Ever run into a vegetarian and be forced to hear them rant about it?
"how they harvest meat is cruel"
"meat is so gross"
"I could never eat something with a soul"
Hearing about it makes me think of two things. Firstly, "wow this person is retarded" and secondly "I want a burger". Which is why I think vegetarians should just shut-up, if you don't want to eat meat, that is your problem, no one wants to hear about it. Giving the 'vegetarian speech' to someone that enjoys meat is like an atheist running into a church and talking about evolution -- and like a Christian, us meat-lovers will never give up our love of meat (the irony is intended).
This group of people leads me to another (a-lot of overlap here), that is the 'animal-rights' activists. While I do think animals should not be tortured, I think these people take it way to far (like many feminist seem to). Many of these people place the value of let's say a dog, at an equal, or higher level then a human's life. This is, as Richard Dawkins would say, a "misfiring" of a Darwinian impulse (and so is being a vegetarian, which I will get into in the future). We are a social species and have developed a sense of empathy for other humans within our societies (the golden rule), which allows us to have things like justice. We can put ourselves in another's shoes, however, this empathy is not "intended" to be shown towards other species (no direct benefit to our genes) -- or rather, when this mechanism developed in humans, the benefit it provided for the species was not because of the animals which we currently feed and house, and only receive a sense of companionship (unless its a cat, which it will just ignore you, unless you give it food). One must ask whose genes are the beneficiary? The humans? or the pets? And who is the one being tricked, who is the victim here?
Now I'm not saying that I don't like pets, or do not wish to have any in the future. What I am saying is that animal-rights activists are always overstepping the boundary for what rights animals should have. For example, does anyone remember when Obama killed that fly that landed on him during an interview? If you don't, here it is..
These people actually got upset because the president KILLED A FLY. These people probably can't sleep at night at the thought of the holocaust caused by windshields, children running in grass, and let's not forget the worst of all, bug-zappers! I can see one of them committing suicide over the guilt of accidentally stepping on a grasshopper, of course not before giving it a proper eulogy and burial.
Calling someone who holds different views than you “retarded.” Very, very cerebral. Lol. I enjoy reading your ranting, but this kind of non-intelligent whining gives all atheists a bad name. John Stuart Mill says that stifling any opinion is an evil, even if that opinion is wrong. Even if that opinion is completely ass-backwards, at least the truth in logic will become even clearer by that error.
ReplyDeleteThe main objection to inhumane treatment of animals is the concept of animals having souls. This sort of spiritual drabble has cluttered up human conscience for all of history. On the other hand, seeing humans as above other animals or divinely chosen by God is completely absurd. Altruism is an evolutionary byproduct and nothing more. To put human convenience above the right-to-life of other animals is the same as putting humans on a kind of pedestal that is very Christian-centric. Human’s only unique characteristic is the capacity abstract thought; other than that we are just animals with opposable thumbs. To claim human life is more important than any other life is not truth, it’s just evolutionary imbued self-interest.
Well, in this post when I refer to vegetarians being 'retarded' I was describing my inner-monologue when confronted with an annoying vegetarian. They are acting close-minded and stupid. I respect people that are vegetarians, but not those that try to force this lifestyle on others.
ReplyDelete"John Stuart Mill says that stifling any opinion is an evil, even if that opinion is wrong."
When eating a cheese burger I don't want to hear some bitch telling me how wrong it is. When it comes to food I am a close-minded person, and there is nothing wrong with that. Humans have been eating meat as a whole for the entire history of our species, it is a biological thing, its not an opinion or a world view, it is food.
"Human’s only unique characteristic is the capacity abstract thought; other than that we are just animals with opposable thumbs. To claim human life is more important than any other life is not truth, it’s just evolutionary imbued self-interest."
Humans are way more important then any other animal, we are light-years ahead of any other species on the planet in intellect, and achievement. The only unique characteristic of humans is that we sometimes value other forms of life too highly, go ask a lion how much it values its pray -- I'm sure its not much higher then the meat on its bones. In-fact go up to a lion and ask it how much it values your life. I'm not sure what universe you live in, but the one I do, the most valuable thing in it is intellect. Intellect is what makes life special, to not put value on it would be to not put value on life. And as I said before, humans are by far the most intelligent species on the planet, therefore we are of the highest value. This view point has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with how much you value intelligence.
"To put human convenience above the right-to-life of other animals is the same as putting humans on a kind of pedestal that is very Christian-centric."
Putting human convenience over the "rights" of other animals is essential, unless you want us to return to a simpler time and live in clay huts and eat plants which may or may not have a 'soul'. Maybe us humans should just mass suicide for the benefit of the planet, our existence will always take space and resources away from other creatures -- but of course so does pretty much every creature on the planet, we are just more successful then most at it. People like you root for the downfall of humanity, this is not an 'atheist position' at all.
"it’s just evolutionary imbued self-interest."
So is breathing, why don't you try and stop doing that, see how well it goes for you.
I am vegetarian and feel PETA gives us a bad name. One of the top members use animal insulin for daily diabetes injections.
ReplyDeleteAlso, people are veggie for different reasons. I just don't want to eat an animal if I don't have to.
"Humans are way more important then any other animal, we are light-years ahead of any other species on the planet in intellect, and achievement. "
ReplyDeleteI an way ahead of you and since you aren't as intelligent as me, logically then it makes sense for me to rip your head off and smash it to bits to make soup in a pressure cooker. Watch your balls, they are next. Meat balls.
Jeremy, dude...what is your deal? Your attempt to explain why vegetarian/animal rights people annoy you is a poor one...the only point you get across is your ignorance. You boastfully proclaim your close-mindedness, much to my amusement. You say "when it comes to food I am a close-minded person and there is nothing wrong with that". If you were told there is shit in your burger would you continue to eat it? What about growth hormones? Steroids? Close-mindedness is not a positive quality...it is intellectual poison, imprisoning the mind and stifling growth. We both know the most close-minded of them all...christians. You'd fit right in...maybe you should re-evaluate your atheism.
ReplyDeleteCheers
To the above poster...
ReplyDeleteFood preference has nothing to do with Atheism. You are just one of those PETA tards that think everyone should think as you do, you are the close-minded one.
Food preference is an opinion, not a fact, it really has little to do with how open or close minded a person is. However, you claiming that I am close-minded (I had poor word choices in my blog post) shows just how close minded and biased you are towards your position.
"We both know the most close-minded of them all...christians. You'd fit right in...maybe you should re-evaluate your atheism."
Just because you don't believe in a god does not mean you are open-minded, this shows your close-mindedness in believing such a thing. You stereotype all atheists as being open-minded just because you THINK you are (atheist are not immune to in-group mentality). As I said before, you are just a close minded one that thinks that everyone should think as you do. Why don't you go live in the wilderness and see how nice other....non-human animals are to you.
My position has nothing to do with a religious belief. If we are equal to animals, then all of our actions and desires are natural (as all other animals are). Peta people are so mean to one particular animal (humans). Peta people care more about animals than they do people (which are really both the same thing). They believe that people are below animals because we are more intelligent.
The only reason you have sympathy for another species is not because of some enlightened mentality, it is that an evolutionary impulse is misfiring. You have the impulse to empathize with other humans, and that cannibalism is disgusting. You insert your mentality into the head of an animal, thinking that there experience is the same. Thus creating the illusion that all animals are human. Isn't it ironic how you are calling me close-minded and ignorant. :)
"I an way ahead of you and since you aren't as intelligent as me, logically then it makes sense for me to rip your head off and smash it to bits to make soup in a pressure cooker. Watch your balls, they are next. Meat balls. "
ReplyDeleteYou are a douche; why don't you learn how to write in English first.
"I an way ahead of you"
I rest my case.
Nitpicking someone's spelling isn't a good way to win an argument. It just shows you have nothing to logically debate. Since certain people have an IQ of 135 or higher, that means anyone with an IQ of under 120 should be good food for the wolves.
ReplyDelete"Which is why I think vegetarians should just shut-up, if you don't want to eat meat, that is your problem..."
ReplyDeleteSeveral run-on sentences in your English. Also, calling someone a douche is sexist and offends women.
"Several run-on sentences in your English. Also, calling someone a douche is sexist and offends women."
ReplyDeleteWell, at least there are no run-on sentences in my German.
Calling someone a douche does not offend women. I have called many people "douche" around women, none have taken offense to it. The only reason you take offense to it is because you are one.
Now keep in mind bud, this is a blog post, not a college paper, errors happen because it is quickly written. Do you have any real arguments?
Idiot, YOU were the one that started the English war, fucking moron. I quote you: "You are a douche; why don't you learn how to write in English first. "
ReplyDelete"I rest my case. "
ReplyDeleteMaking fun of someone's english rests your case, and then you make run on sentences yourself. You didn't rest your hypocrisy - it's still alive. Fuck, you're stupid, and dense. I feel sorry for your readers, and google, for indexing this shitty useless page.
"Making fun of someone's english rests your case, and then you make run on sentences yourself. You didn't rest your hypocrisy - it's still alive. Fuck, you're stupid, and dense. I feel sorry for your readers, and google, for indexing this shitty useless page."
ReplyDeleteBoth the words "english" as well as "google" should be capitalized. Your anger towards me shows your own insecurities. You're probably a child, so I'll leave it at that. However, if you are not I recommend you mature a bit. Accept that fact that people will have opinions that differ from your own.
I would love for you to also point out my 'run on sentences'. There very well may be some, however, being that this is a blog and not some professionally written site, you should expect some errors.
Thanks for stopping by :)
All of you are fucking morons.
ReplyDeleteRead these fucking comments over one more time and bask in shame.
Atheists... Vegetarians... Hipsters... 'Social Anarchists'...
Grow the fuck up.
no guy, you are a moron...thanks buddy.
ReplyDelete@Jeremy,
ReplyDeleteThe people that are flaming you are the people you are addressing in this blog post(fake vegetarians/animal rights activists that just don't understand your views/frustrations). There's more to being a vegetarian then just not eating meat, that's what most people fail to understand. The people you are addressing are not true vegetarians, nor are they animal rights activists. They are shallow simpletons who never learned all the facts on this subject. They formed an opinion prematurely and are too narrow-minded to look deeper into this issue. Although I think you do rant on and on about how you dislike Vegetarians and and animal rights activists, it's clear to me that it is not the real groups of people you should be targeting. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do, there will always be people that will never understand your point of view. Still, i think it is healthy to express your feelings. It's much better to just get it all out than to keep it bottled up. That's my two cents on this subject, thank you for your views on the subject and take care.
I hate vegetarians too. But your arguments aren't very well thought out. Probably why this is a BLOG and not in a Scientific journal. Ignore the douche-haters in the comments.
ReplyDeleteCan you please tell me which arguements are not thought out? I'm curious as to what you mean by that...
ReplyDeleteYou say humans are better than other animals becuase humans are more intelligent. Than what about people with mental disabilities, infants and babies??
ReplyDeletebtw am a non-vegeterian philosophy student
Jeremy, please watch this...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU
I've already seen that video. He seems a little narcissistic to me, in that he believes all people should think like him. His "morality" is very self-righteous. He is taking his capacity and perception towards suffering and assuming it is an objective truth.
ReplyDeleteAlso, his referring to the objective is a philosophical fail. He is stuck in his subjectivity, no matter how "deeply" he tries to think himself out of it.
It feels good to be nice to others (a euphoria can be felt when gift-giving for example). He feels good by believing that he is helping other animals; i.e. he is "moral" for selfish reasons. He is emotionally rewarded for certain thoughts and punished for others (the thought of himself/others eating meat punishes him emotionally). In short, this guy seems to be a self-righteous, shallow-thinking philosopher.
Morality is subjective. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to morality, it is all opinion.
I disagree with moral relativism (slavery is wrong for instance, no matter whether it is 'culturally acceptable') but unfortunately I do not have time at present to discuss it further. I will ask though, do you not believe that animals suffer or do you think this is a 'subjective opinion'? If you agree that animals suffer, do you still feel it is morally relative whether or not humans inflict suffering on them? If you feel that it is relative, is it not then OK for people to inflict suffering on each other? Peter Singer has clearly reasoned out his thinking far more than you have so to call him shallow-thinking is ridiculous.
ReplyDelete'Humans are way more important then any other animal, we are light-years ahead of any other species on the planet in intellect, and achievement.' This comment shows that YOU are the shallow-thinker - you cannot relate to anything outside your own perspective. Why are humans more important? Because we make cars and sing Karaoke & animals don't? If a human is intellectually-challenged does it therefore make them only good for consumption?
ReplyDeleteJudging the importance of anything is opinion based. As humans, I would hope that we would value intelligence, but clearly not ALL humans do. Why do you value the life of an animal more than a plant? Because it feels pain? Well, who is to say that the ability to feel pain is what makes a form of life more important than another? This seems a little biased. What about the pees and carrots? While they probably don't feel pain, why is their life any less valuable than yours?
ReplyDeletePerhaps valuable time is being wasted, you should jump up and save some grasshoppers from getting stepped on, a genocide is underway! Quickly!
OK, I have 5 more mins... First of all, where did my previous comment go - did you delete it? I wasn't basing who was more important on the ability to feel pain - you are not able to follow an argument though properly. I asked if you thought it was SUBJECTIVE OPINION whether an animal suffered or not and if you thought it was, was it therefore SUBJECTIVE OPINION whether it was OK to inflict suffering on an animal and if it was then it MUST BE SUBJECTIVE OPINION whether or not we can inflict suffering on each other. Is ‘importance’ not also subjective, using your own logic? I'm pretty sure a lion values its own life more than it values yours - yours is important to you and you rate humans higher because you're a speciest & marvel at how clever we are that make tools and use wallpaper. But you cannot smell as well as a dog, or 'see' with sonar or run as fast as a cheetah or fly like an eagle. But because humans can enslave thigs and build sky scrapers, you think it’s completely objective that we are most important. I assume you're a kid so I'll let you off.
ReplyDeletePS. you have also made assumptions about what I believe. I'm not a vegetarian but do not agree with factory farms on the basis of cruelty. Humans being more intelligent does not give us the right to treat animals so appallingly.
ReplyDeletePPS. I have just realised you have said that importance of species is subjective - this then boggles the mind as to why you can't understand what a vegetarian is getting at. If importance is subjective to the species, then obviously a cow's lfe is as important to it as yours is to you and by using it for your convenience it is simply slavery. They used to say the same things about black people - they were inferior etc because 'they're not like us' 'not as intelligent' 'inferior'. This is rubbish.
ReplyDeleteI never delete comments, not sure why your comment isn't here.
ReplyDelete"I'm pretty sure a lion values its own life more than it values yours - yours is important to you and you rate humans higher because you're a speciest & marvel at how clever we are that make tools and use wallpaper."
Lions don't assess value in the same way that humans are able to.
" I asked if you thought it was SUBJECTIVE OPINION whether an animal suffered or not and if you thought it was, was it therefore SUBJECTIVE OPINION whether it was OK to inflict suffering on an animal and if it was then it MUST BE SUBJECTIVE OPINION whether or not we can inflict suffering on each other."
I want you to name one thing that isn't subjective. Everything is subjective, you can't name one thing that isn't.
"But you cannot smell as well as a dog, or 'see' with sonar or run as fast as a cheetah or fly like an eagle."
Not sure what your point is here.
"They used to say the same things about black people - they were inferior etc because 'they're not like us' 'not as intelligent' 'inferior'. This is rubbish."
Are you trying to say that cow may be as smart as us?
I'm not really sure of the points you are trying to make. Do you have any non-wordplay arguments to present?
It’s not word-play – it’s called philosophising. I’m not trying to blond you with jargon, I’d like to think you can see this from a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteLions don't assess value in the same way that humans are able to so what? This doesn’t make us more important in the scheme of things, only to ourselves – can you not understand that some people see that an animal values its own life and therefore we have no right to enslave it?
I want you to name one thing that isn't subjective. Everything is subjective, you can't name one thing that isn't. do you mean name one moral thing that isn’t subjective? (As things like the point at which water freezes is not subjective). If you think that everything is subjective morally then you must think it wasn’t necessarily morally wrong for Hitler to send Jews to concentration camps because in his opinion they were inferior. To me this morality is not subjective because Hitler was wrong – unless you think racial prejudice is subjective also? If you were to reply to this ‘ah, but we know jews aren’t inferior, but animals are’ then again, I think you need to understand that your criteria for intelligence is based on a very solipsistic view – as Leonardo Da Vinci said ‘I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men’. This probably seems farfetched to you in the same way people who kept slaves thought the idea of slave abolition was farfetched.
"But you cannot smell as well as a dog, or 'see' with sonar or run as fast as a cheetah or fly like an eagle."
Not sure what your point is here.
My point was merely that they have evolved in certain ways so as to be superior to us, for their particular environment. We’ve turned the planet into ‘ours’ and say that things that aren’t like us are inferior and we can use them as we see fit – I’d bet that if a more intelligent life form came to this planet and started farming humans you’d feel pretty hard done by and wouldn’t be espousing their right to eat you and use your skin for their coats, even if they were far more advanced.
Are you trying to say that cow may be as smart as us? – actually I’m saying a cow is as smart as it needs to be – the fact it can’t do ‘human’ stuff is irrelevant – do you think we should farm & eat mentally handicapped people because they’re not as smart as you? Why does being ‘smart’ give you the right to enslave something?
It’s not word-play – it’s called philosophising. I’m not trying to blond you with jargon, I’d like to think you can see this from a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteLions don't assess value in the same way that humans are able to so what? This doesn’t make us more important in the scheme of things, only to ourselves – can you not understand that some people see that an animal values its own life and therefore we have no right to enslave it?
I want you to name one thing that isn't subjective. Everything is subjective, you can't name one thing that isn't. do you mean name one moral thing that isn’t subjective? (As things like the point at which water freezes is not subjective). If you think that everything is subjective morally then you must think it wasn’t necessarily morally wrong for Hitler to send Jews to concentration camps because in his opinion they were inferior. To me this morality is not subjective because Hitler was wrong – unless you think racial prejudice is subjective also? If you were to reply to this ‘ah, but we know jews aren’t inferior, but animals are’ then again, I think you need to understand that your criteria for intelligence is based on a very solipsistic view – as Leonardo Da Vinci said ‘I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men’. This probably seems farfetched to you in the same way people who kept slaves thought the idea of slave abolition was farfetched.
I want you to name one thing that isn't subjective. Everything is subjective, you can't name one thing that isn't. do you mean name one moral thing that isn’t subjective? (As things like the point at which water freezes is not subjective). If you think that everything is subjective morally then you must think it wasn’t necessarily morally wrong for Hitler to send Jews to concentration camps because in his opinion they were inferior. To me this morality is not subjective because Hitler was wrong – unless you think racial prejudice is subjective also? If you were to reply to this ‘ah, but we know jews aren’t inferior, but animals are’ then again, I think you need to understand that your criteria for intelligence is based on a very solipsistic view – as Leonardo Da Vinci said ‘I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men’. This probably seems farfetched to you in the same way people who kept slaves thought the idea of slave abolition was farfetched.
ReplyDelete"But you cannot smell as well as a dog, or 'see' with sonar or run as fast as a cheetah or fly like an eagle."
Not sure what your point is here.
My point was merely that they have evolved in certain ways so as to be superior to us, for their particular environment. We’ve turned the planet into ‘ours’ and say that things that aren’t like us are inferior and we can use them as we see fit – I’d bet that if a more intelligent life form came to this planet and started farming humans you’d feel pretty hard done by and wouldn’t be espousing their right to eat you and use your skin for their coats, even if they were far more advanced.
Are you trying to say that cow may be as smart as us? – actually I’m saying a cow is as smart as it needs to be – the fact it can’t do ‘human’ stuff is irrelevant – do you think we should farm & eat mentally handicapped people because they’re not as smart as you? Why does being ‘smart’ give you the right to enslave something?
I haven't double posted but have seemingly appended the second message to part of the first message (In case you skip it thinking I have posted twice. My boss is behind me so typing out large essays is tricky.
ReplyDeleteThis book has a very good philosopy section on eating meat. I assume that as you are an atheist you like to reason things out, so I urge you to read ethical probs with eating meat so you can better understand why people promotote their vegetarian opinions to others http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Gym-Short-Adventures-Thinking/dp/0312314523/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1290613914&sr=8-1
ReplyDelete<<< This group of people leads me to another (a-lot of overlap here), that is the 'animal-rights' activists. While I do think animals should not be tortured, I think these people take it way to far (like many feminist seem to). Many of these people place the value of let's say a dog, at an equal, or higher level then a human's life. >>>
ReplyDeleteBefore you start criticizing someone’s ideology, perhaps it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with it first. I recommend you read Gary L. Francione’s “Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?”
The animal rights philosophy says nothing about whose life is more important. It simply states that non-human animals have a right not to be regarded as property, or, according to Tom Regan, a right not to be used as a means to an end.
<<< We are a social species and have developed a sense of empathy for other humans within our societies (the golden rule), which allows us to have things like justice. >>>
We can put ourselves in another's shoes, however, this empathy is not "intended" to be shown towards other species (no direct benefit to our genes) -- or rather, when this mechanism developed in humans, the benefit it provided for the species was not because of the animals which we currently feed and house, and only receive a sense of companionship (unless its a cat, which it will just ignore you, unless you give it food). One must ask whose genes are the beneficiary? The humans? or the pets? And who is the one being tricked, who is the victim here?
Now I'm not saying that I don't like pets, or do not wish to have any in the future. >>>
The empathy was “intended" to be shown towards people in our won tribe, then it included other tribes, other nations, other races. This is moral progress. And the progress should continue. The empathy should include all sentient beings because we all share the planet, we all need each other. You laugh at swatting flies, but the fact is, if we killed all insects, we too would die because the whole ecosystem would collapse.
As for keeping animals as pets, again if you did a little bit of research before you opened your mouth about a subject you know nothing about, you would learn that the animal rights philosophy does not allow for breeding animals and keeping them as pets. Again, read Francione’s book.
<<< These people actually got upset because the president KILLED A FLY. These people probably can't sleep at night at the thought of the holocaust caused by windshields, children running in grass, and let's not forget the worst of all, bug-zappers! >>>
ReplyDeleteIs accidently killing someone while driving equivalent to premeditated murder? Where is your logic?
<<< I can see one of them committing suicide over the guilt of accidentally stepping on a grasshopper, of course not before giving it a proper eulogy and burial. >>>
Where do you see that?
<<< Well, in this post when I refer to vegetarians being 'retarded' I was describing my inner-monologue when confronted with an annoying vegetarian. They are acting close-minded and stupid. >>>
You are the one who is acting close-minded, no actually you are not acting. You ARE close-minded. You are the equivalent of an ignorant creationist who is trying to criticize the theory of evolution without having a basic understand of it.
<<< I respect people that are vegetarians, but not those that try to force this lifestyle on others. >>>
How can anyone force this lifestyle on you? Presently the law allows the killing of certain animals for meat and other products. What vegans are doing is trying to persuade people, by rational debate, to join them. When we have the majority, we will, by democratic means, pass laws that will make it illegal to exploit non-human animals. Only then will you be able to complain that the lifestyle is being forced on you.
<<< When eating a cheese burger I don't want to hear some bitch telling me how wrong it is. >>>
Where are you eating this cheese burger? Is it in a restaurant? If so, people have a right to speak in a public place. If it your house, then don’t invite her next time, in fact, ask her to leave.
<<< When it comes to food I am a close-minded person, and there is nothing wrong with that. >>>
So you are also not open to latest research showing which foods are healthy and which are detrimental to human health?
<<< Humans have been eating meat as a whole for the entire history of our species, it is a biological thing, its not an opinion or a world view, it is food. >>>
ReplyDeleteHumans have also engaged in war and rape for the entire history of our species. Should we continue these too because they are biological things?
<<< Humans are way more important then any other animal, we are light-years ahead of any other species on the planet in intellect, and achievement. >>>
No, actually insects are the most important animals on this planet. If they disappeared, the whole ecosystem would collapse. If humans disappeared, nothing bad would happen. Intellect is nothing more than a tool for adaptation to the environment, a tool for survival. Other species have other tools. Whose tool proves to be the best we will yet have to see. As it is, there are currently species living on this planet who have been living practically unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs. It can be positively said that they have pretty good tools for survival. As for achievement, what kind of achievement do you mean? Like the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or perhaps you mean our incredible ability to organize, which made world wars and the Holocaust possible?
<<< I'm not sure what universe you live in, but the one I do, the most valuable thing in it is intellect. Intellect is what makes life special, to not put value on it would be to not put value on life. And as I said before, humans are by far the most intelligent species on the planet, therefore we are of the highest value. This view point has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with how much you value intelligence. >>>
If intellect is what makes life special, are you arguing that the happy village idiot is a contradiction in terms? Are highly intelligent people happier than simple, uneducated people? It also takes intelligence to commit suicide. As I already said, intelligence is nothing more than a tool for survival. And this tool has brought good things, like medicine, but also bad things like Hiroshima and the Holocaust.
<<< Food preference is an opinion, not a fact, it really has little to do with how open or close minded a person is. >>>
So Jeffrey Dahmer’s food preferences were also only his opinion? We have laws in the United States against killing cats and dogs. Are you saying that if someone’s food preference was dog meat or cat meat, that too would be just a matter of opinion?
<<< My position has nothing to do with a religious belief. If we are equal to animals, then all of our actions and desires are natural (as all other animals are). >>>
Your position is most definitely inspired by religious book like the Bible. Read some passages about animals and compare them to your views. There is no difference.
Natural desires do not mean moral desires. Nature has nothing to do with morality. You are committing a logical fallacy called appeal to nature.
<<< Peta people are so mean to one particular animal (humans). >>>
ReplyDeleteHow so? Because they want to take your cheese burger away from you and give you a veggie burger? Oh, how mean of them!!!
<<< Peta people care more about animals than they do people (which are really both the same thing). >>>
And who are you to dictate to anyone whom one should care about more. Yes, I care more about say homeless cats and dogs than about a heartless, selfish human like you, who cares about nothing more than stuffing his mouth with the bodies of murdered animals.
<<< They believe that people are below animals because we are more intelligent. >>>
Where exactly did you read that? Could you provide a link? The animal rights philosophy says nothing about who is below and who is above.
<<< The only reason you have sympathy for another species is not because of some enlightened mentality, it is that an evolutionary impulse is misfiring. >>>
This is how Richard Dawkins explains altruism directed towards someone who does not share a significant number of genes. Nowhere does he say that it is a bad thing.
<<< You have the impulse to empathize with other humans, and that cannibalism is disgusting. You insert your mentality into the head of an animal, thinking that there experience is the same. Thus creating the illusion that all animals are human. Isn't it ironic how you are calling me close-minded and ignorant. :) >>>
Cannibalism was not disgusting to many people in the past, just like eating corpses of non-human animals is not disgusting to most people today. But we will see what the future brings. The number of vegetarians and vegans is growing steadily.
<<< Why do you value the life of an animal more than a plant? Because it feels pain? Well, who is to say that the ability to feel pain is what makes a form of life more important than another? This seems a little biased. What about the pees and carrots? While they probably don't feel pain, why is their life any less valuable than yours? >>>
Peas and carrots don’t even know that they are alive, so how can they value their own life? They have no consciousness. A pea to a cow is like a brain dead human is to a healthy human. It is not about pain, which can be suppressed with anesthesia (and in fact there may be some animals who do not feel pain, like a certain species of moles), but about consciousness.
No one chooses one’s race, gender, intelligence, physical abilities, sexual orientation or species. Therefore, discrimination based on such inborn characteristics is immoral. We each have just one life and we each should be able to spend it most happily and as free of suffering as possible. We all should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
P.S. Did you know that the percentage of atheists among animal rights activists is very high, something like 30%? Do you really want to alienate animal rights advocates from the new atheist movement? Is that cheese burger really that valuable to you?
I skimmed through your response anon. There is not a single point you made to refute any of mine.
ReplyDeleteYou are trying to argue against me on the basis of morality, but are unable to create any foundation which to base that morality on. Why is your beliefs moral and mine immoral?
I'm not sure what your morality is based on, but this is mine..
morality is behavior that benefits the functionality of a society (things which are "evil" are harmful to the functionality of society). This I believe is a good rule-of-thumb for determining what is good and what is bad. Utilizing animals is beneficial to the functionality of a society. Animals are used to produce many things that benefit humans, so humans using animal products is a moral thing by this standard.
But maybe I'm wrong, maybe that is not the purpose of morality, but if not, you must provide a better answer.
Just because you disagree with my view on morality, does not mean that I am wrong, it means we have a difference of opinion.
I actually put all of my old posts on this subject (and added a few new ones) on this site so that it is more organised.
http://against-peta.blogspot.com/
As far as this point...
"P.S. Did you know that the percentage of atheists among animal rights activists is very high, something like 30%? Do you really want to alienate animal rights advocates from the new atheist movement? Is that cheese burger really that valuable to you?"
Don't lump all atheists into the PETA camp. There are many...many atheists that dislike the annoying nature of the people referred to in this post.
As far as the 'atheist movement', I'm not a big fan of the new-atheists. Most new-atheists are douchey moral-relativists that want everyone to think like them (hilarious contradiction).
I believe that some people are so morally-unintellectual that they NEED religion to behave well. I don't want everyone in the world to be an atheist.
Do you really want adults that believe in talking snakes and magic apples to start believing in moral-relativism? I don't..
"Many of these people place the value of let's say a dog, at an equal, or higher level then a human's life"
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you're talking about. Have you actually read anything by prominent animal rights activists? Do you even know how to read? WTF does "value" even mean in this context?
"morality is behavior that benefits the functionality of a society (things which are "evil" are harmful to the functionality of society). This I believe is a good rule-of-thumb for determining what is good and what is bad. Utilizing animals is beneficial to the functionality of a society. Animals are used to produce many things that benefit humans, so humans using animal products is a moral thing by this standard. "
This is the shittiest ethical system I've ever heard of. Please explain why the interests of humans matter more than those of animals.
Maybe you also think we should "utilize black slaves for the benefit of white society"?
Or maybe you have the ole' "fuck everything that isn't me" worldview?
Here's a better morality: Minimize suffering
"You don't know what you're talking about. Have you actually read anything by prominent animal rights activists? Do you even know how to read? WTF does "value" even mean in this context? "
ReplyDeleteAll of the prominent animal-rights activists are douche bags. Why would I waste my time listening to their nonsense?
"This is the shittiest ethical system I've ever heard of. Please explain why the interests of humans matter more than those of animals."
Nice exaggeration. Do I really need to explain why we should look after human interests? Should we allow predators to freely roam around (in their own interests) and devour any human that their heart desires?
"Or maybe you have the ole' "fuck everything that isn't me" worldview?"
Nope, I have the "I care about the progression of the human race world-view".
You have have a deep-seeded hatred of humanity and of yourself. You wish humans did not exist at all, and if it were up to you, humans would live in caves and eat roots.
If you want to end animal suffering, check out this idea, and tell people about it.
ReplyDeletePainless Harvesting
Painless harvesting is a great idea that all people that want to reduce animal suffering should endorse.
A Darwinina misfiring may explain many human actions, but this does not undermine the value of them. Dawkins recommends that we fight our 'selfish genes' and admits that Darwinian Selection has nothing to say on morality. Check out this discussion between Dawkins and Peter Singer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU. Dawkins accepts Peter's ethics and admits that he has not yet summoned the strength to do the right think ie. become a vegetarian.
ReplyDeleteI would actually liken your dogmatic position in 'us meat-lovers will never give up meat..' to that of the religious, who cling just as tightly to their faith.
I understand why you hold your particular train of thought. What I don't understand is why you are suggesting your train of thought is correct. Your justifications seem to be rather poor ones. You are correct, we did not evolve to extend empathy to non-human animals. We also did not evolve to let people live on life support systems. Nor did we evolve to do a host of things that we do in modern society. You don't even attempt to give justification to your belief that "animal-rights activists are always overstepping the boundary for what rights animals should have." They're always overstepping? That seems like an awfully difficult position to hold. And if your justification isn't solid, it seems rational that you should consider rethinking your position.
ReplyDeleteVegetarians are really annoying. I'm a Christian and i believe God made animals for 2 reasons: to help us and to feed us. Why do you think we get tons of protein from meat?
ReplyDeleteI find vegetarians annoying because they assume that because I'm friends with them, I should be one so, and whenever the topic comes up, they practically breathe down my neck for it.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of close-mindedness is horrendously silly, in my opinion. Everyone is close minded about somethings. EVERYONE. Otherwise we would be wishy washy people and change would never happen because people never stood up for what they believe in. Empathy is a rare trait, sympathy is not.
One large argument that I have never seen answered in terms of vegetarians: The human population is around more than 7 billion at the moment. If we completely stopped eating meat, WHERE are we going to get the food? Oh, of course, we could chop up ecosystems and give animals no homes in order to provide ourselves with enough vegetables to eat, but we simply DON'T have the space. We would honestly need to get rid every expanse of land in order to acomplish the fact. Animals would become extinct due to the fact that their homes would be destroyed regardless.
Note: Vegetarians should not eat bread. There is a legal percentage of protein that is allowed in bread because I ASSURE you, when the grain is chopped up in order to be processed, they DO NOT chase away all the little animals that live in croplands before they do so.
In the grand scheme of things, no one (no animal, no human, etc) is all that important. Yes, when humanity eventually dies out from whatever reason, the world will keep spinning, but it will keep on spinning without any life force at all on it too - every other planet out there seems to be doing JUST fine.
If someone brings up vegetarianism, then someone else needs to bring up environmentalism - the two cannot really coexist peacefully.
Note: People kill people all the time - animals kill animals - everyone kills themselves off. The grand thing about the food chain, is that it means that those on the bottom have a much higher population than those above them.
Humans may seem like an exception, but over-population is an issue too. To be fair, I believe there are a lot more things wrong with the world than what we do to animals - let's face it, we may not do it to a grand scale, but we do it to each other as well: except its worse, because when we do horrible things to each other, its purely to cause someone else pain.
"The argument of close-mindedness is horrendously silly, in my opinion."
ReplyDeleteSome people are more willing to consider views that differ from their own, even if they end up not changing their minds. In other words I would say that some people are more open minded than members of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Now of course I would agree that we all have filters put up to sift out disagreeable information (if that is what you mean). But when using a term like "close-minded" I am referring to those that have very constricted "filters".
Disgusting, author argues like the most uneducated believer
ReplyDelete"Disgusting, author argues like the most uneducated believer"
ReplyDeleteSad panda? :(
"Oh, of course, we could chop up ecosystems and give animals no homes in order to provide ourselves with enough vegetables to eat, but we simply DON'T have the space."
ReplyDeleteIs this person trolling, or what? Does s/he not realize that meat is infinitely less efficient than plant food?
On the rest of this post... Seriously, if I had the time I would point out all of the logical flaws in ALL of these arguments. Ad hominem is probably the most hilarious of them all.
Why is this post just a super-huge judge-fest? I think we all know why Jeremy eats meat. Because he doesn't want to stop. His refusal to admit it, and the others' refusal to accept it is ridiculous. Personally, I like to justify my vegetarianism as something both moral and personal. I have eaten meat on a few occasions since becoming vegetarian (because I was in situations in foreign countries where it would have been extremely rude to not) and it repulsed me. I cannot eat meat without throwing up, because the fact that I am eating the flesh of something that once lived, breathed, and had emotions repulses me. But I feel like militant vegetarians are much like militant anything else (atheists included). They're hypocrites. Criticizing anyone's personal decision is not constructive. The only way to avoid conflict and achieve peace is through understanding, compassion, and empathy. This is one reason why I don't eat meat.
I have often thought that I hated meat eaters. I thought that the people who consumed it were liars (psychologically convincing themselves that meat was different than the animals it came from, thus allowing "animal lovers" to continue eating meat). But I have loved many a person who refused to give up meat, and I guess the only thing we can do is try to understand. I have done things that I consider immoral. We can't judge someone else for doing the same.
That being said, I also believe that some day the world will stop eating meat, just as some day we will have peace, equality, and social justice. Gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality and religion will cease to be divisions among people, and the world will be compassionate. But perhaps that is because I am naive. And that is also assuming we do not destroy ourselves first.
probably way late on this but yeh, jeremy you seem pretty thick to be honest... Pulling people up on typo's and spelling is a pretty stupid thing to so in any type of debate. And your general over all feel is some kind of bitchy Alex Jone's ' im a twat ' kind of thing.... have fun with that
ReplyDeleteI have all kinds of fun with it :)
ReplyDeleteI think it's best if vegetarians don't give anyone the 'vegetarian speech' ... But that means its probably best not to give them the 'anti-vegetarian speech' either.
ReplyDeleteLots of veggies and non veggies seem to get on fine :) maybe not on this blog though...