Cheeze_Pavilion:
So now what you've got to show is that even if we agree with you that there is an Animal Right to Life, that it's identical to the Human Right to Life. My defense of meat eating would be that as long as animals are raised and slaughtered cruelty free, that justifies infringing on the Animal Right to Life the same way you treating your dog like a princess justifies you infringing on her Animal Right to Liberty.

I'm not killing my dog though. You're comparing two different things. The thing is, we have pets to not only make us happy, but to make the animal happy. We're not making animals destined for the slaughterhouse happy.

Is my dog in bad conditions? No. Is my dog going to be killed? No.

Are cows/chickens/etc. kept in bad conditions? More often than you'd like to think. Are they going to be killed? Yes.

Ugh, I'm so tired. *goes to bed*

Shivari:

That's not the point, we have alternatives for meat. Have I not made this clear in the 100+ posts I probably have by now in here.

We have alternatives to driving cars as well, but its not practical. Alternatives to meat are equally impractical, and oftentimes end up being more expensive.
So in terms of saving money, eating meat is the alternative to not eating meat.

Shivari:
The point is that people understand what I'm trying to say. It's not making my points any less valid. We should be spending less time on this word and more time on other stuff.

Never join debate. I have had long, winding, violent arguments about the proper interpretation of the definition for the word 'mitigate'. Its really pathetic and the whole process basically turns you into a jadded hyper-literate misanthrope grammer nazi; but yeah, the wording is important.

We're not in an official debate round though so I'm just going to assume that when you say 'Is Eating Meat Barbaric?' you mean something along the lines of 'Is Eating Animal Meat Morally Justifiable?'

It seems like a big part of your argument assumes that people eat animals for pleasure. In relatively rich countries like the United States, England and Australia this is certainly true. However, it must be recognized that we are the amazing minority when it comes to matters like this.

Starving nations in Central Africa, war torn countries in the Middle East, impoverished states in Central America, incalculable more in areas all over the world; these people don't eat meat out of a sense of feral blood lust. These people eat meat because they haven't eaten anything in days and there just happens to be a squirel scurrying by. They eat to survive.

Its all well and good to sit in one of the richest most prosperous countries on the planet and argue that society really ought to just hack off thousands of years of tradition and instinct and mandate a vegitarian diet (or even neo-meat or laboratory grown meat of which the logistics are even more inplausible). The problem is that, when a good portion of the world is going hungry anyway, cutting off half of our food supply is both unenforceable and uncalled for.

I'm not prepared to say that a man who slaughters a goat to feed his wife and three kids is a barbarian. I'm not prepared to say that such a man is 'contributing to the problem'. Or that he's 'uncivilized' or 'needlessly blood thirsty'. That man isn't 'unadapted for a 21'st century life style'; that man is trying to stop his childrens' stomach from growling for a little while longer.

I'm also not prepared to say that allowing his children to starve because it was more important that the goat be treated with all due respect is 'progressive'.

You ask a question about human nature. 'Is it morally justifiable to eat animal meat?' Let me ask you 'Should the dad have let his family starve?'

If the answer is 'no' then yes, there are times when eating meat is justified. And if you try to say that it was alright for them but somehow not for us than you are applying an unfair double standard and your question no longer applies to human nature.

Eating meat isn't pretty, but it's easy to forget in urban metropoli that the rest of the world may not have the luxury of picky eating.

Shivari:

Eggo:
Shivari, do you have any proof for cows, pigs, and chickens having the same level of cognition and intelligence as humans?

Did I say they were as intelligent as us? Where are you getting this?

You say it every time you keep making posts like these:

This argument by itself can't justify my action. If we put aside the whole people vs. animal thing you're sure to bring up, you're killing something for the sole purpose to satisfy your taste buds. That IS barbaric no matter which way you spin it.

Shivari:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
So now what you've got to show is that even if we agree with you that there is an Animal Right to Life, that it's identical to the Human Right to Life. My defense of meat eating would be that as long as animals are raised and slaughtered cruelty free, that justifies infringing on the Animal Right to Life the same way you treating your dog like a princess justifies you infringing on her Animal Right to Liberty.

I'm not killing my dog though. You're comparing two different things. The thing is, we have pets to not only make us happy, but to make the animal happy. We're not making animals destined for the slaughterhouse happy.

So that's my point--Animal Rights are different from Human Rights. You can't infringe a Human Right and say 'oh, well I did it to make me and the person happy' although you can do that for an animal.

Now, if you want to say that Animal Rights are different, but we still shouldn't eat meat because there's no justification to infringe on an Animal Right unless we want to make the animal happy as a pet, that's fine. However, you are still admitting that Animal Rights are not identical to Human Rights, and that opens up a lot of area for discussion.

Is my dog in bad conditions? No. Is my dog going to be killed? No.

Are cows/chickens/etc. kept in bad conditions? More often than you'd like to think. Are they going to be killed? Yes.

I think the reason this topic has gone on so long is that you're crossing two different streams of argument like you are here. Are you trying to make a philosophical, eternal point that *no* animal should ever be killed for food, no matter how cruelty free they are treated? Or are you trying to make a practical, contingent point that we shouldn't eat meat in this day and age because it's not cruelty free?

Also, clams/mussels/oysters are basically incapable of being kept in bad conditions, so why is it wrong to eat things that don't even have a brain, but just a collection of nerves?

Ugh, I'm so tired. *goes to bed*

Well, consider this before you do, maybe: reading through the other posts, I saw that you excused carnivore animals on the basis of necessity, that they have no choice but to eat meat or die while humans can live just fine without meat.

If that's true, then why do you have a dog? If meat-eating is a necessary evil justified only for carnivores, then shouldn't humans be trying to reduce the number of carnivores in existence to the bare minimum necessary for ecological balance? Shouldn't we stop breeding dogs and cats? If every human became vegan tomorrow but continued to keep pets, we would still need livestock and slaughterhouses. So if you're that committed to reducing the number of animals killed, shouldn't you also be against the breeding of any new carnivorous pets like cats and dogs?

Khedive Rex:

You ask a question about human nature. 'Is it morally justifiable to eat animal meat?' Let me ask you 'Should the dad have let his family starve?'

If the answer is 'no' then yes, there are times when eating meat is justified. And if you try to say that it was alright for them but somehow not for us than you are applying an unfair double standard and your question no longer applies to human nature.

Actually, I think she said at a previous point that necessity excuses carnivorous animals for eating meat because they will die if they don't. So I don't think she was asking a question about human nature, but rather about the ethics of being an animal, whether you've got hands or paws or claws or whatever.

Cheeze, if there's one thing I've learned debating with you, it's that you pick your targets so artfully - and then move on to the next logically consistent point - that the other guy doesn't even know what you're saying until, step by careful step, you've talked them onto your side. It's beautiful to watch.
/shameless compliment

Shivari:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
So now what you've got to show is that even if we agree with you that there is an Animal Right to Life, that it's identical to the Human Right to Life. My defense of meat eating would be that as long as animals are raised and slaughtered cruelty free, that justifies infringing on the Animal Right to Life the same way you treating your dog like a princess justifies you infringing on her Animal Right to Liberty.

I'm not killing my dog though. You're comparing two different things. The thing is, we have pets to not only make us happy, but to make the animal happy. We're not making animals destined for the slaughterhouse happy.

Is my dog in bad conditions? No. Is my dog going to be killed? No.

Are cows/chickens/etc. kept in bad conditions? More often than you'd like to think. Are they going to be killed? Yes.

Ugh, I'm so tired. *goes to bed*

Cheeze has a point though. How can something have a Moral Right to Life but not a Moral Right to Liberty? And you can't have rights without obligations - if animals have a Moral Right to Life, they must also have a moral obligation to extend that right to other animals, if not to all other living creatures. Why should a cow have the right to murder grass? If it's only because cows are higher order beings, smarter and with more feelings than grass, well, so too are humans higher order beings than cows.

Again, though, there are two basic problems. First is that domesticated animals by and large cannot survive on their own. Either we have an obligation to support them, or we should humanely kill them but not eat them. The first choice puts humans in the position of being servants to the animals - we take care of them, but they do nothing for us. The second choice has the same end for the animal, it just deprives humans.

The bigger issue is that humans' biggest impact on animals is not eating domesticated animals, but in reducing and polluting habitat. Your computer, your make-up, your (or your family's) automobile, the public transit system - all these things take resources and space that would otherwise be available for animals. Each new school, each new strip mall, takes area that used to be animal habitat, displacing those animals and forcing them to compete in their new habitat with other animals for now-scarcer habitat and food. Invariably, a number of animals at least equal to those displaced will die; in a worst case scenario, more animals will die as the abnormally concentrated animals deplete the available food resources and then starve. A pasture isn't a rain forest, but it's a rain forest when compared to a parking lot.

Just by existing we are killing animals. Should we consider a cow - whose continued existence requires human intervention - as more worthy of life than the wild deer or mice or shrews or birds that we don't eat and subsequently don't see? As hard as life is for factory farmed animals and as traumatic as their deaths may sometimes be, nature is at least as bad. A large majority of wild animals don't even live to reach sexual maturity, at least until you reach top predators. Animals don't just prey on the old and sick; mostly they prey on the young and the unlucky; only for animals living in large social groups are the old and sick significantly more likely to be eaten. All animals must produce excess young or go extinct in hard times. Therefore all animals must be predated or die off due to starvation or in lemming-like mass suicides. Much like we must predate wild deer to keep them from starving, humans are the top predators for domestic animals.

As to morality, I still see two different ways to look at it. We are raised above animals (whether by G-d or by our own intelligence) and have dominion over them; thus we have the right to eat them. Or we are no better than the animals, in which case we are bound by the animals' behavioral codes; thus we can eat them just as a bear could live on a vegetable diet but eats meat whenever he can get it, or as a chimp normally eats a vegetable diet but eats meat whenever he can get it.

EDIT: I agree with Saskwach, Cheeze debating is a thing of beauty.

And Ivory, even if I don't agree with her logic I do admire Shivari for sticking to her guns and her arguments without resorting to calling all us barbaric flesh-eaters a bunch of, well, barbaric flesh-eaters. Morality is very important. Of course, so is a good sirloin.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Khedive Rex:

You ask a question about human nature. 'Is it morally justifiable to eat animal meat?' Let me ask you 'Should the dad have let his family starve?'

If the answer is 'no' then yes, there are times when eating meat is justified. And if you try to say that it was alright for them but somehow not for us than you are applying an unfair double standard and your question no longer applies to human nature.

Actually, I think she said at a previous point that necessity excuses carnivorous animals for eating meat because they will die if they don't. So I don't think she was asking a question about human nature, but rather about the ethics of being an animal, whether you've got hands or paws or claws or whatever.

I merely attempt to point out an example in which her philosophy would be wrong.

By 'human nature' I mean that her question is applicable to human beings as a whole rather than individual humans in peculiar situations. If she's asking whether humans in general, as a species, can be justified in eating meat, the example above shows that, yes, human beings as a species can be justified in eating meat.

To say that that person is somehow an exception to the rule because of the events that lead to the slaughtering of the goat requires us to establish criteria under which to evaluate the choices of some to eat meat. "It's okay occasionally ... but not for you." doesn't work if you're discussing the human species as a whole. And if you're not disscussing the human species as a whole the question 'Is Eating Meat Barbaric?' desperatly needs some qualifying clauses.

Khedive Rex:
And if you're not disscussing the human species as a whole the question 'Is Eating Meat Barbaric?' desperatly needs some qualifying clauses.

The qualifying clause isn't in the title, but it is in the first post: is it barbaric to eat meat in this day in age?

As far as im concerned the only valid reason not to eat meat is if you don't like the taste and as for humans eating humans it is extremly rare in nature for a carnivore to eat another carnivore so for a human to canabalise another is not common and medically very dangerous as disease is very easily transmitted between the same species but hardly any are comunicable between different species

I don't think Shiv's gonna give up any time soon, that one is very stubborn. Either way, I'll continue eating clucky the chicken and Shiv will continue eating disgusting bean based products.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Khedive Rex:
And if you're not disscussing the human species as a whole the question 'Is Eating Meat Barbaric?' desperatly needs some qualifying clauses.

The qualifying clause isn't in the title, but it is in the first post: is it barbaric to eat meat in this day in age?

And what about 'this day and age' somehow defeats my example? I think you would agree a situation like the kind I provided is, apart from merely being possible, already happening on a daily basis in places like Sudan or other impoverished war-torn countries. The choice between starvation or slaughter is not something only our ancient forgotten ancestors had to think about. It's something that's happening now.

As the question is currently worded, it is asking about humanity in general. Humanity in the present tense admittedly, but still the species as a whole.

Saskwach:
Cheeze, if there's one thing I've learned debating with you, it's that you pick your targets so artfully - and then move on to the next logically consistent point - that the other guy doesn't even know what you're saying until, step by careful step, you've talked them onto your side. It's beautiful to watch.
/shameless compliment

werepossum:

EDIT: I agree with Saskwach, Cheeze debating is a thing of beauty.

Hey, thanks!
/shameless-though-slightly-embarrassed acceptance

Each new school, each new strip mall, takes area that used to be animal habitat, displacing those animals and forcing them to compete in their new habitat with other animals for now-scarcer habitat and food.

Once there's an Animal Right to Life, Liberty, and even Happiness as a pet, what about Property?

As to morality, I still see two different ways to look at it. We are raised above animals (whether by G-d or by our own intelligence) and have dominion over them; thus we have the right to eat them. Or we are no better than the animals, in which case we are bound by the animals' behavioral codes; thus we can eat them just as a bear could live on a vegetable diet but eats meat whenever he can get it, or as a chimp normally eats a vegetable diet but eats meat whenever he can get it.

Good point--I'd forgotten that the most disturbing animal slaughter video I'd ever seen wasn't something PETA set up on a TV at the back of a hardcore show, but watching chimps hunt monkeys.

Rex, perhaps Cheese was trying to say that no matter what "day and age" humans will still be very... human?

Khedive Rex:

As the question is currently worded, it is asking about humanity in general. Humanity in the present tense admittedly, but still the species as a whole.

Maybe, but, if you read the rest of that first post, you'll see that she's talking about people who "have access to alternatives to the nutrients from meat we need in our bodies."

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Khedive Rex:

As the question is currently worded, it is asking about humanity in general. Humanity in the present tense admittedly, but still the species as a whole.

Maybe, but, if you read the rest of that first post, you'll see that she's talking about people who "have access to alternatives to the nutrients from meat we need in our bodies."

Really?

Shivari:
I know we had a vegetarian thread a couple of months ago, but that asked whether people like vegetarians, not about the actual morals in the issue.

Now the question is; is it barbaric to eat meat in this day in age? Do you not look at how these animals are treated and think that it's inhumane? When we all have access to alternatives to the nutrients from meat we need in our bodies, why are we killing so many animals? It just seems we could be less feral as a society and become healthier in the process.

I would first say that she presents three questions which could arguably be interpeted as The question. I go by the first by the logic that it is the only one specifically referenced and the only one with a preface ("Now the question is"). You'll agree that there are no qualifying clauses in this question.

Further more, even if we regard the third question as The question instead of merely a supporting argument, her assumption that "we all have access to alternatives to the nutrients from meat we need in our bodies" is a statement and not a qualifying clause. A fallicious statment at that. (Plus if the third is the question, then technically we're supposed to be debating why we kill so many animals but ... that neither here nor there.)

I stand by my example and I stand by my argument.

Khedive Rex:
SNIP

Shivari:
I know we had a vegetarian thread a couple of months ago, but that asked whether people like vegetarians, not about the actual morals in the issue.

Now the question is; is it barbaric to eat meat in this day in age? Do you not look at how these animals are treated and think that it's inhumane? When we all have access to alternatives to the nutrients from meat we need in our bodies, why are we killing so many animals? It just seems we could be less feral as a society and become healthier in the process.

I would first say that she presents three questions which could arguably be interpeted as The question. I go by the first by the logic that it is the only one specifically referenced and the only one with a preface ("Now the question is"). You'll agree that there are no qualifying clauses in this question.

Further more, even if we regard the third question as The question instead of merely a supporting argument, her assumption that "we all have access to alternatives to the nutrients from meat we need in our bodies" is a statement and not a qualifying clause. A fallicious statment at that. (Plus if the third is the question, then technically we're supposed to be debating why we kill so many animals but ... that neither here nor there.)

I stand by my example and I stand by my argument.

I think it's fairly safe to assume that everyone with a computer and Internet access could become a vegetarian if she desired. I understood her question to be "Is it barbaric to eat meat in this day and age, given alternatives?" She's not some bat-shit crazy, wild-eyed extremist, I don't think she would object eating meat in lieu of starvation.

Cheeze, I'm still trying to forget what I saw of chimps hunting and eating monkeys (and occasionally baby chimps) years ago; I shan't be watching your clip. But thanks for posting the link. Too often people romanticize nature. To see something as human-looking as a chimp casually tearing off the arm of a living, bleating little monkey and eating it whilst the monkey whimpers makes you really understand the difference between human and animal. There will never be a Shivari chimp demanding the other chimps not eat meat, nor an organized band of chimps making laws that the monkey has to be bashed in the head before being dismembered and eaten.

Why is this still going?

Pages and pages ago we proved that this was pointless and it was a silly thread to start.

Why must this continue?

Shivari:

Now the question is; is it barbaric to eat meat in this day in age?

It is less barbaric to eat meat now then when we were cavemen because we have come up with ways of killing animals that put them through less suffering. Also our ways are less paifully to the animal then even other animals that could have killed them.

Ultrajoe:
Why is this still going?

Pages and pages ago we proved that this was pointless and it was a silly thread to start.

Why must this continue?

I have no idea, but I'm guessing people find it entertaining, I read the entire thread yesterday and I was having a good time throughout :) though some arguments were just bafflingly dumb.

I think this is a great topic because almost everyone has an opinion on the matter, though it is rather one-sided we thankfully have posters in the minority who post clever comments and raise valid points.

I will not try to argue in this thread, my opinions have already been made clear by other people who share them and I frankly couldn't articulate them as well.

(I voted no, and sorry for going quite off topic)

Oops--double post!

Khedive Rex:

I would first say that she presents three questions which could arguably be interpeted as The question. I go by the first by the logic that it is the only one specifically referenced and the only one with a preface ("Now the question is"). You'll agree that there are no qualifying clauses in this question.

Further more, even if we regard the third question as The question instead of merely a supporting argument, her assumption that "we all have access to alternatives to the nutrients from meat we need in our bodies" is a statement and not a qualifying clause. A fallicious statment at that. (Plus if the third is the question, then technically we're supposed to be debating why we kill so many animals but ... that neither here nor there.)

I stand by my example and I stand by my argument.

I thought your goal was to "merely attempt to point out an example in which her philosophy would be wrong"? If so, granting for the sake of argument that her questions are arguably open to multiple interpretations, that isn't relevant to whether her philosophy is wrong or not. Her philosophy is (best I can tell) that if you "have access to alternatives to the nutrients from meat we need in our bodies" then you should choose those alternatives over meat.

Your example and your argument don't go to whether her philosophy is *wrong* but rather to whether or not she has "recognized that we are the amazing minority when it comes to matters like this." EDIT: Your example and argument go to how many people should fall on either side of her dividing line, not to the validity or soundness of adopting the line she has as a dividing one.

Shivari:
Even if we leave it in, why should we kill animals for taste and not humans?

From ages ago:

To be pedantic (and to paraphrase a criticism of Jonathan Swift's classic A Modest Proposal that I came up with at one point, showing my "I-am-a-pedantic-science-dude" tendencies off quite well), children are actually particularly low in calorific value, due to the fact that they will regularly be high in the food chain and therefore will contain tissue which is low in energy, due to the energy in their food being only 10% of whatever organism it was derived from, and when you consider that the food that they eat goes through at least one other organism, and that you yourself would only derive 10% of the energy from their tissue - think of the laws of thermodynamics - what's left isn't very appetising. As such, human flesh would only serve well as an emergency source of energy.