I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
Then I'll let you dig through all these pages to find it an reply to it directly rather than starting here where you've already misstated my position.
You make this wild claim about 'immense suffering' being inflicted on 'sentient beings' as though that is a given. Unless you are prepared to have a factual discussion then what's the point?
Everything is a slippery slope, false dichotomy, or strawman with you. I think the only variation I've seen so far was your completely irrelevant links about food-calorie production.
I don't have a horse in this race John, but I believe one of her basic disagreements is that she doesn't feel that the animals we choose for meat production are sentient.
Then again, it could be that your definitions of sentience differ - the dictionary defines sentience as being, "able to perceive or feel things," but I've known those who view sentience as possessing self-awareness, such as being able to recognize onesself in a mirror. I've known cats bristle at the "cat" in the mirror, and seen birds (OK, one --) fly into a mirror, thinking they're going to hook up with the one they're flying toward.
John (all the "reply" buttons seem to be missing - hard to tell where this post will wind up) - like I said, I'm not in this, just trying to define the terms. Besides, from what I've learned of you, you don't need any help.
I stated my position clearly, and concisely, on the first page of comments in this thread. I disclosed my ethical/moral stance without charging after everyone to subscribe to my cult.
I do not believe that 'life' has any intrinsic value - it's nothing more than a fatal condition. Imbuing 'life' with some metaphysical value is a religious standpoint to which I, as an Atheist, do not subscribe. I am a humanist, first and foremost, and I also like animals - but I have killed animals for food and don't see how that creates 'immense suffering'.
Now we've both stated our moral/ethical positions - so I suggest, if you want to discuss whether or not veganism is mandatory for any stance to be ethical/moral, that you start a discussion on that rather than continuing to hijack this thread for your own ends.
Now you attempt argument by misquotation. First off, you state that my position includes people being 'well fed' - a throwback to your irrelevant starvation links. Then you go on to suggest that I feel 'human life' has no value <- another misquote.
It's obvious that your position is nothing more than an argumentative one and you have no facts or rational foundations for your position. All you've done here has been to attempt to persuade me to your line of thinking using fallacy, hyperbole, and misquotes.
When you have an intellectually honest position to present I'll give it some consideration -> in the meantime you've entered the category of 'troll' in my books.
Heather, You have avoided watching the undercover videos of "Immense suffering", and savage abuse of factory farmed animals in the biggest factory farms and slaughterhouses in the U.S. They have been on TV, and more are available on the internet. This video evidence is proof. Physical evidence. This is confirmed by those at the USDA, which has imposed fines and occasional factory closings. The USDA's directors have consistently been top executives of the meat industry. They are not vegans.. These are facts.
We have established the harmful, painful, and frightening treatment given to the vast majority of the animals you eat
So again, are cows, pigs, goats, and horses sentient beings in your opinion, who are capable of suffering, or are they not?