Stop killing - start eating rocks

[Red_or_Dead]

A Slovenian band by the name of "Supersoul connection" made a song and a video in which they attack meat-eaters, and propagate a vegan lyfestyle (at least I think its vegan). Anyway, they made a version in English, so I can be spared having to translate this load of bullshit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn9qWnGbZtw

I do not know exactly what religion do these guys subscribe to. In this video they quote the bible. In another they are talking about transcendece and reincarnation.

Anyway, my arguments against their claims:

-They quote the bible, and say that we should all follow it. I dont think I have to explain why Im against that.

-They speak of killing animals. Only animals. They kinda forget that what they eat (plants) is also a life form, and that somewhere along the line it had to be killed as well. So, if you dont eat life, help yourself to a nice, tasty rock (thank you, Carlos Mencia, for that immortal line).

-Discrimination against meat-eaters. They picture us as utterly immoral and ignorant.

-They claim the existance of souls. Not surprisingly, they dont offer any evidence to back up their claim.


So... Are there any vegans, vegetarians or whatever here that agree with this stuff? Or have any of you meat-eaters found something I missed?

[Yazman]

Starvation in the third world is not a result of there not being enough food in the world to feed everybody. They are right that food is not distributed correctly but it is this distribution in and of itself that is a cause of starvation coupled with third world nations not being encouraged to run sustainable, self-sufficient economies. They are instead encouraged to run luxury production economies that bear no fruit for the people within.

They also seem to misuse the term "murder" as these people so often do... murder is a legal concept specifically for humans..

Don't even get me started on their bible stuff. The bible also says we should stone our children to death if they are obedient, and cut our slaves into pieces if they order other slaves around. Fuck the bible.

Also.. I would disagree with the assertion that life is meaningless because death is the end. To me, that makes life infinitely more meaningful. The very concept of an afterlife is insulting and degrades appreciation of the limited time we have.

[Red_or_Dead]

Starvation in the third world is not a result of there not being enough food in the world to feed everybody. They are right that food is not distributed correctly but it is this distribution in and of itself that is a cause of starvation coupled with third world nations not being encouraged to run sustainable, self-sufficient economies. They are instead encouraged to run luxury production economies that bear no fruit for the people within.


I agree. I wonder where they got the 1 kilo of meat = 8 kilos of wheat ratio.

I think that they represent a similar position to many liberals - they talk about redistribution of food and resources, but have no clear idea on how to achieve that. Or they havent presented it yet, but I strongly doubt that they have one.


They also seem to misuse the term "murder" as these people so often do... murder is a legal concept specifically for humans..


Well, yeah, but I think its pretty obvious what they mean by it.


Don't even get me started on their bible stuff. The bible also says we should stone our children to death if they are obedient, and cut our slaves into pieces if they order other slaves around. Fuck the bible.


The Bible says that? Can you provide the excerpts where it says that?


Also.. I would disagree with the assertion that life is meaningless because death is the end. To me, that makes life infinitely more meaningful. The very concept of an afterlife is insulting and degrades appreciation of the limited time we have.

Yeah, I knida agree on that one too. As far as Im concerned, afterlife or no afterlife, life is life. I dont know what come after, so I might as well enjoy it.

And of course I disagree with their statement that if death is the end, we can do whatever the fuck we like. There are consequences in this life. In fact they are the only ones we can be sure about.

[BobKKKindle$]

There is really no sound basis for giving animals rights - the basic concept of a right is problematic, even when according rights is restricted to adult humans, because a right is something which has been created by society, and so (as is also the case with other social constructs, such as our understanding of gender, or the concept or "race") is subject to change and has no meaning or importance beyond that which society gives it. It is also wrong to argue that meat is harmful for the environment, even though this may be true to some extent, depending on how meat is produced, because using large areas of land for the production of a single crop (something which would occur if the government banned people from eating meat, or if everyone suddenly decided to give up meat, because additional crop output would be required to compensate for the loss of nutrients) can also result in negative environmental impacts, such as a loss of soil fertility, and the leakage of fertilizers into the local water system.

Animals exist to be used by humans, and have the exact same ethical status as any other natural resources, and so we face no obligation to improve the conditions of animals or protect animals from harm, when it is not in our interests to do so.

[Red_or_Dead]

There is really no sound basis for giving animals rights - the basic concept of a right is problematic, even when according rights is restricted to adult humans, because a right is something which has been created by society, and so (as is also the case with other social constructs, such as our understanding of gender, or the concept or "race") is subject to change and has no meaning or importance beyond that which society gives it. It is also wrong to argue that meat is harmful for the environment, even though this may be true to some extent, depending on how meat is produced, because using large areas of land for the production of a single crop (something which would occur if the government banned people from eating meat, or if everyone suddenly decided to give up meat, because additional crop output would be required to compensate for the loss of nutrients) can also result in negative environmental impacts, such as a loss of soil fertility, and the leakage of fertilizers into the local water system.

Animals exist to be used by humans, and have the exact same ethical status as any other natural resources, and so we face no obligation to improve the conditions of animals or protect animals from harm, when it is not in our interests to do so.


Agreed on all counts, except one: animals exist because they evolved into what they are. There is no natural law that would say that they exist for our benefit.

[BobKKKindle$]

There is no natural law that would say that they exist for our benefit.

Humans are the most advanced species on the planet, we have been able to adapt to living in many different environments by making use of the natural environment to improve our quality of life and avoid the dangers posed by other species and the natural world (for example, people in cold climates wear fur coats so they are able to survive, even when the temperature is below freezing, and in other more temperate climatic zones humans have domesticated animals such as horses to provide agricultural labour and a mode of transport) and so it would be wrong for us to pretend that we have an obligation to respect the "rights" of other species who have failed to reach the same level of achievement and adaptability. This is not even something that is restricted to the human species - throughout the natural world, competition is the dominant form of interaction between species, and animals who are in a position of strength exploit other animals to survive, mainly by eating other animals to gain nutrients.

[Red_or_Dead]

Humans are the most advanced species on the planet, we have been able to adapt to living in many different environments by making use of the natural environment to improve our quality of life and avoid the dangers posed by other species and the natural world (for example, people in cold climates wear fur coats so they are able to survive, even when the temperature is below freezing, and in other more temperate climatic zones humans have domesticated animals such as horses to provide agricultural labour and a mode of transport) and so it would be wrong for us to pretend that we have an obligation to respect the "rights" of other species who have failed to reach the same level of achievement and adaptability. This is not even something that is restricted to the human species - throughout the natural world, competition is the dominant form of interaction between species, and animals who are in a position of strength exploit other animals to survive, mainly by eating other animals to gain nutrients.

Well... You got me there. I agree.

[bretty]

I'm vegan. And I don't understand vegans like this. I can clarify a few things though, vegans have a lot of different reasons for eating the way they do so please don't lump me and everyone I know who have legitimate reasons into a category with people who quote the bible and claim meat is murder.

Further the whole thing about 1 kilo of meat equaling 8 kilos of wheat is basically stating that meat requires a lot more to be produced. And is in fact a luxury item itself in industrial terms, you'll notice a large percentage of meat produced in third world countries is exported to first world regions. However many other products obviously do the same thing. This is probably the only thing I would say is a legitimate environmental concern regarding meat production. However distribution is the other entire half of the argument, otherwise you fall into the liberal framework and many of us may know that the green revolution was a direct response to the red revolution.

[bcbm]

it would be wrong for us to pretend that we have an obligation to respect the "rights" of other species who have failed to reach the same level of achievement and adaptability. This is not even something that is restricted to the human species - throughout the natural world, competition is the dominant form of interaction between species, and animals who are in a position of strength exploit other animals to survive, mainly by eating other animals to gain nutrients.

So why not within the human species as well, instead of just our relations to other species? Why should we respect those who are weaker, or less developed than us instead of just exploiting them?

[feminist dyke whore]

I'm a vegetarian and I get shit for it, so I'm not particularly sympathetic to your complaint. It's their opinion and their problem if they choose to be ignorant.
I agree the amount of grain it takes to produce meat is quite substantial but they don't include other factors such as water, land and chemical usage.

Otherwise I completely disagree to the rest of their claims.

[bretty]

I'm a vegetarian and I get shit for it, so I'm not particularly sympathetic to your complaint. It's their opinion and their problem if they choose to be ignorant.
I agree the amount of grain it takes to produce meat is quite substantial but they don't include other factors such as water, land and chemical usage.

Otherwise I completely disagree to the rest of their claims.

Water, land, and chemicals would all be used in more volume as well.

[feminist dyke whore]

yup

[nuisance]

Sorry Bob but animals aren't here for our use. They would exist whether humans did or not. Grow the fuck up and get some compassion.
I wouldn't eat a animal but I would eat you.

[Knight of Cydonia]

since they were discriminated us meat eaters...so screw them. i hate discrimination :cursing::cursing:

[Lord Testicles]

Sorry Bob but animals aren't here for our use. They would exist whether humans did or not. Grow the fuck up and get some compassion.
I wouldn't eat a animal but I would eat you.

That says a lot about you.

[nuisance]

That says a lot about you.
It's called humour, which unfortunatly doesn't appear to translate to well over the net.

[Jazzratt]

It's called humour, which unfortunatly doesn't appear to translate to well over the net.

It doesn't translate well because it's what I like to call "not funny".


Sorry Bob but animals aren't here for our use.

Bob wasn't arguing they were, Red or Dead was and as far as I read it he went back on that position.


They would exist whether humans did or not. Grow the fuck up and get some compassion.

Well, yes lots of things would exist regardless of humans, it doesn't follow that humans should not be using them. Also "Grow the fuck up and get some compassion" is an appeal to emotion and not logical argument.

You've pretty much just drawn a cock all over your attempt to convince anyone of the rationality of your position. :thumbup:

[Red_or_Dead]

Bob wasn't arguing they were, Red or Dead was and as far as I read it he went back on that position.


Actually, Ive given the matter a bit more thought, and this is what I came up with:

I say that there are some animals that do not exist because of us, they simply exist because they were born, and would exist even if we didnt.

On the other hand, there are animals that exist as a result of human intervention. By that I mean the animals that are bred on an industrial scale just to be slaughtered and eaten.

That being said, biology was never my strongest point, so if everyone finds any loop-holes in that please tell.

[nuisance]

It doesn't translate well because it's what I like to call "not funny".
Sorry, I forgot to run it by you first.


Well, yes lots of things would exist regardless of humans, it doesn't follow that humans should not be using them.
Yes, but that still doesn't put down what I said now does it.


You've pretty much just drawn a cock all over your attempt to convince anyone of the rationality of your position. :thumbup:
I don't know about you, but I didn't really make much of an attempt to convince anyone anyway.

[Jazzratt]

Sorry, I forgot to run it by you first.

Just explaining why no one was laughing at your joke, son.



Yes, but that still doesn't put down what I said now does it.

Yes, but it kind of renders what you said an irrelevance. Whether or not animals exist without humanity is neither here nor there when discussing what moral/ethical obligation humans have toward other animals and therefore arguing from "well they're here without us" is laughable.



I don't know about you, but I didn't really make much of an attempt to convince anyone anyway.


Surely, though, as a proponent of your position you would wish for people to at least recognise it as rationally based? Or else why are you even bothering posting in S&E?

[nuisance]

Just explaining why no one was laughing at your joke, son.?
:thumbup1:





Yes, but it kind of renders what you said an irrelevance. Whether or not animals exist without humanity is neither here nor there when discussing what moral/ethical obligation humans have toward other animals and therefore arguing from "well they're here without us" is laughable.
It does not render what I said irrelevant at all, you merely made another point which is independent of what I posted.
I said that animals would be here whether humans were or not, this cannot be disproved, in reply to the notion that animals are on Earth soley to benefit humans. You only question whether people shouldn't use things that would be here anyway, which I don't deny. I only pointed out that they aren't here to only benefit humans as they would be here anyway. Simple as.
I was not arguing a moral or ethical line, so that isn't up for discussion. I merely posted a statement.




Surely, though, as a proponent of your position you would wish for people to at least recognise it as rationally based? Or else why are you even bothering posting in S&E?
I know better than to get into arguements on here over such issues as for some reason alot of people here think it's ok to look down on and mock people for their dietary habits, son.

[Jazzratt]

It does not render what I said irrelevant at all, you merely made another point which is independent of what I posted.
I said that animals would be here whether humans were or not, this cannot be disproved, in reply to the notion that animals are on Earth soley to benefit humans. You only question whether people shouldn't use things that would be here anyway, which I don't deny. I only pointed out that they aren't here to only benefit humans as they would be here anyway. Simple as.

But you're arguing against phantom positions in that case, because someone had already pointed out it was an incorrect position (in a much more concise fashion) and the original proponent of the view that animals exist for humans' benefit withdrew that position.


I was not arguing a moral or ethical line, so that isn't up for discussion. I merely posted a statement.

But what was the point of making the statement? It didn't advance the discussion at all and seemed to be a way for you to begin proselytising in this thread (telling [presumably] meat eaters to "Grow the fuck up and get some compassion") and to make your failed attempt at a joke.


I know better than to get into arguements on here over such issues as for some reason alot of people here think it's ok to look down on and mock people for their dietary habits, son.

If you don't want to be mocked and looked down on then why don't you prove that your dietary habits have a decent rational basis? Of course people are going to mock you if you can't even prove something as simply as that, young fellow-me-lad.

[nuisance]

But you're arguing against phantom positions in that case, because someone had already pointed out it was an incorrect position (in a much more concise fashion) and the original proponent of the view that animals exist for humans' benefit withdrew that position.
Yes, it has been made aware that I obviously miss read the post. The section you just quoted was my justification for what I posted in relation to what I misunderstood.



But what was the point of making the statement? It didn't advance the discussion at all and seemed to be a way for you to begin proselytising in this thread (telling [presumably] meat eaters to "Grow the fuck up and get some compassion") and to make your failed attempt at a joke.
No I wasn't telling meat eaters to grow the fuck up.




If you don't want to be mocked and looked down on then why don't you prove that your dietary habits have a decent rational basis? Of course people are going to mock you if you can't even prove something as simply as that, young fellow-me-lad.
I would post my opinions, as I did to Bob when he messaged me, check it out if you want.
Anyway, whether I regard my reasoning as 'rational' or not, I highly doubt you'd agree with your fetishism for technology, but alas I do not want to talk about that so I won't pry.

[Jazzratt]

Anyway, whether I regard my reasoning as 'rational' or not, I highly doubt you'd agree with your fetishism for technology, but alas I do not want to talk about that so I won't pry.

Then this is all pretty much pointless. Do you use many other discussion fora by the way? Have you noticed they tend to contain discussions wherein people who disagree with each other attempt to convince the other that their view is correct or, at the very least, an understandable/logical position.

[Yazman]

I agree. I wonder where they got the 1 kilo of meat = 8 kilos of wheat ratio.

I think that they represent a similar position to many liberals - they talk about redistribution of food and resources, but have no clear idea on how to achieve that. Or they havent presented it yet, but I strongly doubt that they have one.



Well, yeah, but I think its pretty obvious what they mean by it.



The Bible says that? Can you provide the excerpts where it says that?



Yeah, I knida agree on that one too. As far as Im concerned, afterlife or no afterlife, life is life. I dont know what come after, so I might as well enjoy it.

And of course I disagree with their statement that if death is the end, we can do whatever the fuck we like. There are consequences in this life. In fact they are the only ones we can be sure about.

FIRST OF ALL let me apologise for the thread necromancy but I really want to cite my sources here. Somehow I forgot about this thread entirely and let it slip, oh well.

Ok firstly you can find jesus giving directions on how to treat slaves in Luke 12:42-48.

Then the part about children - and I must clear this up because I made a typo - where it says we can stone children to death if they are disobedient. You can find it in Deuteronomy 21:18-21.