Is meat eating morally justifiable.

Debates: 0

Posts: 206

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcVR2OVxPYw

11.18.2020 10:58PM

-->

@fauxlaw

Pretense is the nonsense that defense is a fence.

Please stop publicly masturbating.

Between man and other animals? What would you call it. Related?

Your original quote was this: "intelligence in animals, including man, is relative". You said intelligence *IN* animals, not intelligence *RELATIVE* to humans.

Hence, my criticism of your original quote still stands.

As I said, relative intelligence is not the factor of greatest importance. And it is not a moral question, either, since we cannot murder other animals animals, only humans.

It shouldn't be a factor period because harm can be caused regardless of the 'g' factor of the thing experiencing it.

"Murder" is a legal term that is (you'll love this word) *related* to morality, but isn't morality in itself. For example, it was once legal to own slaves in plenty of countries around the world, despite it being considered nowadays a moral conundrum. Since we are debating morality, appealing to legal standings is a red herring, so your defense doesn't stand.

Your claim of a naturalist fallacy is, itself, fallacious. You ignore that a tool designed for a specific purpose can only be used for the designed purpose. So, people who use a screwdriver as a stirring stick for a screwdriver cocktail are fallacious? No, just innovative.

You're so confused with your stupid claims that you have it backwards hahaha. You were the one implying that canine teeth were designed for tearing meat, hence we should eat meat: "Not to mention that among our tooth variety, we have canines, the purpose of which exclusively to tear flesh." That was the naturalistic fallacy which you've now argued against here xD

So thanks for agreeing with me lol.

I can certainly have my canines removed to put small molars in their place, but such would be inefficient relative to cost and the extended time required to fully masticate meat. And, you cannot say the animal is aware of being harmed to use it as a food source. You're going to have to obtain that testimony from the animal. Harm is a self-generated claim. Good luck with that.

For the first sentence, you're still arguing against yourself.

I will absolutely say that an animal is aware that it is being harmed, hence why animals flee danger. You don't need a testimony to see that an animal is being harmed when its body language is screaming that it is. This is textbook moving the goalposts.

"Harm is a self-generated claim" is such a ridiculous comment that I'm baffled a thoroughly educated man would ever construct it. Clearly, people can witness harm being done to others, hence the entire concept of empathy. This is easily the worst thing you've written so far, despite the stiff competition.

I cannot designate which enzyme in my saliva can be turned off. Can you do so to stop the digestion of vegetable matter if I claim a carnivor's right to demand an end to eating vegetables? And what of the harm done to vegetables you claim is the right of animals to claim as a morally superior position? Are not vegetables also living things?

I'm not telling you to turn it off. I'm telling you to not eat meat, hence not use it.

"Living" isn't a sufficient qualifier for experiencing harm. Unless you would like to demonstrate that vegetables have emotions, then your counter-argument does not parallel the moral issues with meat consumption.

You first. You're the one claiming moral superiority of eating only vegetation. I'm claiming morality has naught to do with humans eating anything but other humans. Your prior claim takes timely precedent. Je vous en pris.

Wrong. You made the initial claim: morality has no nexus with meat-eating. You have the burden of proof. We're waiting for your defense.

Animal abuse is an entirely different matter than killing an animal with the express purpose of eating it. Do you not pick a living carrot from the ground with the express purpose of eating it? Why should your morality be the deciding factor? We're both doing the same thing to living things.

Yes, because killing animals to eat them causes them no harm.

Idiot.

But I do have moral qualms about hitting a dog with a shovel to crush its skull. I would use the best weapon to kill the dog, but only do so to eat it. My purpose is not abuse, but specifically to eat, and the two are entirely different purposes. By the way, I have eaten dog meat in China. Not bad, really. But you're not the best judge of that. I've also eaten roasted locusts. Roasted peppers are very good, but you don't have a problem with that, do you? As I said, Ma gavte la nada: Please remove the cork. The cork that is a pretense.

Eating animals *INVOLVES* abusing animals. You have to kill it to eat it, unless you eat it alive (which causes far more harm). You also cause it tremendous harm as it is dying, unless you anesthetize it.

Topic's author

#32

Checkmate

Debates: 2

Posts: 104

Checkmate

11.18.2020 11:03PM

To all, this is the video which planted the seed of doubt in my mind when considering the ethics behind meat-eating.

#33

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

11.19.2020 01:22AM

-->

@MgtowDemon

Please stop publicly masturbating.

Premarture efactulation again?

#34

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

11.19.2020 02:05AM

-->

@MgtowDemon

You said intelligence *IN* animals, not intelligence *RELATIVE* to humans.

Last I checked, man is a member of the animal kingdom, therefore, the intelligence of al members of the4 kingdom is relative. If you want to be a carrot, be my guest.

"Murder" is a legal term that is (you'll love this word) *related* to morality, but isn't morality in itself.

Related, but it isn't. A man is related to a woman [every one of my half of the species is], but he isn't a woman. Wow. That's profound. Was that from Kellogg's, of Post?

You were the one implying that canine teeth were designed for tearing meat,

Yes, I did. And it follows, as I then argued that people use tools for different purposes than designed for, and that is innovation. How does that argue against myself.I do not discount innovation. What I'm saying, genius, is that the tool, a canine tooth, was designed to tear flesh, not a carrot. That a tool's designcan be emplyed fore another purpose does not negate the designed purpose. Get it? II didn't think so.

I will absolutely say that an animal is aware that it is being harmed,

To conclude that an animal can sense being in the act of being harmed is pathetically obvious. What I contend, is that an animal's reaction to the fear instinct, such as sensing a possible threatening presence from a hundred yards away [like a deer facing a hunter] is not a specific harm instinct but a non=specific survival instinct. It does not know it will be harmed until it is. The cow facing the slaughterhouse has the same instinctual reaction, but to say it is the fear of harm, which may or may not be fatal, is anthropomorphic imposition on the animal. If it were otherwise, that same deer, a buck, which has the instinct to battle with other bucks, an activity that can certainly be harmful, yet its instinct overcomes the fear, because it cannot think far enough ahead to assess whether the battle will be fatal.

I'm telling you to not eat meat

But, you will rebut my telling you to put the carrot down. No, I don't have that kind of arrogance, because I eat carrots, too. Like I said, I'm an omnivore. But, since you insist on applying a morality to eating meat, who says your morality of eating a carrot is any more superior to my morality to eat an animal? You.ve entirely ignored that argument. Convenient.

Wrong. You made the initial claim: morality has no nexus with meat-eating

Wrong. See my argument above. Since you are demanding an explanation of morality, when I contend morality of eating isn't relevant, it is to you to explain your one-on-none "discussion."

Yes, because killing animals to eat them causes them no harm.

Idiot.

No, because killing carrots to eat them causes them no harm, to use you line. Salot.

Eating animals *INVOLVES* abusing animals. You have to kill it to eat it, unless you eat it alive (which causes far more harm). You also cause it tremendous harm as it is dying, unless you anesthetize it.

Eating carrots *INVOLVES* abusing carrots. You don't even have to kill it to eat it, you eat it alive (which causes far more harm). You also cause it tremendous harm as it is dying, unless you anesthetize it.

Your logic; I'm just refitting different elements to the logic, but the logic holds. You're just as cruel to a carrot. At least I put the animal out of its misery, quickly and efficiently. So tell me my morality [which I claim isn't a factor] is inferior, and prove it. So far, you're an argument failure.

#35

Debates: 0

Posts: 206

11.19.2020 04:23AM

-->

@fauxlaw

Last I checked, man is a member of the animal kingdom, therefore, the intelligence of al members of the4 kingdom is relative. If you want to be a carrot, be my guest.

Haha you were the one that originally made the distinction, you spastic: "Between man and other animals? What would you call it. Related?"

What is actually wrong with you lol. You are arguing against yourself on several points now.

Related, but it isn't. A man is related to a woman [every one of my half of the species is], but he isn't a woman. Wow. That's profound. Was that from Kellogg's, of Post?

I had to explain this distinction to you because you implied the law *was* morality. So, in essence, you're mocking your initial ability to originally comprehend the basic distinction.

Yes, I did. And it follows, as I then argued that people use tools for different purposes than designed for, and that is innovation. How does that argue against myself.I do not discount innovation. What I'm saying, genius, is that the tool, a canine tooth, was designed to tear flesh, not a carrot. That a tool's designcan be emplyed fore another purpose does not negate the designed purpose. Get it? II didn't think so.

I agree with your argument here, but it wasn't your original one. Your original argument was a naturalistic fallacy implying that because canine teeth were designed for tearing meat, hence that gives reason to eat meat. Unfortunately, this is a text-based website wherein people can go back and see what you wrote. You can't get away with changing your argument and expecting people not to notice.

To conclude that an animal can sense being in the act of being harmed is pathetically obvious. What I contend, is that an animal's reaction to the fear instinct, such as sensing a possible threatening presence from a hundred yards away [like a deer facing a hunter] is not a specific harm instinct but a non=specific survival instinct. It does not know it will be harmed until it is. The cow facing the slaughterhouse has the same instinctual reaction, but to say it is the fear of harm, which may or may not be fatal, is anthropomorphic imposition on the animal. If it were otherwise, that same deer, a buck, which has the instinct to battle with other bucks, an activity that can certainly be harmful, yet its instinct overcomes the fear, because it cannot think far enough ahead to assess whether the battle will be fatal.

In my response to Zedvictor, I addressed this claim https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5147-is-meat-eating-morally-justifiable?page=2&post_number=30

Whilst the jury appears to be out on invertebrates, it is clear that big brained animals (gorillas, dogs etc.) have the capacity for emotion. Your claim of every single non-human animal having only instincts has been debunked. I'm surprised that a well-travelled man such as yourself has never seen a dog show any kind of emotion.

At least you posted something decently reasonable with this paragraph.

But, you will rebut my telling you to put the carrot down. No, I don't have that kind of arrogance, because I eat carrots, too. Like I said, I'm an omnivore. But, since you insist on applying a morality to eating meat, who says your morality of eating a carrot is any more superior to my morality to eat an animal? You.ve entirely ignored that argument. Convenient. [and everything else you wrote]

I'll spell it out for you since you don't seem to cope with implications: part of causing harm to something implies that it has emotions. We don't say 'you caused harm to that pile of bricks you smashed'. Instead, we say, 'you caused damage...'

If a deer's leg becomes damaged, it is 'harmed'. If a rock is chipped, it is 'damaged.'

Hopefully, your double PHD brain can comprehend that.

#36

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

11.19.2020 05:13AM

-->

@MgtowDemon

1. Show where I say that man's intelligence [that was the subject, after all] is related to all other animals, as if there is an equivalent value of intelligence between them. No, there is not. Man is the superior intellect of the animal kingdom, bar none. Sticks and stones, my friend. Keep hurling; you may empty your gut.

2. Show me where I imply the law is morality. They are separate constructs, just like intelligence.

3. I said animals with canines are disposed, by the design, to eat meat. It is the purpose for having canines, to tear flesh, just as molars are for the purpose of masticating vegetation. Same with the various enzymes in saliva to begin the process of digesting specific types of food. These have been my consistent arguments. That canines MUST only be used to tear flesh, or that molars can ONLY chew is the naturalistic fallacy.

4. Show me where I said specifically that animals only have instinct, that they do not have learned behavior or the ability to do some thought processing. Refer to #1. I said only that animals do not have an ability to predict harm and act accordingly. I said they have a fear response, but the qualification of that fear is not a processing of potential harm, but only of outright survival.

5. Your spelling is unnecessary, since it has not been proven that animals can pre-sage harm, even though they know harm while it happnes. Regardless animals are harmed, and I do not dispute it. But as for a pile of bricks, it can be harmed, as well, even if not having the living sense of being harmed. According to the OED: harm [n], "Evil (physical or otherwise) as done to or suffered by some person or thing; hurt, injury, damage, mischief. Often in the set phrase ‘to do more harm than good’." My double PhD has not the capacity to comprehend a bloody thing. They are inanimate. Does my keyboard, on which my fingers literally crash [I replace a keyboard annually] comprehend being pounded? Does the paper [like my PhDs] I used to load into my typewriter comprehend being pounded? Rhetorical questions, I hope.

#37

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

11.19.2020 07:06AM

-->

@MgtowDemon

Yep. We conceptualise and turn physiology into feelings....And we do the same for dogs and other animals....And maybe animals have adapted to do the same.

The issue was about eating meat, rather than causing harm...The purposes and intentions contained therein, can be manipulated to suit either side of the argument, and we can construct varying morals as justification.

Again, "causing harm" is an emotional plea......And nothing to do with actual need......People will not starve if nourishment is available.... In certain regions of the world animals and fish and other sea creatures are still staples.....It's easy to pontificate from a position of comfort and security.

It goes to show how hopeless these regions and countries are lol.

A tad arrogant and imbued with western extravagance.....Do you think that it was ok to bomb the f**k out of Afghan and Iraqi civillians?

#38

Debates: 0

Posts: 206

11.19.2020 09:49AM

-->

@fauxlaw

3/5 of your post here is requesting that I "show you" where you said/implied something, but my last post to you directly quoted where you did (except for the 3rd point which referenced your first post without directly quoting it). Nonetheless, I cannot get any more direct than directly quoting what you wrote.

On several of the points, you are now arguing against what you originally wrote in your first post. Perhaps you were embarrassed by your first post (and you should be because it was trash) and are now pretending that it doesn't exist.

As funny as it is to interact with someone asking to be shown where he said something, after I directly quoted where you said it, this is a waste of my time and I have better things to respond to.

Jog on.

#39

Debates: 0

Posts: 206

11.19.2020 10:14AM

-->

@zedvictor4

The issue was about eating meat, rather than causing harm...The purposes and intentions contained therein, can be manipulated to suit either side of the argument, and we can construct varying morals as justification.

Again, "causing harm" is an emotional plea......And nothing to do with actual need......People will not starve if nourishment is available.... In certain regions of the world animals and fish and other sea creatures are still staples.....It's easy to pontificate from a position of comfort and security.

My point is that eating meat causes harm. You cannot extract meat from an animal unless it is dead, and most people don't wait for the animal to die of natural causes. Given this, there isn't an argument I've seen from you that decouples eating meat from harm.

Do you consider an animal's will to live not a "need?"

Do you consider the wellbeing of humans a sufficient cause to inflict harm upon other animals? If so, why?

A tad arrogant and imbued with western extravagance.....Do you think that it was ok to bomb the f**k out of Afghan and Iraqi civillians?

I don't agree. From the 10th Century onward, European countries have become the shining beacons of civilisation. The advancements European civilisations have made for the world outweigh every other part combined: "Whether measured by in people or events, 97% of the scientific inventories occurred in Europe and North America [between the years 800 BC and 1950 AD]" https://www.amazon.com/Human-Accomplishment-Pursuit-Excellence-Sciences/dp/0060929642 . My claims cannot be arrogant if they are factual.

I'm not familiar with U.S. interventionism in those countries. I don't know if those actions were justified.

#40

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

11.19.2020 05:27PM

-->

@MgtowDemon

Thank you for conceding the discussion. It saved me having to read more of your pretentious drivel.

Sometimes, you say something useful. Back at ya, bud. Bye.

#41

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

11.20.2020 06:54AM

-->

@MgtowDemon

I'm not familiar with U.S. intervention.

Which Planet did you just arrive from?

Since the 10th century Europeans have violated the f**k out of everyone that stood in their way....Which planet did you say?

You and I as humans refer to things as needs....I'm not sure that animals do the same....Animals are largely driven by the instinctive requirements of survival.

My point is that eating the flesh of animals and other creatures has up until fairly recently, been a human necessity/need (still is for some)....And then people like you came along.

Jump into a Croc infested river, and the Croc's aren't going to moralise and ask questions

#42

Debates: 0

Posts: 206

11.20.2020 07:05AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Which Planet did you just arrive from?

Believe it or not, residing on planet Earth doesn't automatically make you an expert on U.S. foreign interventionism.

Since the 10th century Europeans have violated the f**k out of everyone that stood in their way....Which planet did you say?

[citation needed]

You and I as humans refer to things as needs....I'm not sure that animals do the same....Animals are largely driven by the instinctive requirements of survival. My point is that eating the flesh of animals and other creatures has up until fairly recently, been a human necessity/need (still is for some)....And then people like you came along.

Why do humans need to exist?

Jump into a Croc infested river, and the Croc's aren't going to moralise and ask questions

That doesn't mean what they would be doing is moral.

#43

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

11.20.2020 07:27AM

-->

@MgtowDemon

A. Well yes that's true.....But the circumstances that might prevent one form not being aware, would be exceptional....And expertise is not a requirement.

B. WW11/German colonialism/Japanese colonialism....British colonialism.....Spanish colonialism....Dutch colonialism.....Portuguese colonialism....French colonialism.....etc etc.

C. Fundamentally Instinct, and subsequently memory and the acquired ability to manipulate data.

D. It means that Crocs do not consider morality and that we only consider morality because we have time to make these things up and consider them.

Morals are an intangible concept....That actually mean more or less than something.

#44

Debates: 0

Posts: 206

11.20.2020 08:07AM

-->

@zedvictor4

A. Well yes that's true.....But the circumstances that might prevent one form not being aware, would be exceptional....And expertise is not a requirement.

Yes, I'm aware of U.S. intervention. No, I don't know whether it was justified. That has been my stance the whole time.

B. WW11/German colonialism/Japanese colonialism....British colonialism.....Spanish colonialism....Dutch colonialism.....Portuguese colonialism....French colonialism.....etc etc.

We're missing the "violated the f*ck out of everyone that stood in their way" component.

Do continue.

C. Fundamentally Instinct, and subsequently memory and the acquired ability to manipulate data.

So you wrote this in response to "Why do humans need to exist?" You actually answered 'how do humans exist?'

Please try again.

D. It means that Crocs do not consider morality and that we only consider morality because we have time to make these things up and consider them.

So beating someone to death is moral if the beater doesn't understand morality?

#45

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

11.20.2020 08:24AM

-->

@MgtowDemon

A. So... You're definitely selectively moral.

B. Read and weep.

C. So..... Do humans need to exist....Well that depends upon something that we can only speculate about.

D. Beating someone to death is just that....And not understanding is just that....And morals are intangible projections of internal electro-chemical systems....Thoughts

#46

Debates: 0

Posts: 206

11.20.2020 08:38AM

-->

@zedvictor4

A. So... You're definitely selectively moral.

Lol, you silly, little thing. How am I meant to judge the validity of an event if I don't have intimate knowledge of it?

B. Read and weep.

Stating the countries you think "violated the f*ck out of everyone that stood in the way," doesn't actually provide evidence. This is called a bare assertion. It is a logical fallacy.

C. So..... Do humans need to exist....Well that depends upon something that we can only speculate about.

Right.

D. Beating someone to death is just that....And not understanding is just that....And morals are intangible projections of internal electro-chemical systems....Thoughts

So you're saying that morals are not important, as indicated by your indifference to a situation which would provoke questions of the valence in morality.

#47

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255