Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mimsycrafts)
    attacking people with questions
    Well I've heard it all now..
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MotorboatMyGoat)
    ..when you force your opinion on the animals
    Seriously? Maybe I should speak to snakes and birds of prey about 'forcing their opinion' onto rodents.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    Seriously? Maybe I should speak to snakes and birds of prey about 'forcing their opinion' onto rodents.
    Just because something occurs in nature, doesn't make it right. That's an illogical appeal to nature. Animals in the wild do all sorts of things that we would find unacceptable. Only in a discussion about meat will people start using snakes, lions (come on, you didn't talk about lions - it's a classic!) and birds of prey as their ethical role models!

    As it happens, I do support addressing the suffering of wild-animals, who suffer from predation, starvation and disease. Right now, however, let's focus on the suffering we inflict on nonhuman animals.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)

    lmao what
    Animal rights terrorism and veganism are closely associated

    'hunt saboteurs' ( animal rights terroism by a different name) and veganism is closely associated .
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    As it happens, I do support addressing the suffering of wild-animals, who suffer from predation, starvation and disease. Right now, however, let's focus on the suffering we inflict on nonhuman animals.
    Are you suggesting we should eventually reach a point where there should be no predators? That does not sound sustainable in the slightest...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    Animal rights terrorism and veganism are closely associated

    'hunt saboteurs' ( animal rights terroism by a different name) and veganism is closely associated .
    In other words it is associated with things nobody cares about.

    gotcha
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Just because something occurs in nature, doesn't make it right. That's an illogical appeal to nature.

    As it happens, I do support addressing the suffering of wild-animals, who suffer from predation, starvation and disease. Right now, however, let's focus on the suffering we inflict on nonhuman animals.
    'Natural' and 'right' are different things. Humans are primates, and many primates are omnivores. A lot of other animals eat (and sometimes exclusively eat) other animals. Is that 'wrong'? No, its natural. Not all natural things in this world are nice, that's just how life is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    Seriously? Maybe I should speak to snakes and birds of prey about 'forcing their opinion' onto rodents.
    They have to eat meat to survive. You don't.
    Don't do onto others, as you wouldn't want onto yourself.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MotorboatMyGoat)
    They have to eat meat to survive. You don't.
    Don't do onto others, as you wouldn't want onto yourself.
    Why are there omnivorous animals then?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    If a dietary choice restricts eating certain foods that would make it restrictive by definition.
    But it's not restricting any foods that are NECESSARY for good health; if a diet involved only cutting out sweets, would you consider that 'a restrictive diet' too?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fannehh)
    But it's not restricting any foods that are NECESSARY for good health; if a diet involved only cutting out sweets, would you consider that 'a restrictive diet' too?
    Yes. It applies restrictions, therefore it is restrictive. You are using points about health to argue semantics when the two fields are totally unrelated. Restrictions =/= bad in all cases, but restrictions = restrictive in all cases.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittyboy)
    Vegan.. were you joking?

    I can understand vegetarians, but vegans are just weirdos tbh.
    I'm only vegetarian but I can completely understand the vegan perspective, with dairy products in particular. Dairy cows only produce milk for a certain period after giving birth, so they have to bear calves pretty regularly. This process is arguably highly exploitative and distressing for the cows. What's more, only half the calves that are born can produce milk themselves - the other half are uselessly male and are slaughtered for veal.

    The dairy industry and the beef industry are very closely intertwined, and producing dairy wouldn't be economically feasible if there wasn't a demand for beef. A better name for both might be simply "the cow industry".
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    Are you suggesting we should eventually reach a point where there should be no predators? That does not sound sustainable in the slightest...
    Phasing out predation could be coupled with methods to reduce the populations of herbivores too, to prevent overpopulation. My point is not that we've amassed all of the ecological research to go out and do this now; my point is that if phasing out predation could be achieved without significant adverse ecological effects, it ought to be done. Jeff McMahan, the Oxford philosopher, argues compellingly in favour of this here. And, his response to the people who didn't read his first article properly is here.

    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    'Natural' and 'right' are different things. Humans are primates, and many primates are omnivores. A lot of other animals eat (and sometimes exclusively eat) other animals. Is that 'wrong'? No, its natural. Not all natural things in this world are nice, that's just how life is.
    You've contradicted yourself here. You've stated that animals eating other animals is not wrong, because "its natural". That's not an argument. Once again, as you've acknowledged yourself, natural and right are different things.

    "That's just how life is" isn't an argument either. The fact of the matter is that, for millions of people who don't eat animals, that's not how life is, and as a result the unnecessary suffering of nonhuman animals is being reduced.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    Animal rights terrorism and veganism are closely associated

    'hunt saboteurs' ( animal rights terroism by a different name) and veganism is closely associated .
    This argument makes no sense. I can agree that most animal rights terrorists are probably vegan, but only a minute percentage of vegans are animal rights terrorists. It's certainly not a valid argument against veganism in general.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    You've contradicted yourself here. You've stated that animals eating other animals is not wrong, because "its natural". That's not an argument. Once again, as you've acknowledged yourself, natural and right are different things.

    "That's just how life is" isn't an argument either. The fact of the matter is that, for millions of people who don't eat animals, that's not how life is, and as a result the unnecessary suffering of nonhuman animals is being reduced.
    How have I contradicted myself? I said the concept of eating animals is neither right or wrong, it's natural. It is also natural for humans to eat meat. Those who choose not to are not acting 'naturally'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Justmoll28)
    that veganism is 'hard' or 'too expensive' or 'too time consuming'

    it baffles me..i want to know why people think this?
    It can be quite expensive in some countries..
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    How have I contradicted myself? I said the concept of eating animals is neither right or wrong, it's natural. It is also natural for humans to eat meat. Those who choose not to are not acting 'naturally'.
    It doesn't matter whether it's natural or not. That's irrelevant to this discussion.

    Do you think it would be wrong for us to keep human infants, severely intellectually disabled humans or indeed regular humans in the conditions in which we keep nonhuman animals? Do you think inflicting unnecessary suffering on others is wrong? Do you think that anything is wrong?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    It doesn't matter whether it's natural or not. That's irrelevant to this discussion.

    Do you think it would be wrong for us to keep human infants, severely intellectually disabled humans or indeed regular humans in the conditions in which we keep nonhuman animals? Do you think inflicting unnecessary suffering on others is wrong? Do you think that anything is wrong?
    Actually I think it is rather relevant to the discussion.

    I didn't think we ate other humans so I don't see your argument on that. How do you decide what is unnecessary suffering? What I think is 'wrong' is my business only.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    Actually I think it is rather relevant to the discussion.
    Why? What on Earth does something being 'natural' have to do with anything?

    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    I didn't think we ate other humans so I don't see your argument on that.
    Well, what if someone did want to eat human infants or severely intellectually disabled humans? Would there be anything wrong with confining, transporting them and slaughtering them?

    (Original post by BasingstokeBoy)
    How do you decide what is unnecessary suffering? What I think is 'wrong' is my business only.
    Will you die without eating animal products? No. Can you be as healthy, if not healthier, on a vegan diet? Yes. Have millions of other people done it? Yes. Is it therefore unnecessary? Yes.

    The fact that you're not answering the questions I've put to you strongly suggests that you're not willing to use reason when it comes to deciding how you act. Or, you know that, logically, your responses to the questions I've put to you would also lead you to conclude that veganism is the right thing to do.

    In any case, you withdraw yourself from the debate. If you're not willing to share your views with others and have them challenged, there's no point in you replying further to this thread.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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