If you eat meat, would you be willing to kill an animal to continue to be able to?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Can't see how it's something to brag about.

[NightmareInShiningArmour]

I could... Easily.
This world doesn't seem like we were made to live in harmony with other animals, eating on plant products. There's nothing wrong with killing something.
On that topic, I don't see why people get so fussed when someone gets hurt by an animal.

[Saya]

why does it seem like we can't eat plants only or can't get along with other animals?

[NightmareInShiningArmour]

Because people are efficient killers. It seems more like what we were made to do. I mean that it would seem unnatural for the entirety of the human race to be eating only plant products.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

To answer the question from the O.P.

Yes I hunt,yes I have killed in order to survive and I will kill again and again to feed myself and my family.

I see nothing wrong with hunting deer and other game animals for food,I also see nothing wrong with raising and slaughtering my own beef,pork,and chicken.

To those that have never tried it before,freshly killed beef,Pork and venison is the best food you can put into your body,and it can't be beat when it comes to flavor.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by NightmareInShiningArmour

Because people are efficient killers. It seems more like what we were made to do. I mean that it would seem unnatural for the entirety of the human race to be eating only plant products.

Yeah, we are efficient killers. I mean, I can bite through a bison's flesh with my fangs, tear at him with my claws and eat him raw.

[NightmareInShiningArmour]

... Humans can use weapons and improvise. They can use things around them to their advantage. Can a lion use a weapon?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by NightmareInShiningArmour

... Humans can use weapons and improvise. They can use things around them to their advantage. Can a lion use a weapon?

So because we have created weapons and become so efficient at killing each other and other animals it makes it okay?

[NightmareInShiningArmour]

Just as okay as it would be for another animal to kill it's prey.
What's wrong with it?

[Saya]

A lot of animals need to, we don't, animals are incapable of complex language and therefore abstract thinking, we are, and what is "natural" isn't the basis of morality. A lion will kill the cubs when he defeats another male and takes over the pride so he can get the lionesses into heat, and chimps wage war. If it being "natural" is a defense for one thing, because we see carnivores eat other animals, why isn't it a defense for other things, such as infanticide, war or ****?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Saya

Yeah, we are efficient killers. I mean, I can bite through a bison's flesh with my fangs, tear at him with my claws and eat him raw.

I see where you're going with this, but it is true that we don't need those things because we developed better brains.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

animals are incapable of complex language and therefore abstract thinking

People who never learned to complex language are still capable of abstract thinking so that bit gets thrown right the hell out. We also have plenty of indication that animals use language but we are pretty much completely unable to understand it so we have no way of knowing how complex it may be. Please keep in mind that humans are nothing more than animals ourselves, sure we have evolved in a way that allows us to make use of tools but we are still animals and there really is nothing that separates us from the other animals out there. I don't mean that we should throw morals out the window, after all many animals show evidence that they have morals, I'm just saying that you can't put us up on some pedestal.

[honeythorn]

Animals are incapable of complex thinking? If that isn't the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read I don't know what is. Dolphins and Whales use "language" ( we simply haven't been able to understand it ) and have complex social groups, as do Elephants and plenty of other species. Communication is done in many ways , not just physical noise but body language, colour, and in apes, facial expression. JUST LIKE HUMAN BEINGS oddly enough.

As Solumina said, we are still animals. Ok we live in houses of brick and metal and glass, we have evolved and developed our brains to build all manner of things. But what if all that technology in our cities and towns vanished overnight. Just imagine as an example. No running water, no heating, no electricity, all cars vanished or useless , all mods cons gone. All you have is your empty house. How would people survive? They'd go back to they way we used to survive. Hunting and gathering, and growing what you are able. Many tribal communities still live like this and they have done for thousands of years.

Using the example above, What if you have a drought and your precious vegetables and soya beans die? What are you going to eat if wild plants are scarce or you do not know which kinds are edible? ( knowledege of this sort has actually been dying out as of recent times which is fucking worrying IMO ) When the guy next door gets himself a deer to feed himself and his family for weeks ( which if a drought were occurrng and plant material scarce wuld be a lifesaving source of food ) would you seriously give him the lecture that the deer might have had a sister who's going to cry when it doesn't come back? And that he should only eat vegetables which may not even be available or prove worth growing in the climate you happen to be in? Seriously???


Morality when killing something for your food if you had to doesn't come into it. Basic nature does, and if you try to make out that you don't possess that nature somewhere inside yourself, then you're denying part of what makes you a human being and and animal both. I see no shame in being what nature made you.

. Regardless of how an animal kills another animal, there is a cycle ( cheesy as it sounds) and it will complete itself one way or the other. You say we haven't the digestive system for meat? Wrong. We do not have the digestive system to consume the amount of meat we currently do. 25'000 years ago meat was a fucking precious commodity ( and still is in some places) . If you managed to bring down a deer or some other animal you used every single bit possible, but it wasn't something you got every day. Just every now and then when your luck and skill paid off. Our teeth and digestive systems CAN deal with meat perfectly well, just not great quantities of it every day or every week in fact.

Veganism might work in small communities where the climate is fine for growing enough veg to feed everyone, you can be as high and fucking mighty and moral as you please. But there are places in the world where it simply IS NOT possible due to climate, and people there have to rely on animals, either hunted or raised, to survive. It simply will not work on a global scale.

[JCC]

I agree with Solumina and Honeythorn completely that humans aren't a special or exalted form of animal. That just makes veganism seem like more of a logical choice to me.

[Saya]

By abstract thinking and language I mean that they simply cannot debate the morality of their decisions, and have a very limited understanding of morality, yes they can communicate with each other (and there's a big difference between language and commuication) and plan ahead. But a lion does not contemplate whether he should or should not eat a gazelle, and it would be useless for him to do so. A pig can outsmart a child until the child has a firmer grasp on language and can think abstractly (by age 4 or so). And as far as we can tell dolphins do not hold debates or philosophize, or have a language, but communicate to each other with whistles. And Solumina, in feral children where they were unable to learn language as children during the critical period their abilities for abstract thinking were severely limited for the rest of their lives, its not an innate human ability but one we have to learn, whereas in a lot of animals their communication is based on instinct. Even in tests that suggested that chimps and baboons may be capable of abstract thinking it could take thousands of tries for the baboon to learn it. Of course I don't put humans on a pedestal, but its silly to say that because a lion eats a gazelle humans should eat other animals too, and its equally silly to ask if I have a problem wih lions eating gazelles for the reason that a) lions cannot think in such abstract ways to reason that it may be morally questionable and b) a lion cannot eat anything but meat anyway.

And honeythorn, much of that is based on apocalyptic or survival scenarios and simply aren't what we are discussing here, unless you yourself are a hunter/gatherer I don't see whats the point of it at all, we're talking of course to other people who live with technology and have access to grocery stores, in survival situations cannibalism might come up but that doesn't mean I can dig up bodies and eat them now when I have plenty of alternatives.

[KontanKarite]

Bold claim. If I understood you correctly, you simply said that the life of a goldfish is just as valuable to you than the life of your own mother.

Logically, we really are no better than other animals in the most bare bones sense, but surely we're entitled to a sense of worth for our species.

I'd be willing to be more a vegan when lions and tigers can tell themselves that killing antelope and other vegetarian animals is wrong and they too become vegetarian. But this isn't going to happen because those predators have it in their nature to eat the meat of other animals to survive.

Technically, to ignore our omnivore natures for a more arbitrary idea of being vegans for a higher moral ground does indeed give credence to the idea that we are an exalted species of animal and we are special in the animal kingdom because we can make the decision to refute our very nature as an animal.

Of course, we will always do what is most natural for human animals to do and that is essentially to decide what our behavior truly is through the moral weight of our options. So in essence, it's natural for us to assume the role of a vegan, by our own logical designs, but not by the designs of our most base genetics.

[KontanKarite]

I must refute my response to JCC. I misread his reply.

Though I still stand by the post in general.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Bold claim. If I understood you correctly, you simply said that the life of a goldfish is just as valuable to you than the life of your own mother.

Then you do not understand me at all.

Logically, we really are no better than other animals in the most bare bones sense, but surely we're entitled to a sense of worth for our species.

I'd be willing to be more a vegan when lions and tigers can tell themselves that killing antelope and other vegetarian animals is wrong and they too become vegetarian. But this isn't going to happen because those predators have it in their nature to eat the meat of other animals to survive.

Then I shall keep killing human babies until chimps and lions can tell themselves to kill their own young is wrong.

Technically, to ignore our omnivore natures for a more arbitrary idea of being vegans for a higher moral ground does indeed give credence to the idea that we are an exalted species of animal and we are special in the animal kingdom because we can make the decision to refute our very nature as an animal.

Of course, we will always do what is most natural for human animals to do and that is essentially to decide what our behavior truly is through the moral weight of our options. So in essence, it's natural for us to assume the role of a vegan, by our own logical designs, but not by the designs of our most base genetics.

At one point we chose to start eating meat when it became convenient to do so when vegetation was scarce, and evolved to tolerate it. At one point ten thousand years ago many have decided to drink animal milk and their descendant have mutated to become lactose tolerant. We are not doomed to follow a diet because we have the ability to digest something.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Technically, to ignore our omnivore natures for a more arbitrary idea of being vegans

I hate that.
You should know better than that by now.
You are saying that because we're omnivores, being vegan "ignores our nature"
That implies that you keep thinking we need meat.
WE DON'T

If we are going to keep these arguments against/for veganism, then stop fucking saying this. It's a fucking lie, and that people keep repeating it just show how hollow arguments against veganism really are.

Omnivores means we can eat anything. Not we need to eat everything.

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm


Can we accept that much or do you people want to stay with the same group of idiots in the religious threads that keep saying time and again "prove to me that A is NOT"

[KontanKarite]

Then allow me to be quite plain.

It's perfectly fine if one wants to be a vegan. Have at it. But as long as humanity always has the dynamic of choice, we very well may stay as an omnivore type animal.

For example: Because I may eat meat does not in any way mean that I'm cool with our own species killing each other for the hell of it or even torturing the animals we eat before they die.

I do have a higher value of humanity as a species than other animals. However, I don't condone excessive violence just because we can or the excessive consumption of animal products or to the extent of the extinction of a species. Obviously, it's better for now to convince others to be as absolutely humane as possible about how we handle our meats instead of waking up one day and just announcing to everyone to be vegan and deal with it.

I mean, I LIKE eating meat. I really do. There are billions of people out there that share my same sentiment. I highly doubt we're going to change our minds within our lifetime as a whole of a species.

But keep at it. Maybe a few hundred years down the road, killing an animal for nutrition will be a criminal offense and veganism will just be the absolute norm for humanity.

Hell, I don't even eat that much meat to begin with. I may actually eat something like beef or chicken about once a week, if I'm lucky.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

Solumina, in feral children where they were unable to learn language as children during the critical period their abilities for abstract thinking were severely limited for the rest of their lives, its not an innate human ability but one we have to learn, whereas in a lot of animals their communication is based on instinct.

Feral children are rate quite low in both social and emotional intelligence and are not comparable to animals who are raised with natural socialization, I was talking about deaf children who are never taught sign language other than the most basic signs until well after that critical period that you mentioned, they are socially "normal" other than being able to verbally communicate and they do have every indication of being able to think abstractly and having a personal sense of right and wrong. Since you mentioned the feral children I would really like to know where you got the idea that feral children have such limited abstract thinking. Yes the wolf boy supposedly did but he was never examined by an expert (obviously as they weren't really available in that time period) but the same has not been found of more recent cases, though it has been difficult to analyze due to the linguistic limitations.


Also what makes you so sure that animals don't have morals or abstract thinking? Lionesses get ostracized for attempting incest, elephants have grieving periods, and just about all social animals have a social hierarchy and there is an expected range of social consequences for any actions that are not suited to their social status, to me these all indicate at least the possibility of some level of abstract thought.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Solumina

Feral children are rate quite low in both social and emotional intelligence and are not comparable to animals who are raised with natural socialization, I was talking about deaf children who are never taught sign language other than the most basic signs until well after that critical period that you mentioned, they are socially "normal" other than being able to verbally communicate and they do have every indication of being able to think abstractly and having a personal sense of right and wrong. Since you mentioned the feral children I would really like to know where you got the idea that feral children have such limited abstract thinking. Yes the wolf boy supposedly did but he was never examined by an expert (obviously as they weren't really available in that time period) but the same has not been found of more recent cases, though it has been difficult to analyze due to the linguistic limitations.

Deaf children are taught some form of language, be it sign language or English (although it is known that if a child does not learn sign language it becomes harder to do so once older), its not as if they are taught no language at all. A lot of hearing parents will teach their deaf children English instead and have them rely on visual cues and reading lips. Has there been a case where a deaf child was taught no language whatsoever? And yes feral children are rare occurrences but its the only case of humans who were never taught language, and those that weren't discovered until an older age had a very hard time grasping the English language and thus abstract thinking.

Also what makes you so sure that animals don't have morals or abstract thinking? Lionesses get ostracized for attempting incest, elephants have grieving periods, and just about all social animals have a social hierarchy and there is an expected range of social consequences for any actions that are not suited to their social status, to me these all indicate at least the possibility of some level of abstract thought.

The rejection of incest is more innate, most animals recognize those they were raised with and are far less likely to mate with them unless in cases of isolation, nearly every human culture is against it and it seems natural that we will not mate with those we grew up with, not just siblings but others who were raised in our household:
http://www.livescience.com/health/08...t-science.html

So its quite natural that a lioness would be ostracized, you can be grossed out without being able to explain or think abstractly why. In terms of grievance (elephants aren't special in that) and hierarchies, which occurs in many many animals, it still does not display abstract thinking. They can perceive what is at hand ("My friend is dead", "I do not like that other cow" "This other pig does not belong here" "I am willing to endanger myself to save my friend") but not making any abstractions. Abstract thinking is just that, not thinking about concrete things (this other cow, our pack, that lioness is sleeping with her brother) but abstractions, generalizations and concepts.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

Deaf children are taught some form of language, be it sign language or English (although it is known that if a child does not learn sign language it becomes harder to do so once older), its not as if they are taught no language at all. A lot of hearing parents will teach their deaf children English instead and have them rely on visual cues and reading lips. Has there been a case where a deaf child was taught no language whatsoever?

There are many cases where the child was taught no sign and it is unknown whether or not they can read lips as they do not know how to read or write.

Originally Posted by Saya

And yes feral children are rare occurrences but its the only case of humans who were never taught language, and those that weren't discovered until an older age had a very hard time grasping the English language and thus abstract thinking.

Again I ask you: Where you get this idea that this is true of all feral children? Yes it is true of some but there is every indication that it is not true of others, the only reason why it cannot be said that they are clearly able to form abstract thoughts is due to their poor linguistic skills and an inability to communicate their ideas.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Solumina

There are many cases where the child was taught no sign and it is unknown whether or not they can read lips as they do not know how to read or write.

Please show me a case where they did not learn language whatsoever, I cannot find one. And it can be judged if a child can read lips, in some they can learn to speak but otherwise they can show that they recognize what is being said, recognition can be communicated without words.

Again I ask you: Where you get this idea that this is true of all feral children? Yes it is true of some but there is every indication that it is not true of others, the only reason why it cannot be said that they are clearly able to form abstract thoughts is due to their poor linguistic skills and an inability to communicate their ideas.

Initially from a documentary on the Discover Channel about language and feral children, how linguists would love to know if language is innate or learned but to deprive a child from language is the "forbidden experiment", and how feral children are the closest we can get to that, and because abstract thinking requires language to be understood of course it would mean that it would be difficult. Why do you say that there is every indication that it is not true in others found after the critical age?

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Saya, shut up, you're making the other vegans look bad.

If you think you know what another animal is capable of thinking, you're just as arrogant as those fuckheads who thinks we're the chosen species.

You're a primate with less hair and an overinflated ego.

That's what humans are.

Oh, and we have thumbs, which helped us build shit.

As for Nightmare, your arguments suck. We're actually the MOST inefficient killers in the animal kingdom. In order to kill something, we (usually) have to find a medium, find or make tools to mold the medium, craft a weapon, find the animal, and kill it.

A lion just jumps on it and kills the thing.

I don't eat animal products because I don't believe I have the right to enforce my will upon another life form to the point of enslaving it, torturing it, or killing it. End of. Fuck biology, fuck the lot of it. Rights, pure and simple.

The Solumina vs Saya discussion about what can and can't think abstractly is guesswork at best. You have no way of knowing what anything is thinking. For all I know, my hamster is contemplating complex musings while running on his wheel right now. You can hook him up to whatever brainwave monitors you damn well like, but you can not tell me with 100% certainty that you know what he is thinking.

I love science, I truly do, but much like religion it tends to give itself a god complex, the scientist is not omniscient. He's a lot bloody smarter than the preacher, but still. We used to think that heroin made good baby medicine, (wrong, bitch) we used to think that gorillas were unintelligent beasts incapable of thought (wrong bitch) so don't say, with any degree of certainty, that you can tell me what an animal is thinking. In fact, if you spend all day, you might not even have all the cognitive power to explain, in full, what YOU'RE thinking.

I love debates, I do, but these forums are nothing but Anarchy vs the world and Veganism vs the world, and it's wearing thinner than Oprah's G string. (There's a mental image for you, you fuckers).

Veganism is not a biological or natural choice. Anyone saying so is full of it, even if you say it Dick, but I think you'll agree. Veganism is a moral choice. End of. I could throw out scientific data supporting Veganism until I grow a beard that reaches my nuts, but that doesn't change that, at its core, veganism is a moral decision.

So stop bringing up random shit about feral children (what the fuck man?), stop bringing up the intelligence of your fish.

Veganism vs Omnivorism: Do I have the moral right to kill another life form? That's the only debate to do. Do you have the right? Why? Why not? That's it.

It's not about what a lion does, it's not about what a fish does. When you follow that debate, you end up with, I morally find it horrible or ok.

</rant>
</thread>
</argument>