What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Mirrorglass]

Didn't you read what he said? We aren't worth the effort, since we're stupid and irrational.





Seriously, Cain? Are you really saying all the arguments for eating meat presented here have been irrational?

 

[Cain]

Why not put us all in our place by revealing the One Truth That Makes Us All Think Like You (tm)? Seriously, it must be easier than being so judgmental all day.

You shouldn't call me judgmental unless you're familiar with my posts. I'm not saying you're mistaken, but it's such an overused, anti-vegan trope. It's almost as bad as the whole "Animals taste delicious!" line that gets so much play, proving that hackery is common, good taste is rare.

Seriously, Cain? Are you really saying all the arguments for eating meat presented here have been irrational?

Since I have not read each and every post in this thread, I cannot say all of them are irrational. I can understand eating meat in some cases, such as roadkill or dumpster-diving. I'd consider a discarded Big Mac vegan. That said, having participated in almost a dozen of these multi-hundred post threads on this forum, I can say the meat-eating arguments are almost always lacking. What have I overlooked? (Please, don't say animals will never demand rights like Martin Luther King did).

 

[Cavemonster]

I can give the rationale for my own diet and the morality surrounding it. If resident vegans can find holes in it I would be happy to discuss it.

I am part of a social contract with humans. To the extent that I respect other human's lives, freedom and property, mine is safe. To the extent that I cooperate with humans, I contribute to a society where they cooperate with me.

This contract extends beyond me and people I deal with directly to my and their families and people and things they care about. If I kill my neighbor's dog, I jeopordize our relationship.

At some times in our history, various human groups have been less included in this contract. You could make a lot of arguments about the moral problems with that, but above all that, it prevented them from fully contributing to that social system in the ways that members of those groups are able to now.

Aside from that, I have no desire to eat humans, I don't live in a level of scarcity where it makes sense based on nutritional need, whether through upbringing or instinct, the thought sort of repulses me.

There is no way to enter into such a broad social contract with non-human animals. Eating them doesn't decrease my safety around animals, or the safety of my friends, property and loved ones.

My personal morality is based on shaping a world I want to live in, and that I want those I love to live in. There is no necessity for a blanket moral protection including animals for me to work toward that goal.

 

[Piscivore]

There is no way to enter into such a broad social contract with non-human animals. Eating them doesn't decrease my safety around animals, or the safety of my friends, property and loved ones.

And, contrariwise, not eating them does not increase one's safety around other animals, or the safety of one's friends, property and loved ones.

Good post, CM.

 

[mumblethrax]

If resident vegans can find holes in it I would be happy to discuss it.

What? Why is this my problem? Clean up your own mess.

 

[Cavemonster]

What? Why is this my problem? Clean up your own mess.

What mess do you think I have?
I'm quite happy with my dietary philosophy.

 

[Slimething]

You shouldn't call me judgmental unless you're familiar with my posts.

Read what you wrote. It was judgmental. Shoe fits...wear it.

Why would I care about any other of your posts? That one was dumb enough to last me a while.

 

[BTMO]

Just to keep this real...

I spent three hours paddling in my kayak to get this. I stabbed it in the spine to kill it quickly and cleanly (while it was laying on my lap, in the kayak), then I bled it - again, in the kayak.

It is about to go into the frying pan.

 

[cyborg]

I can understand eating meat in some cases, such as roadkill or dumpster-diving. I'd consider a discarded Big Mac vegan.

So arguments for eating meat aren't rational but this is?!

Seems to support my view that veganism is about self-punishment for the burden of existence rather than any actual welfare concern. Because as long as YOU didn't factory farm the animal the fact that it died in pain after being struck by a car, or was part of a mass farming process is just a-ok.

What have I overlooked? (Please, don't say animals will never demand rights like Martin Luther King did).

Animals are verifiably not humans no matter how much Disney says otherwise. No matter how much you might like to think otherwise you are projecting your emotions onto them and coming to conclusions on the morality of eating meat based upon that. So yes, you have overlooked something pretty damn fundamental.

 

[Dragoonster]

It's also interesting that the "lol I luv killing animals" posts didn't stop after I pointed out how vacuous they were. I'm not sure whether it's evidence for the "cognitive dissonance" theory or for the "just not capable of intelligent thought on this topic" theory.

Or it's a form of trolling, getting a rise out of the silly animal rights activists. Maybe with some bizarre species-centric machismo/superiority thrown in. As in:

Just to keep this real...

I spent three hours paddling in my kayak to get this. I stabbed it in the spine to kill it quickly and cleanly (while it was laying on my lap, in the kayak), then I bled it - again, in the kayak.

It is about to go into the frying pan.

 

[Cain]

There is no way to enter into such a broad social contract with non-human animals. Eating them doesn't decrease my safety around animals, or the safety of my friends, property and loved ones.

Obviously we can find contractarianism lacking on more fundamental, non-vegan grounds. Putting these objections aside for a moment, it appears animals lose status on your view. What's to stop me from abusing cats for fun? I own them, they're mine, and there's no threat of a united animal uprising (I mean, we are talking about cats here). Your reasoning strongly implies torture, dog-fighting, take-your-pick should be allowed... unless the contract contains a mechanism unknown to me.

And here lies a basic tension: meat-eaters want a justification to consume animals, but almost everybody also wants reasoning that prohibits cruelty. How can your social contract reconcile these demands?

--------------------------
Slimething:

Read what you wrote. Judgmental blah blah blah blah...

I thought it was worthy of a Bond villain (but a really good one): more observant than judgmental.

--------------------------
BTMO:

I stabbed it in the spine to kill it quickly and cleanly (while it was laying on my lap, in the kayak)

You took a stab while it was laying on your lap? Whew, these are not dumb meat-eaters from the politics forum. I better get my thesaurus!

--------------------------
Cyborg:

Seems to support my view that veganism is about self-punishment for the burden of existence rather than any actual welfare concern. Because as long as YOU didn't factory farm the animal the fact that it died in pain after being struck by a car, or was part of a mass farming process is just a-ok.

This is kneejerk reaction, almost robotic. If your characterization is correct then I should have no problem ordering a Big Mac from McDonalds because, hey, I "didn't factory farm the animal." Look up "sunk cost fallacy."

Animals are verifiably not humans no matter how much Disney says otherwise. No matter how much you might like to think otherwise you are projecting your emotions onto them and coming to conclusions on the morality of eating meat based upon that. So yes, you have overlooked something pretty damn fundamental.

You're inventing nonsense and trying to hand it off to me. Thanks for that. And by "thanks" I mean "no thanks."

 

[Slimething]

Slimething:


I thought it was worthy of a Bond villain (but a good one): more observant than judgmental.

At least that has some humor in it. Your post was judgmental. No denying it. But, so what? Have a burger.

 

[cyborg]

How can your social contract reconcile these demands?

Death != cruelty.

Easy; it's your fallacy that the death of an animal necessitates cruelty to an animal. One second of though strikes that out as ludicrous because one can only experience "cruelty" when alive - death is the cessesion of suffering.

This is kneejerk reaction, almost robotic. If your characterization is correct then I should have no problem ordering a Big Mac from McDonalds because, hey, I "didn't factory farm the animal." Look up "sunk cost fallacy."

Then what is your justification for calling a discarded BigMac vegan? That you didn't instigate demand for it? That you are morally clean of the death of the animal involved?

You're inventing nonsense and trying to hand it off to me.

The fundamental nonsense here is pretending that the animals give a crap about this discussion. It is your fallacy that the death of an animal for food necessitates cruelty. It is even more ridiculous in the face of the fact that you have stated you have no problem eating an animal that presumably suffered before it died (road-kill).

And yet you have the unmitigated gall to call meat-eater's arguments irrational.

 

[Cain]

Death != cruelty.

Easy; it's your fallacy that the death of an animal necessitates cruelty to an animal. One second of though strikes that out as ludicrous because one can only experience "cruelty" when alive - death is the cessesion of suffering.

You're not even responding to what I'm saying. I thought the context was clear, but there is a paragraph break. By cruelty I mean torturing animals for fun (not really food related). Needless to say, even if your argument was on target, it has almost no force.

Then what is your justification for calling a discarded BigMac vegan? That you didn't instigate demand for it? That you are morally clean of the death of the animal involved?

More or less.

The fundamental nonsense here is pretending that the animals give a crap about this discussion. It is your fallacy that the death of an animal for food necessitates cruelty. It is even more ridiculous in the face of the fact that you have stated you have no problem eating an animal that presumably suffered before it died (road-kill).

So we're just gonna let it go to waste? C'mon, if I took that view you'd probably be even quicker to brand me as hopelessly self-righteous.

And yet you have the unmitigated gall to call meat-eater's arguments irrational.

I know! So unmitigated. In unrelated news, I have the best avatar ever.

 

[BTMO]

Or it's a form of trolling, getting a rise out of the silly animal rights activists. Maybe with some bizarre species-centric machismo/superiority thrown in. As in:

I was trolling.

With my trolling gear.

You know - the original meaning of the word "trolling"...

 

[cyborg]

By cruelty I mean torturing animals for fun (not really food related).

So irrelevant to the topic. If eating animals for food does not necessitate cruelty then this has no place in the argument. If it does then you can argue it as a reason not to eat animals.

More or less.

So by that token since I have absolutely no moral qualms about the death of animals being instigated for food by antrophic forces - which is the only thing you apparently have a problem with - there's not really anything else for you to say is there?

So we're just gonna let it go to waste?

So you're just going to deny animal protein to other organisms?

C'mon, if I took that view you'd probably be even quicker to brand me as hopelessly self-righteous.

I find your position of non-athrophic death based animal protein = ok, anthropic death based animal protein != ok to be the problem here. If that is the crux of the issue then arguments on cruelty et al are irrelevant. The self-righteous part is that you don't want to get your hands dirty with the realities of life; namely that a lot of things are going to die so you don't have to one way or another.

 

[Dragoonster]

I was trolling.

With my trolling gear.

You know - the original meaning of the word "trolling"...

 

[BTMO]

It was tasty, too. It fed several of us.

I don't kill things I don't intend to eat...

Also, I like to think I was part of the natural environment while I was fishing this afternoon. I paddled my kayak out to where the birds were working, I trolled around by paddling and then paddled back to where I'd parked my car. The only reason I'd driven the car down is that the three kilometres I was from home was just too damn far to drag the kayak. Very low impact fishing.

 

[Cain]

So irrelevant to the topic. If eating animals for food does not necessitate cruelty then this has no place in the argument. If it does then you can argue it as a reason not to eat animals.

You really should pay attention. I'm setting up the bullet-bite: if the argument that says Jim can eat steak also allows Ryan to torture cows, then there's a problem. A big problem.

So you're just going to deny animal protein to other organisms?

Oh, sure.

I find your position of non-athrophic death based animal protein = ok, anthropic death based animal protein != ok to be the problem here. If that is the crux of the issue then arguments on cruelty et al are irrelevant.

No, this does not follow.

The self-righteous part is that you don't want to get your hands dirty with the realities of life; namely that a lot of things are going to die so you don't have to one way or another.

And this is even more bizarre.

 

[CriticalSock]

Animals shouldn't have rights, they should be treated as a resource. And as such lovingly and carefully husbanded as a valuable asset.

I live near the Cotswold Wildlife Park, which has a large rare breeds section. This contains breeds of sheep, pigs, goats and cows which are no longer commercially viable. Without strict conservation these breeds would be gone from off the face of the earth.

If only those poor creatures were still viable as meat animals or for leather or wool, then their survival would be assured.

The same thing is true for game animals as RenaissanceBiker pointed out. The deer herds are larger and no doubt healthier under proper management.

Non Meat eaters, please address my previous post. By abdicating your responsibility to animal kind you are consigning countless animal lives to oblivion, even entire species are being lost to your selfish desire to avoid manning up and just eating that chicken.

Yes? No?