Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

My favourite pro veganism quotation! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AbsoluteAnarchy)
    I believe it's relevant because you asked me to tell you the differences between animals and humans, or something to that effect. You weren't very clear.
    So what quality do humans have that make humans moral subjects and animals not moral subjects?

    As for the lions, you're splitting hairs. I was making a comparison. It doesn't make sense for members of a species to eat each other, and it isn't really necessary given the presence food-chains.
    That's a description, it's not presently the case but it's not a prescription against it.
    Neighbours; again, you're splitting hairs. By neighbours, I mean fellow human beings, not the family next door.
    So why draw the line there?
    I don't care about brown people, why don't we just kill them and not non-brown people? How is that line any less arbitrary?
    So are you against every carnivore/omnivore in existence? I'm sure the great white shark, ape, and snow leopard would love to debate with you on this topic.
    You kind of made my argument for me, they're not moral agents.

    Animals eat each other. We eat them, some of them can eat us if we're not careful. If a greater predator than us existed, we would probably become that animal's food.
    I thought we weren't basing our morality on the thoughts of lions?
    Again, even though I'm not against eating meat, but I am against the unnecessary mistreatment of animals in farms and the like. There are humane ways to do things.
    In the meat industry I've not once seen humaneness. I seen some things worse than others, but the less bad things are not 'humane'.

    Perhaps if you explained your choice to be vegan/vegetarian, I would better understand you.
    The meat eating is compeltely unecessary. We don't need animal products.
    However, free range, organic the meat may be, that doesn't amount to an increase in welfare to a level that would be morally acceptable.
    What your argument so far seems to amount to is:
    Animal suffering is wrong when it is arbitrary.
    If it is in anyway limited and serves a purpose for you, it is not arbitrary.

    If you disagree with that then please do put forward what it is because I don't want to straw man you. If that is your argument (which so far it appears to me to be) then I put it to you:
    Do you need to eat animal products?
    Because I would argue you probably don't. And if that is the case then you having a use for the animals becomes null as an argument, because you can make choices to avoid eating them.

    Note; me purchasing cod doesn't mean that I condone the unnecessary torture of cod. It means I'm hungry and I need to eat.
    Given the choice between buying tortured cod or cod that's been killed humanely, I'd choose the latter, but it's not always that clear.
    But you don't need to eat the cod.
    I want to ask you, if you were going to be killed for someone elses meal what would a humane death look like to you? How would you want them to kill you? Would you have any fear as it approached?

    I can't stay for much longer today as it's getting late; if I don't reply, it's because I'm asleep and I'll get back to you tomorrow if you wish.

    I wouldn't assume otherwise. It's an internet forum not a chat room
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Louisb19)
    Snow leopards hunt for their food, its a part of nature. Humans keep animals in cages and slaughter 200 Billion of them per year.

    It really aggravates me when people compare hunting to the meat industry, if your is argument seriously 'Animals eat other animals in nature so they can survive, Humans do this to! We have to go hunt at Tesco and catch an animal that was born without the slightest chance of having a decent life.' then you need to re-asses your intelligence.
    So because we are capable of isolating our food before killing it, which is more efficient by a mile, it is not comparable? Do you honestly think that the hunters of the world would keep hunting if they could keep their food in a pen and kill them with a fraction of the effort?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Louisb19)
    Without slavery, the western world as we know it would not exist.

    I also don't see how eating flesh leads to innovation. You could argue that women not being able to own property was a source on innovation, should we have kept that around?
    Not particularly, slavery drove luxury goods and provided a massive basis to the economy of developing America, but at the same time it stood in the way of industrialisation.

    Never said it was, and I highly doubt you've any chance of making that argument, but humour me, how exactly was a lack of women's rights a source of innovation?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I'm just going to cull your posts down to the parts where we might make some headway.

    You've not argued it's not comparable with slavery. You've said it's your argument, but haven't put forward why.

    Ironically your next statement is to say my argument is ridiculous.
    If you actually read the post before that I explained why, eating meat is part of our natural behaviour as omnivores, slavery was a developed framework as part of proto-capitalist systems, not part of human biology. You're trying to compare a basic tenant of human biology to a societal event, what you've done in essence is taken someone saying they wished health nuts would stop trying to shove sugar free diets down their throat and asked them whether they think people with objections to the subjugation of women should keep them to themselves. It's obviously nonsense.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    If you actually read the post before that I explained why, eating meat is part of our natural behaviour as omnivores, slavery was a developed framework as part of proto-capitalist systems, not part of human biology. You're trying to compare a basic tenant of human biology to a societal event, what you've done in essence is taken someone saying they wished health nuts would stop trying to shove sugar free diets down their throat and asked them whether they think people with objections to the subjugation of women should keep them to themselves. It's obviously nonsense.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You realise that omnivore is not a prescription but a description, right?
    And yes, eating meat has become a social event.

    And it's not 'obviously nonesense' otherwise you'd be able to provide an account of what quality a human has that makes them a moral subject that animals lack.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Legend :top:

    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So because we are capable of isolating our food before killing it, which is more efficient by a mile, it is not comparable? Do you honestly think that the hunters of the world would keep hunting if they could keep their food in a pen and kill them with a fraction of the effort?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Interestingly enough, certain species of ant have managed it and so do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/201...their-own-food


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saeed97)
    If someone tried to stop me from eating meat i'll end them.
    Well if you were an animal see how you like it being exploited, abused & killed for food!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Interestingly enough, certain species of ant have managed it and so do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/201...their-own-food


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I rest my case

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    On the contrary, I expect male humans would more or less kill each other on sight if we didn't have to club together to hunt large animals. At the very least our society would be like that of chimpanzees so a strict brutal hierarchy. You could kiss goodbye to the purposeful association of human beings and therefore to much of the technological progress we have enjoyed over the past ten thousand years.
    We are much more like bonobos.

    In fact the current thought in anthropology is that humans would not be where we are today if we had been more like chimpanzees than bonobos. Especially with regards to the differences between gender.

    Hate to say but the bonobo similarities also mess up your view of feminism and the role of females in humans from a genetic standpoint :holmes:


    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I rest my case

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So what?

    You can find what is essential rape as a mating strategy in loads of sexual species. Is rape now ok because of that? I mean after all, if you rape and get a woman pregnant you have passed on your genes. Which is all evolution is about.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You realise that omnivore is not a prescription but a description, right?
    And yes, eating meat has become a social event.

    And it's not 'obviously nonesense' otherwise you'd be able to provide an account of what quality a human has that makes them a moral subject that animals lack.
    That's completely irrelevant - I said that humans are omnivorous animals, that much is true.

    No more than in as much as food forming part of social events, but eating is still primarily for survival, and that includes the eating of meat.

    It's quite obvious that eating and owning slaves are not comparable, given, y'know, eating is a biological necessity, but beyond that morals don't come into predator-prey relationships, which is another point where your argument falls down.


    Now, assuming you're one of these least harm ethical vegans - why when a bivalve (which have no central nervous system and so have no more a concept of pain than plants) based diet or local hunter-gather behaviour would cause less deaths than mass crop farming, given the use of pesticides to kill insects and the regular hunting by farmers of voles, field mice and other destructive species, would you not adopt one of these diets instead, if it's truly a case of doing as little harm as possible then why, when meat based diets cause less harm, adopt veganism? (Obviously the logical conclusion for causing the least harm is to never have lived, but we'll stick to minimal harm for now)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    That's completely irrelevant - I said that humans are omnivorous animals, that much is true.
    Yes, humans have the ability to eat meat. It is a descriptive term. I'm not sure why you treat it as a prescriptive. You seem to profoundly misunderstand what the term actually means.
    No more than in as much as food forming part of social events, but eating is still primarily for survival, and that includes the eating of meat.
    The first part "No more than in as much as food forming part of social events" makes no sense. What are you trying to say here? No more than what?

    As for the second part. Humans eat for survival, humans do not (in the developed countries, or in countries such as India en masse) eat meat for survival. Shocking as this may be if I needed meat to survive I would be dead. Unfortunately for your argument, I'm not.
    Meat is, for most people arbitrary. They make a choice to eat it, but they don't need it. They choose to survive by eating meat instead of plants. So eating is a matter of survival, yes, but eating meat is not.
    It's quite obvious that eating and owning slaves are not comparable, given, y'know, eating is a biological necessity, but beyond that morals don't come into predator-prey relationships, which is another point where your argument falls down.
    Still waiting for an answer of what quality humans have that make them moral subjects that animals lack rather than empty rhetoric.
    Now, assuming you're one of these least harm ethical vegans - why when a bivalve (which have no central nervous system and so have no more a concept of pain than plants) based diet or local hunter-gather behaviour would cause less deaths than mass crop farming, given the use of pesticides to kill insects and the regular hunting by farmers of voles, field mice and other destructive species, would you not adopt one of these diets instead, if it's truly a case of doing as little harm as possible then why, when meat based diets cause less harm, adopt veganism? (Obviously the logical conclusion for causing the least harm is to never have lived, but we'll stick to minimal harm for now)
    Because I haven't seen conclusive evidence that bivalves are incapable of pain. Though your points after ones of pain have become lost. Try adding in a full stop or two to make it clearer.



    I'm going to restate this question in bold in the hope you'll bother to answer it. I don't even care about the rest of my points, this is the clincher, so concentrate on answer it alone if that's easier for you to do:

    What quality do humans have that make them moral subjects that animals lack?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    We are much more like bonobos.

    In fact the current thought in anthropology is that humans would not be where we are today if we had been more like chimpanzees than bonobos. Especially with regards to the differences between gender.

    Hate to say but the bonobo similarities also mess up your view of feminism and the role of females in humans from a genetic standpoint
    Fair enough, I tend to think we are a mix of both tbh. I mean we have pretty much always had rules around sex and rigid hierarchies, only argument against it that I can see is that settled agriculture is unnatural and before that we used to be gynocratic hippies - as many feminists indeed argue - but then why has agriculture been so enduring and universal?

    Unfortunately it may simply be that agricultural societies are just better; and with agriculture we are now on evolutionary timescales. So it could be that even if humans used to be like bonobos we are now changing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Fair enough, I tend to think we are a mix of both tbh. I mean we have pretty much always had rules around sex and rigid hierarchies, only argument against it that I can see is that settled agriculture is unnatural and before that we used to be gynocratic hippies - as many feminists indeed argue - but then why has agriculture been so enduring and universal?

    Unfortunately it may simply be that agricultural societies are just better; and with agriculture we are now on evolutionary timescales. So it could be that even if humans used to be like bonobos we are now changing.
    Well yeah, that is where anarchist anthropologists come from. It was the advent of agriculture that we became such a hierarchical species, when before that we were relative egalitarian. Their view is that most of these hierarchies is a result of social conditioning and a form of historical materialism rather than genetic changes and can thus be changed. Which is the viewpoint I side with, although that is based on personal intuition rather than rigid science.

    "
    Chimpanzees are political, aggressive, hunt for meat, and engage in primitive war with neighbouring groups. Bonobos have sex for pleasure as well as procreation, and make a variety of almost bird-like vocalisations.

    Chimpanzee societies are more “patriarchal” or male dominated, whereas bonobos live in more female-centred or “matriarchal” societies."

    https://theconversation.com/do-chimp...es-wrong-14846

    We probably do have a mixture but I can't imagine Chimpanzees being able to create the kind of large scale societies we, although that is purely my viewpoint. Also according to that article we are as closely related to both Bonobos and Chimpanzees genetically speaking.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    We are much more like bonobos.

    In fact the current thought in anthropology is that humans would not be where we are today if we had been more like chimpanzees than bonobos. Especially with regards to the differences between gender.

    Hate to say but the bonobo similarities also mess up your view of feminism and the role of females in humans from a genetic standpoint :holmes:




    So what?

    You can find what is essential rape as a mating strategy in loads of sexual species. Is rape now ok because of that? I mean after all, if you rape and get a woman pregnant you have passed on your genes. Which is all evolution is about.
    At the purest biological level, yes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    At the purest biological level, yes.
    So, morally speaking is rape now ok?

    If eating meat is morally acceptable for the same reasons why is rape not ok?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So, morally speaking is rape now ok?

    If eating meat is morally acceptable for the same reasons why is rape not ok?
    Wait, so we have major protein sources without touching animals? I come back to the question, when did we become herbivores?

    Why is rape not? Because the common set of morals declares otherwise.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Why is this thread in the chat forum?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Wait, so we have major protein sources without touching animals? I come back to the question, when did we become herbivores?

    Why is rape not? Because the common set of morals declares otherwise.
    You are missing the point.

    Both eating meat and rape are fine from a "biological" stand point. Male chimpanzees violently assault females.

    Yet we deem rape as wrong but not eating meat. There is no reason why we have to respect female humans like we do from a "biological" stand point. Basically the argument that because certain behaviors are "natural" they are justified doesn't cut the mustard when so much of what we do contradicts "nature".

    I can come up with lots of "biological" arguments as to why we don't accept rape or why some people are vegetarians but that also beside the point.

    and yes, we also have major protein resources without touching animals...

    Which again misses another point. The only thing that matters from "biological" point fo view is passing on genes. As long as you can live to say 50 years old that is enough to have offspring and rear them and maybe help your offspring have offspring of their own. So any kind of deficiency from a veggie diet doesn't really matter. Especially when you consider how bad eating too much meat if for us. It;s been in the news how bad eating too much red meat is for us in the long term and cancer. Eating too much meat (which most meat eaters do do) is probbaly just as bad for you as eating to little. But the important bit is that it is an old age disease so it doesn't matter "biologically" speaking. You still live long enough to have kids and pass o your genes. WHICH IS ALL THAT MATTERS BIOLOGICAL.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Well yeah, that is where anarchist anthropologists come from. It was the advent of agriculture that we became such a hierarchical species, when before that we were relative egalitarian. Their view is that most of these hierarchies is a result of social conditioning and a form of historical materialism rather than genetic changes and can thus be changed. Which is the viewpoint I side with, although that is based on personal intuition rather than rigid science.
    Do you consider the emergence of agriculture actively unnatural, in the sense of a conscious imposition intended to entrench ruling elites, or do you consider it natural, i.e. something that humans pretty much came up with because that was the path of least resistance at a particular time and place? Because it seems like you mean the first one when you talk about social conditioning.

    The view that resonates with me is that we met with various ecological pressures when we migrated out of Africa. Demographics, geography, climate change, doesn't really matter, the important thing is that eventually we came across fertile land around major river valleys where it was marginally more sensible to stick around than to keep moving.

    From there on it is a simple fact of life that there were competitive advantages to civilisation, not least militarily, we had to learn to defend our patch, but mainly in terms of population density and how easily we could be turned to one aligned purpose. Apparently agricultural societies were poorer nourished than hunter-gatherers, similar I suppose to how state finances are always in the red and based on fake money today, but the numbers allowed for a step change in things like knowledge transfer which is just the same today as well.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 30, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.