Many people likes animals. Most of those same people eats Chicken,Mutton,Fish, on....

So,Why many of those people who likes animals didn't thought that eating some animals is wrong ?

The same people who gets worried and angry when animals are being killed by poachers...but yet they eat chicken,mutton,beef, on.......

What is the difference ?

I mean...why some animals have to be killed and eaten by humans ?

Why can't these people who loves animals be Vegetarians ?

Views: 770

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Also, you're going to die naturally, anyhow. What's the harm if I help you along with the process? Of course, I wouldn't. I'm just giving you an analogy which I would hope you find to be potent. Of course, I tend to be overly hopeful. These rationalizations are absurd to me thus far.
Animals aren't people but people are animals.

Do you think animals have souls or people for that matter?

The natural world provides its own answers. I seen that you understand that we're omnivores and my understanding is that nature intended it for a reason. It's not an evolutionary mistake, we're meant to eat both meat and plants. This is nature's edict.
I agree that people are animals. I agree that our body's enzymes, our teeth, and other structures evolved us as omnivores. I agree that we were meant to by nature. I cannot argue with millions of years of evolution. Unfortunately for both of us, Einstein had a very good point when it came to the debate of notions and ideas:

""I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgements. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds. But if there is agreement on certain goals and values, one can argue rationally about the means by which these objectives may be obtained."

I do not think that anything has a soul. I simply purport the notion that if we can eat other things to gain the same nutrients, that we should do so because we do have a brain capable of philosophy, morals, and choices. Things which animals really don't have. I agree highly with this second quote:

"Veganism acknowledges the intrinsic legitimacy of all life. It recognizes no hierarchy of acceptable suffering among sentient creatures. It is no more acceptable to kill creatures with primitive nervous systems than those with highly developed nervous systems. The value of life to its possessor is the same, whether it be the life of the clam, a crayfish, a carp, a cow, a chicken, or child." —Stanley Sapon

This is the most objective, unbiased way to look at life that I could possibly imagine. It is all-encompassing. Consider the hypothetical situation in which intelligent life forms from another planet came to earth and decided we looked tasty. They were 10x stronger, lived 10x longer, and their infants made humans with the highest intelligence quotients seem like they had Down's Syndrome. These are all things which are physically possible in our tangible world, given the arrangement of molecules to form cells, cells to form tissues, tissues to form organs, organs to form organ systems, and organ systems to form an organism were all in proper order. What would we do, from a moral standpoint? I mean, we wouldn't do anything, in this scenario. We'd be outraged and helpless, but we'd be exploited and consumed in the end.

Same for nations who make it to the top of the hierarchy. They often drift asleep, assuming that their position is secured indefinitely, assuming that nothing bad could happen now that they've reached the plateau. And those civilizations have been toppled again and again by lesser societies who took advantage of the sleeping lion. Such nations are often war-like, bent on 'justice.' Once they get to the top, then they preach peace, because it is then within their best interest. "Hey guys, now that I'm number 1, let's just all get along." But when they were on the lower ranks, they only wanted to overthrow their 'oppressors' and acquire 'what they deserved.'

Disgusting, the lot of humanity. Out of 100, there are probably 6 people worth a shit. All of these mentalities are in our programming, true. However, my ability to think contradicts my instincts, and I'm choosing to value my philosophies and morals over my base instincts. If we did everything our instincts told us to do, things which helped us over millions of years to get to where we are, we'd be doing unspeakable things to each other as well as the animals. I'd rather evolve mentally instead of just physically.
I've read several posts by pro animal rights acitivists. You and they seem to make the same argument via long reaching examples and invoking a figure of authority.

Okay so now aliens. Yes it is possible that a race of aliens show up with a "To Serve Man" book and we're ripe for the picking. That's not the case however, at least in the mean time. Your dual logic of it's not cruel for your cat to eat meat but it is when humans do is convoluted and convenient. If eating meat is wrong, then wrong is wrong is wrong, not just when viewed from different perspectives or placed in different scenarios and so now realize your cat is an SOB. Even more so that your cat would eat something while it's still alive! Oh the humanity! Imagine the poor bird seeing its own bottom half gnawed off by your evil cat. At least humans kill the sad thing before eating it, at least I believe most of them do.

So yeah, if aliens see our meat as something they like to spit fire then we're not at the top of the food chain anymore then we would act accordingly trying to protect our hides. I still wouldn't see aliens eating humans as a moral issue, it is then just an issue of survival of the fittest.
Think about the consequences of giving up our omnivorism. Cows, chickens, hogs, etc. would not even exist in their current form and numbers, had it not been for breeding and domestication as a food source for humans. We can't keep raising domestic cows if we aren't going to eat them. We can't just set them all free, there is no place for them in the world. Their evolution and very existence is maintained artificially. There is no purpose to a 21st century chicken except as people food. Should it be decreed by the blessed holy vegans that consuming them is 'wrong', would we finish off the supply we've got, have one last big meat-feast? Or let them fade away naturally into extinction?
The only thing that I, personally, find morally reprehensible, is killing game animals for the 'fun of it,' and not properly harvesting the game. To this day, I am still a firm advocate of an Eat and Release hunting ethic.

Felch: Apparently just in time, but I thought you were just kidding earlier - when did this discussion get moved over to the Comedy section?
Wait . . . let me guess, - when it became the thread that wouldn't to die !
Wait . . . let me guess, - when it became the thread that wouldn't to die !

Someone estimated page 3 earlier. Can't have too much of a good thing eh?



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Robert Lanktree commented on Little Name Atheist's group Atheist Ailurophiles
7 minutes ago
Patricia posted songs
1 hour ago
Patricia commented on Richard C Brown's group learnerscoffeeshack
2 hours ago
Plinius commented on Richard C Brown's group learnerscoffeeshack
2 hours ago
Patricia replied to Vangelis's discussion Same Sex Marriage in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
2 hours ago
Plinius commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
3 hours ago
Plinius commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
3 hours ago
kathy: ky commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
3 hours ago

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service