Turn on thread page Beta

Are meat eating vets the biggest hypocrites in the history of mankind? watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    But whether or not humans shouldn't eat meat is not in any way dependent on whether other animals eat each other. Pointing out that other animals eat each other adds nothing to your argument that there's no reason humans shouldn't eat meat.
    ...okay? I don't really try to make my posts have the most argument per word density, I just say what I think's relevant. In my experience, people often use the argument "eating animals isn't natural", so I'd thought I'd pre-empt anyone saying that, because of course it can't be unnatural if other animals do it.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Regardless, using your logic, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with eating other humans. You stated: "Animals kill each other all the time without remorse, and humans are animals, too. Why should we not take advantage of the planet's resources?"

    Thus, there's nothing wrong with, say, an individual killing animals that are human, according to you - it's just that you wouldn't positively advocate doing it. Although, below, you seem to suggest that it is wrong to kill humans, which I will come to now.
    Perhaps I should have been clearer. Animals eat animals of different species all the time without remorse. Cannibalism is very rare.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    Why should the fact that a being is a member of the human species mean that their interests are given more weight than the interests of nonhuman animals?
    Because I'm a self-centred *******, and so are you. I honestly laugh at anyone who thinks animal lives have the same value as human lives. Stop being naive.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    ...okay? I don't really try to make my posts have the most argument per word density, I just say what I think's relevant. In my experience, people often use the argument "eating animals isn't natural", so I'd thought I'd pre-empt anyone saying that, because of course it can't be unnatural if other animals do it.



    Perhaps I should have been clearer. Animals eat animals of different species all the time without remorse. Cannibalism is very rare.



    Because I'm a self-centred *******, and so are you. I honestly laugh at anyone who thinks animal lives have the same value as human lives. Stop being naive.
    Just to clarify, the first thing you do is say that nature isn't relevant #paragraph1 and your second argument is that nature *is* relevant #paragraph2.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Just to clarify, the first thing you do is say that nature isn't relevant #paragraph1 and your second argument is that nature *is* relevant #paragraph2.
    No, that's not what I'm saying, and if you had half a brain you'd have cottoned on already, so I'm not going to spell it out for you.

    Christ, it physically pains me to read posts this stupid.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    No, that's not what I'm saying, and if you had half a brain you'd have cottoned on already, so I'm not going to spell it out for you.

    Christ, it physically pains me to read posts this stupid.


    So what does it matter what other animals do?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    ...okay? I don't really try to make my posts have the most argument per word density, I just say what I think's relevant. In my experience, people often use the argument "eating animals isn't natural", so I'd thought I'd pre-empt anyone saying that, because of course it can't be unnatural if other animals do it.
    Any vegetarian who says that eating animals isn't natural (I've never actually seen someone say this) would be presenting a fallacious argument.

    Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's right.

    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Because I'm a self-centred *******, and so are you. I honestly laugh at anyone who thinks animal lives have the same value as human lives. Stop being naive.
    That's not a justification and, in fact, it merely proves my point. Calling onself a ******* for putting the interests of one's own species above the interests of other species implies that it's unjustifiable - which it is.

    Not only isn't it a justification, it's a poor attempted justification as well: self-centredness has nothing to do with species membership. All self-centredness would lead to is you objecting to yourself being farmed for meat.

    The bolded part of your reply also presupposes that I'm being naive, and misrepresents my position. I don't believe that normal, human lives have the same value as the lives of most nonhuman animals, because most nonhuman animals (apart from chimpanzees and other primates; dolphins, whales, elephants and some birds) don't have an interest in continuing to live, as they aren't self-aware and can't view their lives over a time continuum.

    I do equally consider the interests of all sentient beings, though, so when it comes to suffering, I would not opt to save a human from suffering over two nonhuman animals. The notion that such a position is naive is laughable, given that you've conspicuously failed to provide a justification for putting the interests of humans ahead of the interests of nonhuman animals.

    Like every meat-eater before you, you have failed in this task. Which is a shame, because, as you said in your original reply, meat is tasty. Unfortunately, ethics and logic dictate that we ought not to eat meat.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Any vegetarian who says that eating animals isn't natural (I've never actually seen someone say this) would be presenting a fallacious argument.

    Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's right.
    Thanks for repeating me.

    Good thing I haven't claimed that.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    That's not a justification and, in fact, it merely proves my point. Calling onself a ******* for putting the interests of one's own species above the interests of other species implies that it's unjustifiable - which it is.
    No, it implies I'm being sarcastic. :yy:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Thanks for repeating me.

    Good thing I haven't claimed that.



    No, it implies I'm being sarcastic. :yy:
    Making a post =/= replying to content.

    Cat got your tongue?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    you've conspicuously failed to provide a justification for putting the interests of humans ahead of the interests of nonhuman animals.
    brb civilisation
    brb science
    brb art
    brb music
    brb we went to the ****ing moon
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    brb civilisation
    brb science
    brb art
    brb music
    brb we went to the ****ing moon
    So...you're freely admitting to trolling?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    Yeah I'm not sure why you're obsessed with me but it's getting a bit weird
    Replying to you on a thread on TSR =/= obsessing about you. Congratulations on crossing the line onto trolling though . Shame that you can't reply to content or form a valid, no fallacious argument.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    brb civilisation
    brb science
    brb art
    brb music
    brb we went to the ****ing moon
    Oh, so it's about intelligence now, is it? Not every human contributes to science, art, music or space exploration. Would you have any ethical objection, then, to treating severely intellectually disabled humans, or human infants, in an identical way that we treat nonhuman animals who surpass these humans in terms of mental capacity, today?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    So you are happy to murder animals just so you can eat them? Would you kill a chicken yourself and eat it? Same with a cow? Have you got the stomach to do it?

    And don't forget you are a biological machine too. You are an animal too. Just because you are self-aware and some animals aren't - that doesn't give you the right to murder them.
    You can't murder animals. Yes, yes and yes.

    So how are you judging worth of biological machines except by some (and we'll here leave this undefined) self aware consciousness? Can you not see that a robot with real AI to the extent of a human shouldn't really be killed, but smashing my coffee machine does to compare? So the logic can be applied to you wouldn't kill a human but you'd kill a fly. Now, where the line is between those two points is debatable. Does a chicken cross it? I don't think so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    You can't murder animals. Yes, yes and yes.

    So how are you judging worth of biological machines except by some (and we'll here leave this undefined) self aware consciousness? Can you not see that a robot with real AI to the extent of a human shouldn't really be killed, but smashing my coffee machine does to compare? So the logic can be applied to you wouldn't kill a human but you'd kill a fly. Now, where the line is between those two points is debatable. Does a chicken cross it? I don't think so.
    Of course you can murder animals. Maybe you don't see it that way but I certainly do. If taking ones life isn't murder, I don't know what is!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Most people are transparently hypocritical when it comes to meat, animal suffering etc. OP. It's not just vets...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Most people are transparently hypocritical when it comes to meat, animal suffering etc. OP. It's not just vets...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree but what I was arguing was whether vets were in particularly more hypocritical than others and i've not heard any convincing arguments that they are not yet! The only thing i've heard is straw man arguments from a few disgruntled vets-to-be for knocking their profession and questioning their ethics.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Not all vets are even going to 'truly care about animals.' Some will be doing it because they have the skills and thought why not, or even just for the money.
    They're being paid to treat sick animals, this doesn't require them viewing animals as equal, or believing that animals aren't a good food source.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. They are trying to acquire money to live. It's their personal choice. If they are vegan, that's a plus. If they claim to care about animals, a lot, and frequently, and eat meat, than yes they are a hypocrite. The biggest? Well, that's debatable.

    But if they are simply vets who help animals, and eat meat, and say nothing on the subject of animal rights, they are, by definition, not a hypocrite, which is practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.
    If they don't claim to be vegan as a moral standard, eating meat is not hypocritical. This logic applies to everyone. Why should it be different if the person is a veterinarian? If there was a professional bowler that hated bowling, if he gave bowling lessons, is he a hypocrite? No, he is actually morally higher than others, because he pushes aside his own dislikes to help others he knows he can, to improve their lives and ability to bowl.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There's also the fact the most vets don't end up treating the same animals that they eat. Most people have this arbitrary line in their head between the animals they think it's okay to eat and those they think it isn't. I don't think vets who eat meat are any more hypocritical than such people.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    They say they care for animals but they eat them. Surely they are the biggest hypocrites in the history of human civilisation? Discuss.

    I think all vets should be vegan, or at the very least vegetarian, if they truly care about animals. Just think about it if you're a meat eating vet reading this. Why are you taking with one hand and giving with the other? You are being speciesist! That is fundamentally wrong. Might as well just kill them in theatre if you're going to eat meat too.

    watch this video if you really want to know where your meat comes from etc: http://earthlings.com/?page_id=32

    Ive never really thought of that-id say yes definitely. Earthings is a eye opening video and i think that is is so good of those people who walk around train stations/ sit on the train with the movie playing some on the reactions they get you know they arnt going to forget it too soon.

    #Vegan4Life
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say meat eating humans are the biggest hypocrites in history fullstop. People love animals but eat them!!??!?!?
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.