Rusting Car Bumper

Murder is defined as unjustified killing so its wrong by definition.

You have no idea if an animal shares our perceptions of the world. Thats mere assertion. If it shared my perceptions and/or experiences then squirrels would vote, try to learn philosophy, watch tv and so on.

Further, to limit your moral compass to only those whom you identify with is personal and arbitrary.

Heck... you even used your experience as the standard fer cryin out loud! What could be more personal than that?

And non-human animal life is quite distinct from us. Squirrels are distinct from fish are distinct from frogs. Mere distinction is not enough. You assign values to specific dintinctions and not others. Your choice in deciding which is which is merely personal.

Further, even if (hypothetically) it was true that animals shared our perceptions and it is their commonality with us that speaks in favor of a proper moral judgement against killing them and eating them, then it also implies they are deserving of other forms of recognition such an allowance to attend schools, hold public office, drive cars, own property, vote, have their marriages officially sanctioned and so on.

No. You simply haven't considered other alternatives. You simply are not empathetic enough.

I am aware of how they are kept but I am empathetic to ALL forms of life. I then come to the conclusion that its an intractable problem. Eating requires the taking of life. I throw my hands up because the consequences of any dietary decision results in the death of organisms that I have empathy for. Its an intractable problem.

Whose pretending? Refrain from meat if you'd like but don't pretend you are on any moral high ground.

DC

lisarea

Agreed. And some raving anti-vegetarians.

Why does anyone care at all what someone else chooses to do? I will reiterate that I never preached about vegetarianism to others, I never tried to recruit, and I never claimed to be a vegetarian for any reason other than personal preference. In fact, I never even mentioned it unless it was relevant, like if someone was offering me some unknown substance to eat, or if I asked a waiter what was in some menu item.

Why did so many people feel a need to argue with my choice and actually try to subvert it by tricking me into eating meat? What is it about someone's personal choice that makes people so hostile and defensive?

There are personal preferences, and there are good arguments on both sides, in terms of sustainability, nutrition, and ethics.

LordSnooty

So you deny all evidence that suggests animals have varying degrees of intelligence, and that they are capable of fear and pain?
Why? They're not intelligent enough to want to go to school or drive cars. Why would they want to do that? I never suggested that they would. Is this what is referred to as a strawman argument? I was merely arguing that to intentionally cause suffering to a creature for your own personal pleasure is wrong.

Paul

Rusting Car Bumper

I cannot argue with you there.

If you want to know why people get so hostile or defensive about it, simply witness the behaviour of Mr Snooty.

He said, "You eat it if you want, but don't try to pretend you do so with moral impunity." The message here is that if you eat meat you are immoral. This is not much different than Christians using the old heaven/hell or your not a believer BS.

If you understand why non-believers might be understandibly defensive whenever the Christian starts to spouting, then you understand why some dietarily diverse people don't have a problem speaking up when ever the vegetarian starts talking.

DC

LordSnooty

It's nothing of the sort. I'm simply saying that in my opinion, meat eating is immoral. This is a matter upon which I respect no opinion other than my own. Why should I? I don't respect things that I consider to be immoral.

So how does that compare to the heaven and hell thing? There's just no comparison to make. I'm not threatening you with damnation. I'm not saying you're an immoral person. I'm just saying that you don't give animals the credit or understanding that they deserve.
Why? Threatened by us are you?

I'm not going to argue with you, since you're obviously incapable of respecting the vegetarian viewpoint. I should have known better to begin with.

Paul

lisarea

And I will agree with you. However, it's a big sore spot with me when people ascribe motivations and philosophies to me based on assumptions. I try very hard not to do this myself, in fact, because it's so frustrating and infuriating when others do it to me.

While I won't hesitate to argue Christianity with someone who's preaching to me or being hostile toward me because of it, I do not go off on someone simply because they're a Christian. I know several nice, tolerant Christians. I may not completely understand them, but I respect them nonetheless.

As I said, I didn't have a real moral or ethical foundation for not eating meat. I just didn't like it. In hindsight, I considered sustainability issues and so forth, but it was never my primary motivation, and in fact, I was never entirely convinced that those arguments were strong enough to base my own decision on. But I also recognize that some people--who knew more about those issues than I did--held strong opinions one way or another, and I respected those opinions, as long as they didn't shove them down my throat, or anyone else's.

There are just so many battles out there to fight, we can't all fight all of them. We each have to pick what windmills we'll tilt at, and it is natural, I think, to think harshly of those who haven't chosen the same ones we do, or who choose the 'wrong' side.

And it can also be very tempting to stereotype people based on previous experiences and associations, but that's just unfair, and almost invariably wrong.

A few months ago, on another forum, the topic of atheism was brought up. I don't remember the exact context, but pretty much all I'd volunteered was that I was one, and that I thought the national motto was unconstitutional. Based on this information, another poster said something like, "Oh, I know your type. You'll be the first to sue if you see someone on television going to church!"

Now, I sort of expect that this was the result of some cartoon atheist that this guy had invented himself, but for the sake of argument, let's say he did know someone who sued television stations for acknowledging the existence of churches. The accusation is still completely unfounded and just plain weird.

My point being that far too many people are painting their arguments with too broad a brush. Many, if not most, vegetarians are basically tolerant people who've simply made a personal decision for themselves based on personal preferences and/or their own conclusions about the various arguments; and you probably don't even know they're vegetarians unless and until they are confronted with a situation in which it's relevant.

LordSnooty

Vegetarians are often portrayed as hippies. Pacifists with shoes made of brightly coloured plastic, and repulsive dirty hair. Either that, or incredibly thin people with no skin pigmentation.

I am happy to report that I wash my hair regularly, I dress like a human being, I am not an anti-capitalist, and I'm 50 pounds overweight. I'm as normal as everyone else. Just fatter.

Paul

The AntiChris

I've had this argument with DC before.

It seems to me you don't need to be a vegetarian to understand why a rational person would feel more empathy for a cow than a carrot.

DC either genuinely lacks any empathy for non-human sentient animals or he's in denial.

Of course, he may may just enjoy being controversial.

Chris

Rusting Car Bumper

I guess that depends on who "us" is.

But yes...

When that vocal segment claims that another is immoral in a rather holier than thou tone I would feel "threatened" in a way.

DC

Rusting Car Bumper

I didn't say I didn't understand. I said it wasnt morally compelling and that its a matter of personal preference. I understand WHY. I simply see no reason why the distinctions made are not as arbitrary as any other distinctions. I made this clear in a post above but Snooty choose not to repond to that portion. So be it.

Even a cursory reading of my statements above would refute that notion. If you read carefully you'd note that I do have empathy for the animals but i have empathy for all living things and then conclude the problem is intractable. See above for more detail.

DC