| |
Discussion: Do you think eating meat will be illegal in the future?
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Do you know what he's in school for?  Do you know what he does? 
Gurl, I know he knows "health 101" as well as or better than the next person.
And how are you to tell who that person is, hmm? |
you wouldn't but that is the same type of kantian/utilitarian argument that is asked in every law 101 or philosophy 101 class. There's no way of knowing which is the right ethical choice.
Quote:
Originally posted by MissedTheTrain
You wouldn't know the person, and you would have no way of knowing. They could even be the person to find a cure to cancer, but it was up to you to save one of them and you could easily do it.
|
See above.
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Yes - self-preservation bias. Which every animal ever has had.
|
but there are arguments that we are superior in intellect to animals. If we are so superior, then intellectually and logically we should conclude that our net impact on the Earth is NEGATIVE and should be corrected. All the animals add to and benefit the ecosystem in some way: form mosquitoes (insects) to whales. They all have a purpose. Human beings are the outliers. And not even positive outliers at that.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nano
I still don't get what's the difference.
 |
Yeah, that's pretty obvious.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/20/2011
Posts: 26,993
|
I'm an avid meat eater but I wouldn't really mind this tbh. The meat industry is so cruel.
I wouldn't mind switching to faux meat (tho I'd miss steaks and salami) if it wasn't so darn expensive 
I hope lab/cultured meat becomes a thing
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2012
Posts: 13,110
|
why is this thread flagged though? People are being civil and thoughtful so it's flagged?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,630
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Yeah, that's pretty obvious.
|
Why don't you try and educate me? Because from what I understand, what causes the least suffering is the best moral and ethical choice. At least that's what I learned from the Western world.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
you wouldn't but that is the same type of kantian/utilitarian argument that is asked in every law 101 or philosophy 101 class. There's no way of knowing which is the right ethical choice.
|
Exactly. You wouldn't know - you actually wouldn't even think at the time, thanks to chemicals and natural reactions, that you might be saving "the next Hitler". A normal answer would be to choose the human. Using Hitler at all (or North Korea *cough*) in these situations is totally off-base for any reasoned argument.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nano
Why don't you try and educate me? Because from what I understand, what causes the least suffering is the best moral and ethical choice. At least that's what I learned from the Western world.
|
Maybe look deeper into ethics; that's just one standpoint (and not even all of it). I mean, you just concluded that me being pro-meat means I must be pro-North Korea because I'm arguing that there are different ethical ideas. Do you not see the problem there?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2012
Posts: 26,389
|
I was hungry before I entered this thread. Still am. 
ANYWAY, from an environmental standpoint, it would be better to eat fruits/vegetables/basically not meat. It'd also be better to not drive cars, fly on air planes, ride trains, etc., but humans as a whole are not all going to resort to walking or riding bikes (and there are those electric cars, but @ me when the people who eat meat simply because fresh produce is more expensive to feed a family with can easily afford those).
From an ethical standpoint, we shouldn't be murdering animals and eating them, but I have 0 doubt in my mind that the animals we eat would eat us given reversed circumstances. Hell, bears (being omnivores) would love to have a human snack, they don't care about silly ethics.
So, yeah I'd support a non-murderous alternative to meat, if it tasted the same and had the same cost on the consumer end of things to buy, but I'm not going to stop eating it as it stands. 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
why is this thread flagged though? People are being civil and thoughtful so it's flagged?
|
I'm not handling the report, I'll let another mod do it. Conflict of interest; don't want to make it look like I'm forcing my side of the argument by closing or make it look like I'm just keeping it open for the sake of arguing until I get the last word.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/15/2010
Posts: 26,154
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Hugamari
I was hungry before I entered this thread. Still am.
ANYWAY, from an environmental standpoint, it would be better to eat fruits/vegetables/basically not meat. It'd also be better to not drive cars, fly on air planes, ride trains, etc., but humans as a whole are not all going to resort to walking or riding bikes (and there are those electric cars, but @ me when the people who eat meat simply because fresh produce is more expensive to feed a family with can easily afford those).
From an ethical standpoint, we shouldn't be murdering animals and eating them, but I have 0 doubt in my mind that the animals we eat would eat us given reversed circumstances. Hell, bears (being omnivores) would love to have a human snack, they don't care about silly ethics.
So, yeah I'd support a non-murderous alternative to meat, if it tasted the same and had the same cost on the consumer end of things to buy, but I'm not going to stop eating it as it stands. |
All of this.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 485
|
Humans are omnivores. We have two sets of shaped teeth for a reason. "we don't need it to survive" Tell that to your fellow Lion who needs a wildebeest to feast on daily. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/7/2011
Posts: 8,251
|
Lol banning meat = condemning millions to death. You might not need it to survive in whatever first world country you live in but it ain't like that elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/4/2014
Posts: 14,672
|
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Hugamari
I was hungry before I entered this thread. Still am.
ANYWAY, from an environmental standpoint, it would be better to eat fruits/vegetables/basically not meat. It'd also be better to not drive cars, fly on air planes, ride trains, etc., but humans as a whole are not all going to resort to walking or riding bikes (and there are those electric cars, but @ me when the people who eat meat simply because fresh produce is more expensive to feed a family with can easily afford those).
From an ethical standpoint, we shouldn't be murdering animals and eating them, but I have 0 doubt in my mind that the animals we eat would eat us given reversed circumstances. Hell, bears (being omnivores) would love to have a human snack, they don't care about silly ethics.
So, yeah I'd support a non-murderous alternative to meat, if it tasted the same and had the same cost on the consumer end of things to buy, but I'm not going to stop eating it as it stands. |
The bolded is arguable / subjective. 
But yeah, pretty much all of this!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2014
Posts: 13,097
|
I enjoy and eat meat but if I was forced to become a vegeterian I wouldn't really care. If I was forced to become a vegan, however, I would definitely have to riot
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2012
Posts: 20,242
|
Let people eat how they want instead of policing their mouths.
I do have an issue with how some farms treat their animals though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/7/2011
Posts: 8,251
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Hugamari
I was hungry before I entered this thread. Still am.
ANYWAY, from an environmental standpoint, it would be better to eat fruits/vegetables/basically not meat. |
Not true
Quote:
|
From an ethical standpoint, we shouldn't be murdering animals and eating them.
|
You can't dictate your ethics on others.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 30,225
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TikiMiss
you wouldn't but that is the same type of kantian/utilitarian argument that is asked in every law 101 or philosophy 101 class. There's no way of knowing which is the right ethical choice.
See above.
but there are arguments that we are superior in intellect to animals. If we are so superior, then intellectually and logically we should conclude that our net impact on the Earth is NEGATIVE and should be corrected. All the animals add to and benefit the ecosystem in some way: form mosquitoes (insects) to whales. They all have a purpose. Human beings are the outliers. And not even positive outliers at that.
|
The ethical choice is to save the human. Like, would you seriously say you can't pick between a rat and a human?
Are you trying to argue that we aren't intellectually superior to animals?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 973
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TheNight
No, you don't need it, want it. You're not actually a Siberian tiger, your're a human. Humans don't need meat to survive. Tigers do. While we're on this subject, no one better bring up the tired "but lions eat meat, why can't we" argument because I literally just discussed and crushed it here. Lions need meat to survive as they are actual carnivores with actual canine teeth and would actually die eating plants and not meat, whereas we do not need it and can survive just fine eating only plants. Not to mention that lions actually hunt their food and don't just go to the local deli. It's not comparable, at all..
|
I actually forgot which name i use here  Well I can't eat most of protein foods so I really need meat.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2011
Posts: 15,807
|
i saw an article saying that we will run out of resources to feed animals so will be have to be vegan/vegetarians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
