Vegetarians VS Carnivores (Yes, carnivores kill animals which will probably cause their death, and vegetarians kill vegetables, also probably causing their death, so...)

Baman said:
I can never wrap my mind around the concept of restricting your food preferences due to some silly principles.
A healthy balanced diet can be achieved without excluding any form of food.
And all that whining about animals suffering is so overblown too. We are the superior species, chosen by nature itself. Surely we should allow ourselves the luxury of disregarding the feelings of the stuff we eat. No other animal gives a shit.

Exaccus said:

Those "silly principles" are based on ecological and health concerns. Especially when the meat industry consumes so many resources compared to the amount if everyone went vegetarian instead.

Nature doesn't choose anything, since nature as a whole isn't a conscious entity.

"No other animal gives regard for efficient and careful use of resources...therefore we shouldn't". We aren't other animals. And you cannot logically jump from descriptive to prescriptive. As homo sapiens, our intelligence and technology means we have a much easier time using or abusing the resources of our planet. Because of this intelligence and knowledge we have we bear a burden of responsibility for what happens. It would be incredibly foolish us to unthinkingly exploit this planet's resources without regard for the long term consequences of our actions. Being a "superior species" won't mean anything if we carelessly waste the planet's resources without thought as to how we could be more efficient and friendly towards the environment that we share an interdependent relationship with. In short, luxury doesn't trump responsibility.

RandomChampion said:


from where does this responsibility come from?

why does there have to be "meaning" in being apex predator species?

Exaccus said:

It's inherent in the situation. If the planet's resources get depleted our destroyed. There is nobody to blame but ourselves.

RandomChampion said:


OK? so what's your point?

perhaps i dont mind blaming myself

Exaccus said:

My point should be pretty clear by now:
It's better to limit if not eliminate animal products from your diet for both health and ecological reasons.

RandomChampion said:


i respect your opinion, u can do whatever you want.
didnt convince me of anything though

Zeally said:
You can have a balanced diet without meat.

Exaccus said:

The mere declaration of your psychological state of not being convinced isn't exactly a rebuttal.

But ok.

Exaccus said:
And you cannot logically jump from descriptive to prescriptive. As homo sapiens, our intelligence and technology means we have a much easier time using or abusing the resources of our planet. Because of this intelligence and knowledge we have we bear a burden of responsibility

Chakaara said:
I have a friend who's vegetarian but makes exceptions for stuff she really loves, like bolognese and lasagnas.
I tried to explain to her...

one-more-time said:
That's not the point.

Chakaara said:
I have a friend who's vegetarian but makes exceptions for stuff she really loves, like bolognese and lasagnas.
I tried to explain to her...

Zeally said:


sounds like a wannabe hipster vegetarian

RandomChampion said:

what do you want me to tell you?

It's better to limit if not eliminate animal products from your diet for both health and ecological reasons.

First of all, this statement assumes that limiting or eliminating animal products from one's diet is better for one's health and the ecosystem. This arguably not completely true. But I don't care whether it's completely correct or not. Even if the assertion is completely accurate, I do not find it, for me, to be a good enough reason to stop eating meat.

Basically it comes down to you trying to prove to others that one way of life is better than another or something. When trying to put value to the quality of life (aka this way of living is better than that way of living), morality comes into play. When morality comes into play, it becomes subjective because there is no objective morality unless you can somehow prove to me that ther is

That's why i said that it's your opinion, and that I'm fine with whatever you believe as long as it doesnt threaten the rights of others (I guess i can throw that in there since we are both Americans)

Exaccus said:
Namely, the careless management of our planet's resources. If we want to ensure survival and better quality of life no only in the here and now for ourselves, but also for the future it would be wise of us to consider how we are managing consumption and use of the earth's resources. We are organisms. We don't exist independently of the environment and other organisms around us. All are interdependent on one another. To deny this is to deny scientific evidence and empirical reality.

katsucats said:
What does this ecological argument have to do with the vegetarian debate? How does eating meat on a farm benefit the environment compared to eating vegetables on a farm in addition to costly first-world protein substitutes? How does torturing a bunch of genetically engineered cows and savoring their every part hurt biodiversity?

Zeally said:
well won't genetically engineering anything make it more homogeneous?

not like i really care though hur hur >_>

Exaccus said:

I never said it was the only factor contributing to ecological problems. So you've only attacked an assertion I never made.

Secondly, a subjective statement of what's convincing or not convincing isn't a rebuttal. Of course, you can believe anything wish. But don't act like the sheer dismissal of a different view constitutes a legitimate rebuttal.


My post was talking about cause and effect. Namely, the careless management of our planet's resources. If we want to ensure survival and better quality of life no only in the here and now for ourselves, but also for the future it would be wise of us to consider how we are managing consumption and use of the earth's resources. We are organisms. We don't exist independently of the environment and other organisms around us. All are interdependent on one another. To deny this is to deny scientific evidence and empirical reality.

katsucats said:
lol

Exaccus said:
My point should be pretty clear by now:
It's better to limit if not eliminate animal products from your diet for both health and ecological reasons.

katsucats said:
Your logic, the expansion of the Golden Rule, to include everything, is like: If, given 2 choices X and Y imposed by another entity on us, we would prefer X; then we have the moral obligation, given the same 2 choices X and Y, to impose X on other entities.

So following that logic, if you were a beggar, and someone came along and faced 2 choices:
X. He gave you his entire paycheck for $2500.
Y. He gave you $5 for a burger.

Then as a beggar if you would prefer X, that he gives you $2500, then you have the moral obligation to give the next beggar you see $2500.

TheMaskedMan666 said:
I rather have a medium rare bloody soaked steak with some chives mash potatoes and some green beans then a shitty salad with ranch dressing

one-more-time said:
You still don't get it.

Vinter said:
I'm pretty sure you're the one who doesn't get it, one-more-time.

katsucats said:
No, you don't get it. And you don't even get it enough to make an intelligent response.

one-more-time said:

No.


You've misinterpreted my post, and I'm quite positive that my wording isn't that bad to interpret it as "what would we/he prefer".

dankickyou said:


You guys do realize that you two are now engaging in a "no u" argument, right....Right?

Chakaara said:
I have a friend who's vegetarian but makes exceptions for stuff she really loves, like bolognese and lasagnas.
I tried to explain to her...

one-more-time said:
That's not the point.