Turn on thread page Beta

If you are male and vegetarian, GTFIH watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xj-lynx)
    Vegans don't eat animal products as well as their flesh so no. Also, some people also consider eggs to be chicken period or an aborted chicken foetus.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Some people really need to brush up on their biology. An unfertilised egg is not a chicken period or an aborted foetus.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    Lol i'm still making the comparison because that's the whole reason i came into this thread in the first place, to answer to someone suggesting that they were ethically exactly the same. Since when do i have to give a definitive answer to if it is wrong or not? As i said, it isn't as simple as an absolutist yes or no, as with most moral aruguments. But no, i don't feel overly guilty if a fish has died and then i eat it.

    You're not responding to the content properly.

    Why is the logic different?
    Why can't the same logic be applied to fish?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You're not responding to the content properly.

    Why is the logic different?
    Why can't the same logic be applied to fish?
    You're not making sense, what logic?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    You're not making sense, what logic?
    You say there's an argument to say that intensive animal farming is wrong.

    Why does that not apply to fish?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You say there's an argument to say that intensive animal farming is wrong.

    Why does that not apply to fish?
    Because as i stated quite clearly before, fish have a vastly different level of consciousness and therefore their perception of pain and ability to suffer physically and especially emotionally is inferior to that of livestock.

    Surely you don't think they are ethically the same?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Morrissey has been taken seriously over the last 30 years and he will not eat meat or eat a meal with someone else who is eating meat in his presence.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    Because as i stated quite clearly before, fish have a vastly different level of consciousness and therefore their perception of pain and ability to suffer physically and especially emotionally is inferior to that of livestock.

    Surely you don't think they are ethically the same?
    Which would lead to a difference in HOW bad (comparative) they are compared to each other.

    But the logic holds up to say both are bad. You're argument is simply one is worse than another.

    I'm not sure how you're not getting this.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Which would lead to a difference in HOW bad (comparative) they are compared to each other.

    But the logic holds up to say both are bad. You're argument is simply one is worse than another.

    I'm not sure how you're not getting this.
    Intensive farming of any kind is only really immorral to me if it causes a distinct level of suffering, physically and emotionally, which we know fish can't really perceive. The level of cruelty inflicted through intensive fish farming isn't enough for me to warrant it immoral as i do with livestock.

    You're going round in circles trying to pin me down with the absolutist moral principles that a lot of vegetarians have, but i'm not budging, and you don't like it lol.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I am vegetarian and male and so far as I can tell, people take me seriously.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    Intensive farming of any kind is only really immorral to me if it causes a distinct level of suffering, physically and emotionally, which we know fish can't really perceive. The level of cruelty inflicted through intensive fish farming isn't enough for me to warrant it immoral as i do with livestock.

    You're going round in circles trying to pin me down with the absolutist moral principles that a lot of vegetarians have, but i'm not budging, and you don't like it lol.
    The principle that you shouldn't eat meat because it causes arbitrary suffering applies to both.

    You keep saying it doesn't.

    You keep accusing me of having absolutist moral principles (though I doubt you have any idea about my meta ethical beliefs or what you're actually saying there) but you won't say why the principle isn't applied.

    All you say is one is worse than another, but with no ability to retort as to why that is relevant.

    Still waiting on that one.

    I don't like the fact that you are incapable of giving me a clear and direct answer to a very simple question.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    The principle that you shouldn't eat meat because it causes arbitrary suffering applies to both.

    You keep saying it doesn't.

    You keep accusing me of having absolutist moral principles (though I doubt you have any idea about my meta ethical beliefs or what you're actually saying there) but you won't say why the principle isn't applied.

    All you say is one is worse than another, but with no ability to retort as to why that is relevant.

    Still waiting on that one.

    I don't like the fact that you are incapable of giving me a clear and direct answer to a very simple question.
    I have answered your question but you choose to ignore the answer. It's not really that 'one is worse than the other'. It's that one causes a distinct amount of suffering and the other barely causes enough for me to even consider it immoral in the first place. You seem to have just come here to try and make yourself feel morally superior over someone who eats something that you don't, and when they justify it you disregard what they say as irrelevant to keep yourself feeling like you're on the intellectual high ground.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by syrettd)
    Hey, I was just wondering if you could answer a vegan related question? If you're vegan for the ethical treatment of animals- if you kept chickens would you eat the eggs?

    My friend got drunk one night and got obsessed with this question, so I figured I'd get her an answer.
    I'm a female 'vegan'. I personally don't keep chickens but I work at a horse stables and the woman has rescued ex battery hens that are free to roam acres of field/woodlands. I have no moral issues with eating them (though I still rarely have them) it's the dairy industry and the cruelty within it that I disagree with. It often depends on the person
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 419)
    Kinda wish I was a vegan. But goddam fish and chicken taste dam good. I respect those that abstain from it.
    I guess it's a hell of a lot easier if you've never eaten/never really liked meat. I stopped being vegetarian for about a year and like chicken but I just couldn't get over the fact that's it's an animal. If you do stop having it for a while you honestly won't miss it
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    I have answered your question but you choose to ignore the answer. It's not really that 'one is worse than the other'. It's that one causes a distinct amount of suffering and the other barely causes enough for me to even consider it immoral in the first place. You seem to have just come here to try and make yourself feel morally superior over someone who eats something that you don't, and when they justify it you disregard what they say as irrelevant to keep yourself feeling like you're on the intellectual high ground.
    That doesn't answer it.
    You're saying it's okay for fish to suffer but not land dwelling animals. But you won't say why.
    You'll say one suffers more, but not why the other one should be ignored as moral subjects.

    And you sign off with an odd set of ad homs.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    That doesn't answer it.
    You're saying it's okay for fish to suffer but not land dwelling animals. But you won't say why.
    You'll say one suffers more, but not why the other one should be ignored as moral subjects.

    And you sign off with an odd set of ad homs.
    Scientists seem to now think that what fish 'feel' doesn't even constitute pain. Here's a recent study..

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0808123719.htm

    That answers why i am personally happy to ignore fish as moral subjects and it is a good enough reason in my mind.

    Keep asking and you'll just get the same answer. I'm happy to go all night.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    Scientists seem to now think that what fish 'feel' doesn't even constitute pain. Here's a recent study..

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0808123719.htm

    That answers why i am personally happy to ignore fish as moral subjects and it is a good enough reason in my mind.

    Keep asking and you'll just get the same answer. I'm happy to go all night.
    Well the next is the philosophical question what constitutes as pain. And philosophy does very much apply to this, which is part of the reason there isn't one answer from the scientific community.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    Scientists seem to now think that what fish 'feel' doesn't even constitute pain. Here's a recent study..

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0808123719.htm

    That answers why i am personally happy to ignore fish as moral subjects and it is a good enough reason in my mind.

    Keep asking and you'll just get the same answer. I'm happy to go all night.
    Did you read your link out of interest?

    Here's how it ends:

    "However, at a legal and moral level, the recently published doubts regarding the awareness of pain in fish do not release anybody from their responsibility of having to justify all uses of fishes in a socially acceptable way and to minimise any form of stress and damage to the fish when interacting with it."
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Did you read your link out of interest?

    Here's how it ends:

    "However, at a legal and moral level, the recently published doubts regarding the awareness of pain in fish do not release anybody from their responsibility of having to justify all uses of fishes in a socially acceptable way and to minimise any form of stress and damage to the fish when interacting with it."
    Yep, have you read that sentence properly? It hardly discredits the entire study. The content still stands credible and provides me with good enough reason for my personal beliefs.

    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Well the next is the philosophical question what constitutes as pain. And philosophy does very much apply to this, which is part of the reason there isn't one answer from the scientific community.
    Agree
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    If a fish's response to pain was anything more than just an unconscious survival instinct then i would consider the ethical implications of eating them closer to meat.
    This.

    (Original post by tomclarky)
    Maybe I should've said that a fish's pain response is just of a vastly different level of consciousness to that of other animals, rather than it being completely unconscious, if it bothers you that much

    It's semantics in the sense that it is a minor issue in relation to the point I was making as a whole, which I know you understand fully.
    And this.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomclarky)
    Yep, have you read that sentence properly? It hardly discredits the entire study. The content still stands credible and provides me with good enough reason for my personal beliefs.



    Agree
    Not fishing would probably be the best way to avoid stressing fish out.
 
 
 
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: March 19, 2014

3,086

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.