Veggies

[Jon Corby]

I'm an omnivore for moral purposes. If everyone were veggies, all the farmyard critters aren't exactly going to live in a wonderous sanctuary where they serve man no purpose or financial gain, are they?

No, they just wouldn't be born.

You pro-farmyard-abortionists are scum.

[Charlie Reams]

And I object to you or them grinding axes on my territory.

...your territory?

[David O'Donnell]

I have lost count of the number of times the word moral has been used in this thread without actually referring to a moral argument. In most cases there seems to be a confusion between the moral realm and the ethical realm.

I have done work, a few years ago now, on Singer's argument that eating meat is morally wrong and came to the conclusion that, from the vantage point of moral theory, he is probably right. The problem is complicated since we may have a wrong but there is no witness: the animal can never testify. The problem is an example of differend since there can be no tribunal that can decide whether the animal has been wronged: it will merely ascribe human idioms to the moral status of animals.

The simple argument is that we must look at it from the human point of view. It's not a question of how advanced animals are (for instance, as in the argument that we shouldn't eat the smart ones or cute ones) but can they suffer? If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.

These arguments convinced me to become a vegetarian a few years ago. I am convinced that eating meat is morally wrong but I have also realised that I am not moral and will be having a rare fillet steak tonight!

[Kai Laddiman]

I am not moral

Proven using 'it is morally wrong to swear in front of young children'.

[Charlie Reams]

If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.

Only if you make them suffer when you slaughter them, which might be common in practice but certainly isn't necessary.

[Derek Hazell]

At least meat-eaters kill their food before they eat it.

[Michael Wallace]

It's a Friday afternoon, let's start an argument. If you eat meat, you cannot be opposed to hunting for sport, or wearing fur (obviously on the presumption that all animals are treated similarly, so no "oh fur is murder because the industry treats them so terribly", please). Discuss.

[David O'Donnell]

If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.

Only if you make them suffer when you slaughter them, which might be common in practice but certainly isn't necessary.

You are still depriving them of their existence! Wouldn't that occasion you with a feeling close to suffering?

[Rosemary Roberts]

your territory?

p.s. Our territory.

what exactly makes the off-topic forum your territory? I don't agree with a lot of what Stuart said but he has every right to make his point on here.

Of course this is your territory, Charlie, and ours, Stuart, I wasn't intending to claim any exclusive rights. I was mainly thinking of other forums and contexts where people like to claim possession of the moral high ground.

It's always a bit hairy labelling something a moral issue due to the impossibility of agreeing on a set of moral imperatives, but I'm stunned you don't think climate change has political implications.

I think it's morally wrong to fuck up the planet.

I think it is stupid to fuck up the planet, not morally wrong. As a matter of fact I think there are absolutely no issues where anybody at all has the right to tell me what is or is not moral. Note that I don't dispute that some things may be less moral than others: I dispute that anybody has the right to pontificate about it.

As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question. What is a political question is what action should be taken by individuals and/or communities, and this is where the moral high ground tends to be dragged in: "If you restrict industry some people will starve"; "If you don't restrict industry some people will drown". This is going to be a question of "you pays your money and you takes your choice": the rich countries will decide what they choose to do and the poor countries will starve or drown. I don't think there is anything that any individual can do to change this, all we can do is reduce our own footprint as far as possible and stay out of the fight.

[Charlie Reams]

If they suffer then surely it is inhuman to treat them in this way: it is morally wrong.

Only if you make them suffer when you slaughter them, which might be common in practice but certainly isn't necessary.

You are still depriving them of their existence! Wouldn't that occasion you with a feeling close to suffering?

I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.

[Paul Howe]

As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question. What is a political question is what action should be taken by individuals and/or communities

I agree with you here, but you didn't make this distinction in your original post. Dealing with the consequences of climate change will likely be one of the biggest political challenges of the 21st century, and it sounded like you were dismissing any attempt to discuss it in a political context as axe-grinding (although I certainly agree there are plenty of people on both sides who wilfully misinterpret the science in order to advance their own political agenda).

[David O'Donnell]

I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.

The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.

[Charlie Reams]

I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.

The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.

They sure are tasty though.

[Jon Corby]

If a cow had the chance it would kill you and everyone you care about.

[David O'Donnell]

If a cow had the chance it would kill you and everyone you care about.

A crazy cow has already tried to kill me but that's another story.

[Jon Corby]

[Derek Hazell]

A crazy cow has already tried to kill me but that's another story.

What a low-key way to finally reveal to the world the real reason for Carol's departure from the show.

[Michael Wallace]

All I can say is that all us vegetarians will be laughing once swine flu wipes out all you pork-eaters


YES I AM FUCKING JOKING

[Rosemary Roberts]

and it sounded like you were dismissing any attempt to discuss it in a political context as axe-grinding

I'm afraid that is pretty much what I do dismiss - I don't ever hear any cogent arguments from any sides, only the grinding of axes. So far as I have observed in quite a long life, politics is only ever self-serving. Those few who are genuinely altruistic are either ineffective or misguided. Rarely both, which would be far more tolerable.

[Paul Howe]

and it sounded like you were dismissing any attempt to discuss it in a political context as axe-grinding

I'm afraid that is pretty much what I do dismiss - I don't ever hear any cogent arguments from any sides, only the grinding of axes. So far as I have observed in quite a long life, politics is only ever self-serving. Those few who are genuinely altruistic are either ineffective or misguided. Rarely both, which would be far more tolerable.

Fair enough, but being unbiased, effective, and correct in the analysis of an extremely complicated problem is an impossible standard to live up to. If people are making a serious attempt to look beyond their own biases and engage in thoughtful discussion about a problem that could potentially be improved by political action, I don't think that deserves to be labelled as axe grinding.

[Rosemary Roberts]

If people are making a serious attempt to look beyond their own biases and engage in thoughtful discussion about a problem that could potentially be improved by political action, I don't think that deserves to be labelled as axe grinding.

True. But in my experience, they aren't. And I don't believe that "political action" has ever improved anything, certainly not when any government or political party was calling the shots..

[David Roe]

My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.

After that, of course, comes animal cruelty which I'm against - it doesn't preclude killing the animal, of course, but it must be done humanely. Though it might be useful to bear in mind that animals in the wild die of (basically) three causes - starvation; disease, exacerbated by starvation; or being eaten (possibly alive) by a non-human carnivore. So whatever we do isn't likely to be much worse; though admittedly, transporting sheep hundreds of miles to a mega-slaughterhouse because all the local ones have been shut, doesn't mean "animal welfare" to me.

[Jon O'Neill]

My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.

Why?

[Gavin Chipper]

I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.

The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.

The cow's life doesn't mean anything to the cow once it's dead so a quick painless death would involve no suffering, surely. The same goes for people of course. Is cannibalism in the poll options?

[Gavin Chipper]

It's a Friday afternoon, let's start an argument. If you eat meat, you cannot be opposed to hunting for sport, or wearing fur (obviously on the presumption that all animals are treated similarly, so no "oh fur is murder because the industry treats them so terribly", please). Discuss.

It's cool to be against wearing fur.

[Rosemary Roberts]

It's cool to be against wearing fur.

Particularly in winter.

[John Bosley]

Why is it that hardly anyone has entered discussion on the cruel life of 'farmed' animals rather than the death. Death is no problem to any of us; it is life that is the problem - if you see what I mean.

[Rosemary Roberts]

Why is it that hardly anyone has entered discussion on the cruel life of 'farmed' animals rather than the death. Death is no problem to any of us; it is life that is the problem - if you see what I mean.

I agree. I have always thought that anyone who is genuinely upset by the cruel treatment of farm animals should stop eating, not meat, but eggs. I don't much care who or what eats my remains when I am dead, but I should object to being forced to spend my entire life in a shoebox.

[Gavin Chipper]

Why is it that hardly anyone has entered discussion on the cruel life of 'farmed' animals rather than the death. Death is no problem to any of us; it is life that is the problem - if you see what I mean.

But people can't get their heads round the thought of death. If someone said that the entire Universe would be destroyed instantly tomorrow with no pain or knowledge of dying, then people couldn't help but be shit-scared of it. But would this be a bad thing? How would one argue for it?

[David Roe]

My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.

Why?

Well, why not? It's a perfectly normal animal credo. In fact, many animals don't even jib at killing their own kind, so that puts us definitely a cut above.

[John Bosley]

We are not a cut above if we keep them in disgusting conditions.

As for swine flu, here is a bit of an email I got today from Avaaz. Why not sign their petition, eh? You can carry on eating happy pork

>> No-one yet knows whether swine flu will become a global pandemic, but it is becoming clear where it came from – most likely a giant pig factory farm run by an American multinational corporation in Veracruz, Mexico.(1)
These factory farms are disgusting and dangerous, and they're rapidly multiplying. Thousands of pigs are brutally crammed into dirty warehouses and sprayed with a cocktail of drugs -- posing a health risk to more than just our food -- they are the perfect conditions to breed dangerous new viruses like swine flu. The World Health Organization (WHO) must investigate and develop regulations for these farms to protect global health.
Big agrobusiness will try to obstruct and scuttle any attempts at reform, so we need a massive outcry that health authorities can't ignore. Sign the petition below for investigation and regulation of factory farms and we will deliver it with a herd of cardboard pigs to the WHO. For every 100 petition signatures we will add a pig to the herd, sign below and forward this email to friends and family:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/swine_flu

[Jon Corby]

If cardboard pigs don't make a difference, I don't know what will.

[Matthew Green]

We are not a cut above if we keep them in disgusting conditions.

As for swine flu, here is a bit of an email I got today from Avaaz. Why not sign their petition, eh? You can carry on eating happy pork

>> No-one yet knows whether swine flu will become a global pandemic, but it is becoming clear where it came from – most likely a giant pig factory farm run by an American multinational corporation in Veracruz, Mexico.(1)
These factory farms are disgusting and dangerous, and they're rapidly multiplying. Thousands of pigs are brutally crammed into dirty warehouses and sprayed with a cocktail of drugs -- posing a health risk to more than just our food -- they are the perfect conditions to breed dangerous new viruses like swine flu. The World Health Organization (WHO) must investigate and develop regulations for these farms to protect global health.
Big agrobusiness will try to obstruct and scuttle any attempts at reform, so we need a massive outcry that health authorities can't ignore. Sign the petition below for investigation and regulation of factory farms and we will deliver it with a herd of cardboard pigs to the WHO. For every 100 petition signatures we will add a pig to the herd, sign below and forward this email to friends and family:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/swine_flu

Theres an easier way, stop shopping at convenient supermarkets and go to local butchers, grocers etc.

Wont ever happen though, people are too lazy.

[Rosemary Roberts]

If cardboard pigs don't make a difference, I don't know what will.

IAWTP

[Gavin Chipper]

My "moral" stance is that humans have human rights, animals don't. If it's not human, we have the right to kill it.

Why?

Well, why not? It's a perfectly normal animal credo. In fact, many animals don't even jib at killing their own kind, so that puts us definitely a cut above.

You might as well have just said:

If a cow had the chance it would kill you and everyone you care about.

[David O'Donnell]

I don't think so. If depriving something of its existence counts as suffering then it would be equally cruel to kill a bacterium as a cow.

The problem is that you will never truly know what a cow's existence means to the cow yet we, as carnivores, rest on the implicit assumption that we have access to an epistemological impossibility.

The cow's life doesn't mean anything to the cow once it's dead so a quick painless death would involve no suffering, surely. The same goes for people of course. Is cannibalism in the poll options?

Ha ha, you're an idiot!

[Gavin Chipper]

Ha ha, you're an idiot!

Good argument.

[Gavin Chipper]

Ha ha, you're an idiot!

Good argument.

Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)

[George Jenkins]

Ha ha, you're an idiot!

Good argument.

Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)

A bit before my time, human animals would hunt other animals for the sole purpose of not dying of starvation, and was quite a normal practice of nature. The scenes of hunting and killing are depicted in cave drawings. I suppose that organised farming, producing cereal crops did not exist in those times.

I suppose also, that increasing population necessitated the farming of animals to ensure food for the masses. Cereal farming also increased, and skeletons examined from that period showed skulls full of rotted or missing teeth, which was put down as due to changes of diet.

Personally, I like my meat and two veg or whatever. I don't trust the packaged stuff that is available, complete with additives with coded numbers indicating stabilisers and preservatives etc.

As for cruelty to animals involved in the killing, I have no answer to that. It seems to be part of the modern World that we live in.

[Charlie Reams]

First this and now:

Personally, I like my meat and two veg

The evidence mounts...

[George Jenkins]

your territory?

p.s. Our territory.

what exactly makes the off-topic forum your territory? I don't agree with a lot of what Stuart said but he has every right to make his point on here.

Of course this is your territory, Charlie, and ours, Stuart, I wasn't intending to claim any exclusive rights. I was mainly thinking of other forums and contexts where people like to claim possession of the moral high ground.

It's always a bit hairy labelling something a moral issue due to the impossibility of agreeing on a set of moral imperatives, but I'm stunned you don't think climate change has political implications.

I think it's morally wrong to fuck up the planet.

I think it is stupid to fuck up the planet, not morally wrong. As a matter of fact I think there are absolutely no issues where anybody at all has the right to tell me what is or is not moral. Note that I don't dispute that some things may be less moral than others: I dispute that anybody has the right to pontificate about it.

As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question. What is a political question is what action should be taken by individuals and/or communities, and this is where the moral high ground tends to be dragged in: "If you restrict industry some people will starve"; "If you don't restrict industry some people will drown". This is going to be a question of "you pays your money and you takes your choice": the rich countries will decide what they choose to do and the poor countries will starve or drown. I don't think there is anything that any individual can do to change this, all we can do is reduce our own footprint as far as possible and stay out of the fight.

Global warming has been happening since the ice age as the ice gradually melts back from the equator. Warming will accelerate in relation to how much ice is left to act as a coolant.

It annoys me when our glorious and brains of britain members of parliament (those of the dodgy but legal expense accounts) blame me for global warming if I use a 100W bulb, but ignore London, ablaze with light all night, even though most of London is shut down. To protect my back I must state that, that was how it used to be, and I assume that things have not changed.

[George Jenkins]

^ That's curious. I got the word from Vegsoc, so it's in pretty wide usage now. I have no clue where it emerged or even that it was such a modern word.
A term I heard recently and quite liked was "fish and chip-ocrite"

PISCATOLOGY----the study of fishes.
PISCATOR--------an Angler, fisherman.
PISCIVOROUS-----fish eating.

[David Roe]

As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question.

Why is it not a matter of opinion? I don't think scientists have all the answers. You (presumably) do. Surely that's opinion?

[Rosemary Roberts]

As regards climate change, I consider it to be entirely a scientific issue. What exactly is happening and what is causing it (and what not) is not a matter of opinion, and therefore not a political question.

Why is it not a matter of opinion? I don't think scientists have all the answers. You (presumably) do. Surely that's opinion?

I didn't say that anybody has all the answers. But if anybody does ever get all the answers it will be a scientist and not somebody who takes their "facts" from the popular media and internet polemicists.

[David O'Donnell]

Ha ha, you're an idiot!

Good argument.

Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)

Your argument is facile and you've either deliberately missed my point or just simply missed it. Either way I don't see why I should engage with someone whose mind is only as open as a trap.

[David O'Donnell]

Ha ha, you're an idiot!

Good argument.

Just to clarify then, you still need to explain why depriving an animal of its existence might cause it suffering if the death is quick and painless. The ball is very much in your court on this one. (And don't be a twat about it.)

[Gavin Chipper]

Your argument is facile and you've either deliberately missed my point or just simply missed it.

Maybe I did miss your point but if I did then I think it's because your point was unclear. I can't see any problem wih the argument I made against what I perceived to be your point.

You can of course argue that simply depriving a being of life is morally wrong (especially if the being wants to live) but that is a separate argument from suffering.

Edit:

Either way I don't see why I should engage with someone whose mind is only as open as a trap.

No-one has suggested you debate with yourself. What does that even mean anyway?