doesn't bother me.
Also, thank you for being respectful as well. I try to do so at all times, especially with vegetarians (so there's always more for me! jfa).

*swats stick away* watch what you're poking with that thing! heh.

Okay, lame joking aside:

Still, the relativity issue remains- it is what you, as a person, define as off limits, because you (perhaps, I am assuming here) allow yourself to bond with your pet whereas you don't allow yourself to do so with the livestock. If you did allow it, perhaps you would not be able to find it in you to kill them. It's just the very same argument, just as you so rightly said earlier on. You choose not to do it, on a relative (albeit consistent and stable and culturally corroborated) assumption on which animals are on which list.

Which is, I think, where we should both bow and salute in the fencer's way- as there is nothing else to argue on, at this point... is there?

You are very welcome, by the way, about the respetfulness. I enjoy a good debate, not bashing or heated but empty verbal attacks ;)

I believe we must take this in to account:

Social structure.

Pretty much every animal in the world follows a social structure. Even the ones that live alone have to follow one in some way, otherwise, they'd never mate and their species would die off.

Human social structure is centered around dominance.

We are the dominant species on the planet, therefore, we naturally think of animals as below us, we are at the top of the food chain, so it is only natural to think this way.

So, when you mentioned that thing about mental retardation, it showed that you looked at animals as equal, I don't. I certainly don't think we should the mentally retarded, my uncle is mentally retarded (and let me tell you, people don't give enough credit to those guys, he is much more intelligent than you would think).

Like many other animals, humans are biologically engineered to eat meat. The thing I don't understand about vegetarianism and animal rights is how they can say animals shouldn't be eaten and stuff, while defending not only the herbivores, but the carnivores as well.

Humans have canine teeth, if every other animal with sharp teeth is allowed to eat meat, why is it wrong for a human to eat meat?

chickens are descendent of dinosaurs...I think

LIZARD_B1TE
I believe we must take this in to account:

Social structure.

Pretty much every animal in the world follows a social structure. Even the ones that live alone have to follow one in some way, otherwise, they'd never mate and their species would die off.

Human social structure is centered around dominance.

I totally agree. But there are tons of philosophies and dogmas and religions saying that this should not be the case, even though it is. *shrugs* But I couldn't agree with you more if I shouted it.

[LIZARD_B1TE"
Humans have canine teeth, if every other animal with sharp teeth is allowed to eat meat, why is it wrong for a human to eat meat?

I have answered this before, but I can't really convince you, because this is about personal philosophies: because humans have the very practical choice what to eat. And if we want to say that we are not only ruled by instincts (as we believe/claim/declare animals to be doing), then what we were doing in previous evolutionary stages should not weigh so much on the debate scale, should it? We can't claim to 'have conquered nature' and brag about it, but go back and say 'can't help it, it's in my nature' when it comes to something we basically can't be bothered to give up. *shrugs* but that is, like I have stressed before, my philosophy and my opinion, which I find is based on facts that have convinced me to become vegetarian. That is all.