First of all, I must specify that I only oppose the "vegan" in your argument. Humans are omnivores and meat I a natural food for us - just to a lesser, healthier extent.
That isn't an argument. You do realize that males are naturally more violent, right? But we don't justify random male outbursts of anger, simply because it is natural. Also, give me a source that says it is not healthier, or at least not as healthy as a meat-based diet.
Human rights. Morality is to restrict one's own action to appease God, society or another greater force. Animals do not participate in "morality".
I do not believe in your God, or any other God. God is not logical reasoning for me and other people. Your reasoning for why animals should not be considered in morality (I.e the Christian God) cannot be used for the majority of people, including myself, and therefore you cannot use it as a logical excuse.
Could you please explain what exactly you think should happen, and why? Even if you were 100% correct I would not want the government to start controlling the economy.
What we need to do is shed light on the animal products industry. Light was shed on climate change and plastic pollution, and now people are wanting to make a change, even though such a change would be hard.
I do not think so. However, I think vegans, since their food lack some important "foods", need to be concerned about what they eat. A healthy diet including meat, eggs, milk, etc, would be healthier than a vegan diet - after all, that's how our biology wants us to eat.
The only thing missing from a vegan diet is vitamin b12, which can easily be gotten from supplements, and many vegan foods, like Impossible Burger, are actually adding b12 to their foods.
Also, again, just because it is natural, does not make it right. Male lions will murder and devour young that are not theirs and then rape the female lionesses to show dominance. This type of thing helps the strongest of lions survive, and therefore the best genes are passed on. This same thing would work very well for human beings, as anyone unfit to survive would die and not reproduce, but we still are against humans doing it because it is immoral, even if it is natural.
First of all, I do not support torture in any kind - but I could see why spies in a war could be tortured for crucial information, but that does not mean I accept it.
Secondly, I must admit that I am a Christian and follow the Judeo-Christian values. God allows humans to use what they need for survival - including animal meat - but must not destroy, harm or inflict pain to anything in nature without a clear intention or purpose. Killing off Buffaloes without eating them would neither be beneficial nor necessary.
I also do not oppose your claims about the problems created by the food industry.
But the problem is it ISN'T necessary. We could survive fairly nicely, if not better without meat or any other animal products. Also, I still do not believe in your God, neither does the majority of the population. I get that you use it for yourself, but this is a debate. Your personal beliefs which I do not agree with cannot be used to prove your point.
Okay, I admire that you admit you cannot fight against my points about the environment. I can't even do that at times. But the thing is, environmental impact is enough of a reason to transition to veganism, even if the other points I made are not valid (Which they are).
Kant's school of thought:
- If humans kill each other, there will be no humans left
- If there are no humans left, humans cannot kill each other any longer
- Killing each other is therefore unsustainable and thereby "immoral"
That is terrible logic. Back in pre-historic ages, we killed each other off all the time, but we are still here. Even in an anarchy based society humans would still not completely die off. If I murder a child, that will not make the human species go extinct (Not even close), so by your and Kant's logic, it would be morally permissible.
Kant's school of thought:
- If humans kill animals but breed them at the same rate, they will not go extinct
- If animals can be slaughtered indefinitely, humans can get an infinite supply animal meat
- Killing animals but breeding them at the same time is sustainable and therefore "morally acceptable"
That is also terrible logic. Forcing a sentient being capable of pain on many levels (Such as psychological, mental, physical, etc) to be tortured and live in dirty and disgusting environments IS immoral because society deems a human child living under those same conditions to be immoral.
Why? Do animals think like this? Animals kill each other. In fact, one irrefutable fact is that humans have this "moral compass", while animals do not. Even if you are not religious, this thing should be enough to make humans superior. If one wants to give human rights to animals, then one is doing one of these things:
1. Lowering humans to be like animals
2. Just doing it as a virtue signal - aka wannabe more moral than other people
Again, this is terrible logic. If a toddler kicks me in the balls, they cannot possibly comprehend why putting me through that pain is wrong. But does their lack of moral comprehension mean they have a lack of moral value? No, of course not. I cannot use my boot as a nutcracker against that kid's balls (Even if I want to at that moment) just because that kid cannot comprehend that doing the same to me is wrong
Cannibalism is unheard of, even among most animal species. Of course, human "morality" only applies to humans. If you think that humans have an obligation to spread morality, would that not be a quasi-religious claim, as a sect of Christianity or Hinduism?
It is normal among many carnivorous and omnivorous species. Also, your claim that morality can only apply to humans is absurd and needs backing, which you have none of.
Correct. The solution then is to make the conditions better, not to kill off all the animals, which we made dependent on us for survival.
If we do that solution, then
1) They never will
2) Even if they do, meat and other animal products will become so expensive, the majority of people will not be able to buy them, and therefore most people will go vegan anyway
Many countries, including my own - Norway - have great fishing economies and meat production in their own country. In fact, Norway has nearly no place for crops, but a lot of space is very capable of sustaining cattle using naturally grown grass. If Norwegians stopped eating cows and fish, they would instead need to transport all of those proteins from other countries. As we know, meat is a necessary ingredient in a normal diet, and only in recent times has science been able to create a healthy vegan diet. Imagine how much more food would need to be transported. Instead of shipping a few oranges, we would require tonnes of vegan diet from different parts of the world. Sustainability is key when it comes to the environment, and many resources can only be utilised sustainable using meat production. This argument is a double-edged sword, this entire "environment" thing.
But in the future, transportation will be cleaner, but if we continue to eat meat, we will still produce greenhouse gas. Also, you never actually disproved my point, instead saying it would be harder to ship food.
Good point. But another solution is to use science to improve conditions for both humans and animals. Additionally, your own words make this argument invalid:
Again, if we did that, animal products would become much more expensive, and therefore most people would become vegan anyway. Also, it most likely won't change, as politicians don't care for it to change, and the meat industry already has convinced everyone that throwing male baby chicks into a macerator is perfectly okay.
As you said yourselves, antibiotics cause mutations that lead to superbugs. So using more antibiotics on kids would only increase this problem, since we would be using more antibiotics directly on human sicknesses, instead of animal-human sicknesses. At least one of your arguments are invalid.
I did think that was a good point you made until I thought it a bit further. If we gave these antibiotics to children, these children would get into contact with harmful bacteria MUCH less than these animals, so the creation of superbugs would still slow down and give us more time to create a solution or approve of a solution
Each argument could be a good one, but they contradict each other. You claim that we need to utilize our area better, by producing crops instead of cattle. But if we stop fishing, that would be a total waste of 2/3s of the earth area. I would say we use our oceans before we start reorganising our agriculture. Our population is capped out anyways, so we should not try to find the way we can feed most people, but rather how we can feed the happiest people. As such, this argument is pointing in the right direction, but the fundamental assumptions are contradictory and or flawed.
You say my solution is bad, but give no logical reason why. Yes, we would not be using 2/3 of the area of Earth. So what? Crops would work far better, as they don't contribute to plastic pollution, and we already have enough to feed everyone on Earth, and then some. Besides, if we start focusing on fish a lot more, more fish will die which leads to food chains being destroyed, species becoming extinct, and plastic pollution getting worse.
Humanity is not a single entity. Democracy would never force through such a change, even if it is slow. And if it did, that would be to control the economy, which would be more like communism than capitalism. A national agreement would be hard enough but think about the world. We have not even agreed on whether or not murdering political opponents is morally right or wrong, so even if your statement is correct, this won't happen.
Like I said in the description, I get that. But just because the change won't be easy, doesn't mean we can't TRY to make it. We need to cut our greenhouse gases. Will it be hard? Yeah, it will. Is that reason not to do it? No. Also, of course, murdering political opponents is wrong. The only people who think it is right are politicians in corrupt countries, and many times they know it is wrong, but do it anyway.
There are many solutions to the same problems, and veganism is too drastic and too radical to be the solution humanity needs.
Veganism isn't drastic. Tell me, what IS the solution humanity needs? Murdering more fish instead of using crops for us that we already have? Also, any other solution is going half the distance. We could easily cut only a couple of our greenhouse gases. It would be much easier, and still, be far better than doing nothing, but we still are going the full distance, because it is the best thing to do.
: Common sense
: Common knowledge
: Norwegian common knowledge
You can't use those as sources, because those aren't sources. Just because you think something is common sense doesn't mean it is. I obviously win the sources side of this debate by a landslide.
Sources: Any sources I displayed in this argument, and my first argument
Over to you con. Good luck