Thanksgiving (aka needless turkey murder day)
- Thread starter Casey
- Start date
OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet (3/5/02)
Stick your guilt where the sun doesn't shine.
Stick your guilt where the sun doesn't shine.
Because people's lives are WAY more important than animals lives, right? GTFO. Caring about one injustice doesn't mean you shouldn't care about another.
The injustices done to the indigenous peoples of America is of course a terrible thing. But, it's an entirely different argument, and the difference is, YOU are not contributing to THEIR suffering on a daily basis. If you want to make a thread about that though, I'll happily contribute. But it's irrelevant to this one.
Nice try.
Garbage argument. For that argument to have any merit, you have to assume that accidental death and deliberate, knowing, murder are equally abhorrent. Obviously, they are not.
Again, nice try. Try harder next time.
The injustices done to the indigenous peoples of America is of course a terrible thing. But, it's an entirely different argument, and the difference is, YOU are not contributing to THEIR suffering on a daily basis. If you want to make a thread about that though, I'll happily contribute. But it's irrelevant to this one.
Nice try.
Garbage argument. For that argument to have any merit, you have to assume that accidental death and deliberate, knowing, murder are equally abhorrent. Obviously, they are not.
Again, nice try. Try harder next time.
Everything you do harms someone or something in a way.
Personally I've never tried Turkeys as they are not very popular here and we don't celebrate Thanksgiving. It seems stupid anyway.
Then the way fruits and vegetables are grown in America is also unbelievably toxic.
Herbicides and various other chemicals used to grow decent crops are behind various diseases and cause people to die.
The thing is I don't see anything wrong in growing something if it's raised in a healthy way and for one thing to prosper others must suffer - that's the way it always is.
I'm sure the population of various "edible" animals would suffer if it wasn't for eating them and to kill them they first had to be somehow raised - people who will kill and eat them gave them life in the first place. I'm not saying that they have the moral right to kill though.
---------
It's also silly that some groups tend to bash demand for something more than people who supply them with what they would like if it's considered "evil" by these groups.
They tend to say that if there was no demand there would be no problem.
However I see it the other way around.
For example if I wanted to see someone killed should I be guilty if that person was killed by another man? At that point I would probably feel good as my goal was fulfilled but I'm not guilty.
Again, I don't care if there's a cow or anything else that tastes the same and is not unhealthy in my cheeseburger. I don't feel guilty because it's not me killing that cow and I don't feel that I'm contributing to these cows getting killed. I wouldn't have a problem if killing cows became illegal. I wouldn't kill a cow personally. I often feel that vegetarian logic is crippled.
Then again if I was a serious vegetarian trying to convince everyone I would probably also use that logic since it doesn't seem to be challenged often mainly because people don't discuss with vegetarians. They make you feel like you're doing bad. In that case pointing out their arguments don't work for you is like telling someone who lost a close one in the world trade center that it wasn't an ultimately terrible thing to happen, even if you really think so.
Personally I've never tried Turkeys as they are not very popular here and we don't celebrate Thanksgiving. It seems stupid anyway.
Then the way fruits and vegetables are grown in America is also unbelievably toxic.
Herbicides and various other chemicals used to grow decent crops are behind various diseases and cause people to die.
The thing is I don't see anything wrong in growing something if it's raised in a healthy way and for one thing to prosper others must suffer - that's the way it always is.
I'm sure the population of various "edible" animals would suffer if it wasn't for eating them and to kill them they first had to be somehow raised - people who will kill and eat them gave them life in the first place. I'm not saying that they have the moral right to kill though.
---------
It's also silly that some groups tend to bash demand for something more than people who supply them with what they would like if it's considered "evil" by these groups.
They tend to say that if there was no demand there would be no problem.
However I see it the other way around.
For example if I wanted to see someone killed should I be guilty if that person was killed by another man? At that point I would probably feel good as my goal was fulfilled but I'm not guilty.
Again, I don't care if there's a cow or anything else that tastes the same and is not unhealthy in my cheeseburger. I don't feel guilty because it's not me killing that cow and I don't feel that I'm contributing to these cows getting killed. I wouldn't have a problem if killing cows became illegal. I wouldn't kill a cow personally. I often feel that vegetarian logic is crippled.
Then again if I was a serious vegetarian trying to convince everyone I would probably also use that logic since it doesn't seem to be challenged often mainly because people don't discuss with vegetarians. They make you feel like you're doing bad. In that case pointing out their arguments don't work for you is like telling someone who lost a close one in the world trade center that it wasn't an ultimately terrible thing to happen, even if you really think so.
So if a kidnapper puts a gun to a person's head and holds his shoe over an ant and asks you to choose. Are you really gonna say "gee wiz, I don't know, I'm not in a position to make this grave ethical decision"?
We KNOW it kills wildlife. That's not accidental. How is knowing it has these consequences but doing it anyway any less worse than the outright killing?
You really need to shut the fuck up with the moral agenda just because the meat isn't on your plate.
We KNOW it kills wildlife. That's not accidental. How is knowing it has these consequences but doing it anyway any less worse than the outright killing?
You really need to shut the fuck up with the moral agenda just because the meat isn't on your plate.
If you have to conjure up bizarre hypothetical situations in order to prove a point, you're trying too hard and losing validity.
As Gandhi once said "In my mind the life of a lamb is of no less value than the life of a human being".
We should all strive to be that compassionate.
By this logic, if I know that a earthquake is going to hit and it's epicentre is at your mothers house and will kill her, and I don't literally fly to your country and physically remove her from that house, that's exactly the same thing as me tying her up to a chair and stabbing her repeatedly through the chest with a pitchfork.
As Gandhi once said "In my mind the life of a lamb is of no less value than the life of a human being".
We should all strive to be that compassionate.
By this logic, if I know that a earthquake is going to hit and it's epicentre is at your mothers house and will kill her, and I don't literally fly to your country and physically remove her from that house, that's exactly the same thing as me tying her up to a chair and stabbing her repeatedly through the chest with a pitchfork.
You're pussying out because you know you don't want to answer that question.
No. ("If you have to conjure up bizarre hypothetical situations in order to prove a point, you're trying too hard and losing validity." Sounds familiar!)
Killing a cow and eating it.
vs.
Refusing to kill a cow because of moral objections, having a product instead that you know causes animal harm and death in it's production and then STILL point the blaming finger at the cow eater.
No. ("If you have to conjure up bizarre hypothetical situations in order to prove a point, you're trying too hard and losing validity." Sounds familiar!)
Killing a cow and eating it.
vs.
Refusing to kill a cow because of moral objections, having a product instead that you know causes animal harm and death in it's production and then STILL point the blaming finger at the cow eater.
I think theres something wrong with my computer. Whenever Casey makes a post all I can see is
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah android
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah bah blah blah blah android
This scientist, Steve Davis, concludes that if we're trying to kill as few animals as possible, we'll do better to eat beef--as long as it's fed on grass--then to follow a vegan diet.
The economist, Gaverick Matheny, took him to task for it about a year later in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics:
http://jgmatheny.org/matheny 2003.pdf
You should read the whole thing because he makes some other good points. But, basically, Davis made a gross error in his calculations. He assumes that an acre of land will feed the same number of people irrespective of whether it's used to raise grass-fed beef or to grow crops. In fact, an acre of land used for crops will feed about ten times as many people as an acre of land used for grass-fed beef. When that difference is fed into the calculations, Davis's argument is turned on its head, and proves that vegans are indirectly responsible for killing only about a fifth as many animals as those who eat grass-fed beef.
Davis is also only considering the number of animals killed and not the suffering they endured while alive.
"Early in the paper, Davis shifts from discussing the harm done to animals under different agricultural systems to the number of animals killed. This shift is not explained by Davis and is not justified by the most common moral views, all of which recognize harms other than death... Davis, in discussing the number of animals killed rather than their treatment prior to death, ignores an important question that must be answered in order to assess which system of agriculture causes the least harm."
"Predictably, his argument has been cited as a justification for traditional omnivorism, a misreading Davis did not intend and one that any faithful reading of his paper should prevent."
So, yeah, eating vegan kills some animals. But not as many as does meat-eating, and without the numerous concentration camps for animals.
If the argument is least harm and suffering, then vegans have the ethical edge over meat-eaters, both in numbers killed and in treatment. But this shouldn't be about moral superiority, just about doing the right thing and trying to cause the least harm if there's no way to avoid it.
The economist, Gaverick Matheny, took him to task for it about a year later in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics:
http://jgmatheny.org/matheny 2003.pdf
You should read the whole thing because he makes some other good points. But, basically, Davis made a gross error in his calculations. He assumes that an acre of land will feed the same number of people irrespective of whether it's used to raise grass-fed beef or to grow crops. In fact, an acre of land used for crops will feed about ten times as many people as an acre of land used for grass-fed beef. When that difference is fed into the calculations, Davis's argument is turned on its head, and proves that vegans are indirectly responsible for killing only about a fifth as many animals as those who eat grass-fed beef.
Davis is also only considering the number of animals killed and not the suffering they endured while alive.
"Early in the paper, Davis shifts from discussing the harm done to animals under different agricultural systems to the number of animals killed. This shift is not explained by Davis and is not justified by the most common moral views, all of which recognize harms other than death... Davis, in discussing the number of animals killed rather than their treatment prior to death, ignores an important question that must be answered in order to assess which system of agriculture causes the least harm."
"Predictably, his argument has been cited as a justification for traditional omnivorism, a misreading Davis did not intend and one that any faithful reading of his paper should prevent."
So, yeah, eating vegan kills some animals. But not as many as does meat-eating, and without the numerous concentration camps for animals.
If the argument is least harm and suffering, then vegans have the ethical edge over meat-eaters, both in numbers killed and in treatment. But this shouldn't be about moral superiority, just about doing the right thing and trying to cause the least harm if there's no way to avoid it.
Wrong. Want me to answer it, fine.
I'd kung fu chop the fucker, flip the gun and hold it to his head and tell him to GTFO. There you go.
Realistically, I would give both the human the opportunity to explain why he felt his life was more valid than the ant's.
We're talking about every day morals here anyway, not bizarre one off situations.
Ummmm, I'm using YOUR logic. Hence the hypothetical example. The whole point was that since I was using YOUR logic, I'd make a bizarre hypothetical point. I'm not sure how you completely managed to miss that, however I expected you to say that, as if I hadn't thought of it. hook line and sinker.
The second is still a morally better situation than the first.
Were Switzerland as evil as Nazi Germany for failing to act on them? Their actions could be perceived as wrong, but certainly nowhere NEAR as wrong as what the Nazi's did.
I'd kung fu chop the fucker, flip the gun and hold it to his head and tell him to GTFO. There you go.
Realistically, I would give both the human the opportunity to explain why he felt his life was more valid than the ant's.
We're talking about every day morals here anyway, not bizarre one off situations.
Ummmm, I'm using YOUR logic. Hence the hypothetical example. The whole point was that since I was using YOUR logic, I'd make a bizarre hypothetical point. I'm not sure how you completely managed to miss that, however I expected you to say that, as if I hadn't thought of it. hook line and sinker.
The second is still a morally better situation than the first.
Were Switzerland as evil as Nazi Germany for failing to act on them? Their actions could be perceived as wrong, but certainly nowhere NEAR as wrong as what the Nazi's did.
I'm well aware of the againsts to be brought up against Davis' entire research, but he still makes a valid point when it comes to the moral highground the veganist side often takes. It's important for them to understand that "your way" isn't all butterflies either. I didn't doubt you wouldn't know, it was mainly for Casey.
Morals are morals, I asked the question to get an idea of your fundamental morals.
Your answer is getting nearer to my satisfaction, though.
In your opinion, what kind of answer would the human need to give to have a case?
No you weren't. You misunderstood, intentionally or not, the way I put it. Somehow you managed to answer the same point in a normal way in the sentence below, though.
Morally better, but far from morally guiltless. That's how you come across and that's why people have such a negative "reactionary" response to the (valid) point you are trying to make.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.