Why Do You Eat Animals?

[TheAgnosticAtheist]

And since you seem to like logic, logical arguments shall be provided.

He has some pretty serious contempt for "human logic", he likes magical "logic" that he defines the rules for as it suits him. I don't think you'll get anywhere, sadly. He's a pretty hard core woo.

He uses logic like a creationist who thinks he or she is using science.

It is not contempt, but call it what you will. I see no reason to debate you, when you can't do it in a civilized way.

[brimstoneSalad]

Ugh, he edited his post and added a bunch of really bad arguments. I'm not going to engage with him, since he's an idiot and doesn't seem to have any interest in learning.

You guys are doing a good job of it though. You're patienter than I, maybe you can get through to him.


And he posted again...

I see no reason to debate you, when you can't do it in a civilized way.

You should be so honored if I considered you coherent or intelligent enough to be worth debating.

I was going to gift you with a bit of knowledge to correct your misconceptions, but you clearly have no interest in facts.
If you wake up to realize your arrogance, and consider that you might be wrong and want to actually understand the subject for once, I will explain it to you pending an apology for your rude and hypocritical behavior.

[TheAgnosticAtheist]

Ugh, he edited his post and added a bunch of really bad arguments. I'm not going to engage with him, since he's an idiot and doesn't seem to have any interest in learning.

You guys are doing a good job of it though. You're patienter than I, maybe you can get through to him.

So because my opinion is different then your own I am a child who chooses not to learn. If that is what you desire to believe then so be it.

[brimstoneSalad]

So because my opinion is different then your own I am a child who chooses not to learn. If that is what you desire to believe then so be it.

Quite the contrary. I love debating with people who have different opinions, and I really respect that.

For example, I've debated some creationists who honestly admit they know nothing about science and have no interest in it.
I don't respect their views, but I really respect the honesty, and I'm glad to discuss with them even on their terms given that they understand and use logic because of their honesty.

Another new member, Soycrates, and I seem to very strongly disagree on semantics. I respect that she has a different opinion on the subject, since that's an area where opinion is hard to get past.

However, there's a big difference between an honest difference of opinion, and arrogant ignorance of empirical fact, the latter of which is your stock in trade.

You do not understand enough about the subject to engage in this discussion, and yet you arrogantly plow ahead anyway, making a complete idiot of yourself.
You're not just ignorant, but proudly so, and that's what's so insulting.

I do not think you a child, far worse, I think you an adult which gives you no excuse to be such a moron. If I thought you were a child, I'd go easier on you. At your age you should really be ashamed.

If you don't know anything about a subject, then learn about it first before shooting off your mouth and reloading with your foot. Don't pretend to know about that which you do not, and show a little respect to others who do know about it while you learn from them.

You won't learn because you arrogantly suppose you already know it all.
And wow are you ever rude.

If you will apologize for your rudeness, and learn something first before raving on with such nonsense I could respect an actual difference of opinion.

[miniboes]

It is not contempt, but call it what you will. I see no reason to debate you, when you can't do it in a civilized way.

Try to understand, in the ethical vegan's world view as I understand it (I was only recently introduced to the ethical side of veganism, mainly by TVA), killing an animal is not in any way better than killing another human being. I'm not saying you are obligated to share this view, but try to understand it. If you're having trouble with it, try to imagine walking through a huge gallery of human meat, all for sale and nobody being bothered at all. In this scenario, you could imagine getting quite aggravated.

The problem is that Animals are very different from humans. They don't look like us, but most importantly they cannot communicate like us. There will be no bovine Nelson Mandela. All of these things should not matter to us though, because animals suffer as we do. If you hit a boy, he will scream. If you hit a cow, it will scream. Every year more than 150 billion animals are slaughtered every year, compared to this the holocaust is absolutely nothing. We don't need their meat, their periods or their milk, the animal holocaust is absolutely pointless.

The notion that plants might be sentient is simply not an excuse, it's like saying you kill because god tells you to. It's trying to justify immoral behavior with something that cannot be proven.

I'm not saying you're a bad person for eating meat, because as you said, you were raised to think it is alright. Please just don't shut your eyes to what is happening in farms and slaughterhouses.

[thebestofenergy]

I have no idea if you're joking, or you have a severe lack of understanding. For now, I'll pretend it's the second.

Actually no. The issue with any SUBJECT is people. No matter what evidence you provide many will still deny it. This is a fact and flaw among humans as a whole. Also I don't see why speak as if I had said animals are not sentient. I never said it or suggested it. So getting butt hurt over nothing shows little of your ability to pay attention and not assume something simply based on that you miss understood it.

The issue with the subject is people? What are you even talking about? Plants are not sentient, and animals are. It's proven, and if someone denies it he/she is ignorant or an idiot.
Some people deny it. So what? What are you asserting with this?
'Also I don't see why speak as if I had said animals are not sentient'
I have not spoken as if you said animals are not sentient. I said that yours is a fallacious comparison.
Fallacious comparison = saying that you said animals are not sentient? Do you even read what I write?
That's a big strawman.

Again you didn't even read what I said or understood it. I said THEY could OUT SIDE of HUMAN KNOWLEDGE. We think for, we think we know everything, but the truth is we are using human perception to understand the world around us. So this mean humans bases sentience off our selves. I simply stated that they could have it, but it is beyond our understanding or knowing.

Do you speak English? Yes?
Sentience has a certain meaning, like all words. Sentience means something, and it doesn't mean other things.
Something either is sentient, or is not.
It has a defined meaning, and you can't modify that meaning as you please.
And it's obiously included in human knowledge, since we use that word. So, if you want to mean something else, use another word.
Plants are not sentient.

Again your basing this on human perception and how we see and perceive intelligence.

Again, you're mistaken. The word 'intelligence' has a meaning.
If you want to mean something else, use another word, and try to explain yourself.
Intelligence as defined by the vocabulary and our language, plants do not have it.

I believe anything is possible, just improbable.[...]This is why you cannot fathom the idea that a plant could be sentient or intelligent because of human perception and knowledge. However, they could be sentient and even intelligent on their own level (non-human). Intelligence is not limited to knowing, building, making, etc. we has a species see it that way because we consider ourselves to be sentient and intelligent.

You're just showing that you don't know the meaning of 'sentience', and that you don't know how language works.
Untill sentience will mean sentience, plants do not have it.

That is a fallacious comparison. God has neither been proven nor disproven.
Animal sentience has been proven, multiple times by science, and it's even self-evident, so it'd be absurd to deny it.

Actually it isn't. Mankind has proven many things and people still deny the evidence to those cases. You simply failed to grasp the point I was making.

And you failed to grasp that it IS a fallacious comparison.
Some people also deny that the earth is not flat. It doesn't matter what moonbats say, the point still stands that animal sentience has been proven, while God has neither been proven or disproven, so it's a fallacious comparison.

And what would you like some loaded philosophical explanation that you still would not accept?

You're just being condescending; that's probably what you're best at.
It seems that you're incapable of giving an explanation of your beliefs.

I don't see a reason to change? Which I did mention I eat less meat. Everything in moderation.

You don't see a reason to change? Then why do you eat less meat?
Billions of sentient beings dying and enormous environmental damage is not enough for you to change? What would it require for you to change?

'Everything is moderation'
Ah yes, it sounds good.
Rape? Yes, in moderation. Child abuse? Why not? if it's in moderation, it's OK, since everything should be in moderation.
What about bullying? Well, if it's in moderation, it should OK, right? Stealing too, I guess.

If you agree that eating meat is wrong, then you should understand that eating less of it, is just the lesser of the two evils, not the most ideal option.

Is it to convenient for you to respect my decisions and opinion instead of trying to belittle me?

Belittle? Not respecting?
What are you talking about? I asked a question, trying to understand you.

So your going to be that Vegan and act just like you closed minded meat eating counter parts on your position?

Do you know what a question mark is? Do you know what it means?

And you've not even answered my question.

[dinnermeal]

You have a vegetarian aunt and uncle?

Yep. My mother's brother and his wife. They have amazing taste in food.