Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Yeah whenever I vagueley stray from 'killing bad, vegan good' you accuse me of using a straw man argument.

    Straw man argument right there.

    That's...not a strawman argument, as I keep telling you.

    And no, whenever you have explicitly told me that I am making an argument I've not made, that's a strawman argument.

    My comparisons have been made on thought experiments where only one or two factors have been changed, keeping the comparison on topic and not assuming a base value (such as what happens in nature, as if that's somehow related to either morality or what one should aim for in their actions).

    This has been clear from the start as I've isolated your strawman arguments, and parts where you've relied on a dichotomy, and responded to the rest of your post.

    However, you are so insulted by the fact that I dare not respond to someone putting arguments in my mouth, that you refuse to apply yourself intellectually. Unless you are honestly telling me that this is you applying yourself intellectually (in which case, good luck in life, you'll need it).
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    No is the answer

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    So, veggies - how do you feel about culling deer to protect other wildlife? Is that wrong? Should we let them run rampant and destroy the environment?

    (@there's too much love you should have realised now I'm not going to engage with you, you are far too rude and insulting to be worth my time, so this question is not directed at you, I know what your response would be anyway (tprn between logical fallacy and straw man argument...)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    To these people anyone that let's a speck of meat pass their lips is a horrible person. No point argueing, if you eat meat you are the Antichrist.

    Also you raise a good point - economically it may well be more effective to buy ethically and shift the market in that direction than to remove yourself from it altogether. But they wouldn't understand that because eating meat, even if the animals had the best life ever and a very swift death, is just wrong by default.
    Wow. First we're religious but now, we're Christians! Very specific. I would have thought Buddhist myself (given what Buddha said about eating animals).

    Economically it is better to have slaves. But you won't see that. You'll just see anyone who uses slave labor as wrong by default.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    That's...not a strawman argument, as I keep telling you.

    And no, whenever you have explicitly told me that I am making an argument I've not made, that's a strawman argument.

    My comparisons have been made on thought experiments where only one or two factors have been changed, keeping the comparison on topic and not assuming a base value (such as what happens in nature, as if that's somehow related to either morality or what one should aim for in their actions).

    This has been clear from the start as I've isolated your strawman arguments, and parts where you've relied on a dichotomy, and responded to the rest of your post.

    However, you are so insulted by the fact that I dare not respond to someone putting arguments in my mouth, that you refuse to apply yourself intellectually. Unless you are honestly telling me that this is you applying yourself intellectually (in which case, good luck in life, you'll need it).
    This is literally the most ironic thing I have ever read I think
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Wow. First we're religious but now, we're Christians! Very specific. I would have thought Buddhist myself (given what Buddha said about eating animals).

    Economically it is better to have slaves. But you won't see that. You'll just see anyone who uses slave labor as wrong by default.
    OK this literally is a straw man argument.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I *lean* more towards the utliatiarian argument. But you also have several issues with what's said.

    Firstly, there's no way to know how painless a death ever truly is. This is especially more blurry with regards to current killing methods, such as captive bolt gun (mis fires, human error etc.). Last time I looked I think it was a whopping 10% of kills aren't considered 'clean kills'.

    Most animals know they're about to die before they die.

    Indirect harm - farm animals are social creatures, who do miss each other when they're gone.

    So the question of my meta ethical compass on this issue is still very much there, you might have a mild direction, but so far that's all . I would be interested if you had more questions to neaten it up though
    Perhaps it's not possible to know how painless such a method of killing *truly* is. Still, it's very plausible to believe that it is likely that some kind of method of killing painlessly exists even if we have't found it (also, it's possible to claim that the pain the animal goes through for a few seconds (milliseconds?) is not morally significant). And even if you're right, this is only a problem for the practical implications of the utilitarian theory. It poses no issues to the conclusions of the theory itself - i.e. that killing a non-human animal (or if you're willing to bite the bullet, a human whose on par with non-human animals in mental function) painlessly is not morally problematic. 10% of the kills might not be clean kills but that doesn't deduce from the theory. Sure in practice it's likely that farmers abuse animals. Nobody condones that. It's possible in practice that nurses abuse patients (and they do). That doesn't mean nursing or farming is objectionable in itself according to this line of thinking (to be clear: I am not endorsing utilitarianism, I think it's false)

    I don't know whether animals know they're about to die before they die or whether they miss each other when they're gone. I'm quite ignorant of animal science but the latter claim seems to me to be very reasonable (dogs certainly do miss their puppies for example).

    Another question: in the process of producing grains, vegetables, etc many animals die (as I said, I am relatively ignorant of animal science but I am aware of the debates between Davis and Matheny) . Do you believe this is justified because you believe that the total balance of pain is lower than otherwise or do you believe that this (killing animals in the process of producing vegan products) is an accident that might happen and is not morally on the same level as raising an animal and killing it for food?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    OK this literally is a straw man argument.
    :facepalm2:


    See this one is technically a strawman, because I'm saying you have an ethical problem with slavery, so go on: Do you have an ethical problem with slavery?

    [what lovely comprehension levels you have.]
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    :facepalm2:


    See this one is technically a strawman, because I'm saying you have an ethical problem with slavery, so go on: Do you have an ethical problem with slavery?

    [what lovely comprehension levels you have.]
    That's not why it was a straw man.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    As I thought earlier on then.
    Mature.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by redferry)
    To these people anyone that let's a speck of meat pass their lips is a horrible person. No point argueing, if you eat meat you are the Antichrist.

    Also you raise a good point - economically it may well be more effective to buy ethically and shift the market in that direction than to remove yourself from it altogether. But they wouldn't understand that because eating meat, even if the animals had the best life ever and a very swift death, is just wrong by default.
    I understand that. I get that some people think eatimg meat is unethical. The point is, it's a CHOICE. There's no need for people to be preachy. I know most vegans/veggies aren't preachy, and there are preachy meat eaters. But this veganism unfortunately isn't going to tear apart a well established industry that's beem around a long time. People are claiming that vets are hypocrites, but the only thing they ever done for animal welfare is just not eat one. Seems pretty hypocritical to me

    (Ps Im Flexitarian because I don't feel quilts eating meat now and then, but I feel sh*tty if I eat loads plus buying it less often means I can buy higher welfare and its more sustainable to eat less)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeCapitalist)
    Perhaps it's not possible to know how painless such a method of killing *truly* is. Still, it's very plausible to believe that it is likely that some kind of method of killing painlessly exists even if we have't found it (also, it's possible to claim that the pain the animal goes through for a few seconds (milliseconds?) is not morally significant). And even if you're right, this is only a problem for the practical implications of the utilitarian theory. It poses no issues to the conclusions of the theory itself - i.e. that killing a non-human animal (or if you're willing to bite the bullet, a human whose on par with non-human animals in mental function) painlessly is not morally problematic. 10% of the kills might not be clean kills but that doesn't deduce from the theory. Sure in practice it's likely that farmers abuse animals. Nobody condones that. It's possible in practice that nurses abuse patients (and they do). That doesn't mean nursing or farming is objectionable in itself according to this line of thinking (to be clear: I am not endorsing utilitarianism, I think it's false)

    I don't know whether animals know they're about to die before they die or whether they miss each other when they're gone. I'm quite ignorant of animal science but the latter claim seems to me to be very reasonable (dogs certainly do miss their puppies for example).

    Another question: in the process of producing grains, vegetables, etc many animals die (as I said, I am relatively ignorant of animal science but I am aware of the debates between Davis and Matheny) . Do you believe this is justified because you believe that the total balance of pain is lower than otherwise or do you believe that this (killing animals in the process of producing vegan products) is an accident that might happen and is not morally on the same level as raising an animal and killing it for food?
    There's a very large difference in my mind to accidental deaths (and actually, there aren't many of them) in harvesting grain, and the meat industry. Firstly, the meat industry animals are fed grains and it's very inefficient. So eating plants straight off rather than eating animals that have eaten plants means you're killing many fewer animals over all anyway.

    As a result of that you're using much less water and land for the plant farming, opening up avenues of more efficient farming practices so you can feed more people on less land.

    So really it's in both human (as a species in it's entirety) and animal interests to not farm animals.

    So in short, it's not morally on the same level. You can't avoid animal deaths entirely. But also, you can't reach some moral status as enlightened. There will always be difficulties. Some things are pretty black and white:
    Child abuse is wrong.
    Arbitrarily causing harm is wrong.
    etc.

    the meat, milk and egg industries are arbitrary for most. People (for the most part) don't use them because they need to. They use those industries for the sake of either a slightly easier life or (and usually) the enjoyment of eating those products.

    Which is why I bring up slavery.

    The only difference is species. Which is a bigoted view to have if one believes it to be morally relevant.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Louiseee_)
    I understand that. I get that some people think eatimg meat is unethical. The point is, it's a CHOICE. There's no need for people to be preachy. I know most vegans/veggies aren't preachy, and there are preachy meat eaters. But this veganism unfortunately isn't going to tear apart a well established industry that's beem around a long time. People are claiming that vets are hypocrites, but the only thing they ever done for animal welfare is just not eat one. Seems pretty hypocritical to me

    (Ps Im Flexitarian because I don't feel quilts eating meat now and then, but I feel sh*tty if I eat loads plus buying it less often means I can buy higher welfare and its more sustainable to eat less)
    No I agree - you have to be nice about it. Personally my partner and a friend are now veggie because of me, plus a load of other friends have cut down their meat consumption, because I let people know its fine to be a bit morally flexible about it and because I justified it with an environmental slant rather than a moral outrage one.

    Noones gonna be like oh I'll be vegan because someone told me I was evil, just like those preachers with megaphonus aren't going to convert people to Christianity/whatever.

    It's like I'm probably as bad as vets who eat meat because I research conservation and climate change, but fly around the world for my research and conferences. I'm hoping that my other actions will more than offset that though!

    (I'm flexi too, when I travel I have to eat meat and fish sometimes because it can be offensive to people I stay with to refuse, plus I have no ethical qualms about sustainable wild shot meat and fish or locally raised well looked after meat. )
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeCapitalist)
    Another question: in the process of producing grains, vegetables, etc many animals die (as I said, I am relatively ignorant of animal science but I am aware of the debates between Davis and Matheny) . Do you believe this is justified because you believe that the total balance of pain is lower than otherwise or do you believe that this (killing animals in the process of producing vegan products) is an accident that might happen and is not morally on the same level as raising an animal and killing it for food?
    This is kind of a non- argument because in order to farm and eat an animal you need a far larger area of grain than if you were to just eat the grain directly, so if you eat the cow not only are you causing the death of the cow but also all those extra animals killed in the grain growing and harvesting process needed to feed said cow.

    Which I've always found the argument that farming veg is still environmentally bad a bit ridiculous.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    There's a very large difference in my mind to accidental deaths (and actually, there aren't many of them) in harvesting grain, and the meat industry. Firstly, the meat industry animals are fed grains and it's very inefficient. So eating plants straight off rather than eating animals that have eaten plants means you're killing many fewer animals over all anyway.

    As a result of that you're using much less water and land for the plant farming, opening up avenues of more efficient farming practices so you can feed more people on less land.

    So really it's in both human (as a species in it's entirety) and animal interests to not farm animals.

    So in short, it's not morally on the same level. You can't avoid animal deaths entirely. But also, you can't reach some moral status as enlightened. There will always be difficulties. Some things are pretty black and white:
    Child abuse is wrong.
    Arbitrarily causing harm is wrong.
    etc.

    the meat, milk and egg industries are arbitrary for most. People (for the most part) don't use them because they need to. They use those industries for the sake of either a slightly easier life or (and usually) the enjoyment of eating those products.

    Which is why I bring up slavery.

    The only difference is species. Which is a bigoted view to have if one believes it to be morally relevant.
    I'd rather we focused on the animal welfare part rather than the environmental part. Even if slavery was environmentally friendly, it'd be immoral and even if factory farming was environmentally friendly, you'd, I presume, still consider it to be immoral (although maybe perhaps less so??). Environmental concerns might strengthen the case against animal farming but I trust they're far from decisive.

    What do you mean that teh milk, egg and meat industries are "arbitrary"?

    I don't think utilitarians can make slavery-like analogies btw. Slavery was wrong not because it caused pain on sentient humans (though it did). But rather, in a more Regan-like fashion, because it denied certain fundamental dispositions of humans to be realised (in particular, the freedom to choose one's life, occupation, partner, area in which to live, etc, etc - a whole bundle of freedoms or rights which I take to be fundamental although I know utilitarians beg to differ). It's a definitely more complex view that cannot be reduced merely to denying "pleasure" to a sentient animal (or in this case, a human). We can talk about this more though.

    Another question: do you think there are such things as "higher" and "lower" pleasures? do you rank satisfications? is the happiness one gains from being a good father or husband more important than the pleasure or happiness one gains from eating pork or whatever?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    This is kind of a non- argument because in order to farm and eat an animal you need a far larger area of grain than if you were to just eat the grain directly, so if you eat the cow not only are you causing the death of the cow but also all those extra animals killed in the grain growing and harvesting process needed to feed said cow.

    Which I've always found the argument that farming veg is still environmentally bad a bit ridiculous.
    I didn't mention the environment anywhere. It's an argument against/for veg farming as it relates to animal welfare in particular, not to the environment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrangeBanana)
    I'm not going to get into a masturbatory, pseudo-intellectual debate about logical fallacies. If you can't give me a sound reason for humans to abstain from eating animals, I don't need to provide a reason for them to indulge in it,
    We did not ask for the animals permission. How's that? Taking something from someone or something without their permission is morally wrong.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeCapitalist)
    I didn't mention the environment anywhere. It's an argument against/for veg farming as it relates to animal welfare in particular, not to the environment.
    Yeah but you must see my point that because more crops have to be grown to feed a cow you are killing more animals by eating that cow than by eating the crops directly, no?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Yeah but you must see my point that because more crops have to be grown to feed a cow you are killing more animals by eating that cow than by eating the crops directly, no?
    Absolutely. That has nothing to do with the environment though.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeCapitalist)
    Absolutely. That has nothing to do with the environment though.
    Actually the death of said animals for crop production is very significant to the wider environment, as is the excess land clearing to make room for extra crops. You can't have one without the other really - the two rgument s are closely linked.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
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.