Arcadia Power

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 192KB, maximum individual size 128KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Alia
« on: April 22, 2009, 09:25:42 pm »

Thank you Schizo. The fact that someone thinks I know what I'm talking about is about a thousand times more valuable than my own knowledge that I have the knowledge.
Posted by: Schizo
« on: April 22, 2009, 03:25:49 pm »

Do either of you think I lost the argument? I can't shake the feeling that I did.

 How do you argue with an appeal to emotion? While I wouldn't agree that nature intended for us to do anything, we are an industrious and creative species - it's in our nature. We do what we can to get by, and that includes eating a diet of varied plant and animal sources. I'd say you came off looking like you actually know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Alia
« on: April 18, 2009, 01:50:43 pm »

It's definitely true that the moral superiority is disgusting. It was the reason I quit vegetarianism, though the vegans would have you believe I was never a vegetarian to begin with.

However, to some degree consumers are responsible for the companies that sell to them. If those consumers are willing to pay a penny more for a product from a company that does not engage in such cruelty, then such a company will flourish and even dominate. However, if consumers are not willing to pay the extra penny, there will be no development of such a company, or it will fail. So you see, the company rises or falls because of the consumer. People have forgotten that.

Meat was never meant to be the staple in the Human diet. At some points Humans naturally had to go without. If they could not kill an animal, they went without. If game became scarce, they went without. If their main hunter or hunters fell ill or died, they went without. In the wild, the easiest thing to find, and the most healthy for you, is vegetable and fruit. Harder to find and process is grain, and thus neither was grain meant to be the staple of Human diet; breads and their many brethren are a relatively new invention, with regards to the development of the Human animal evolutionarilly.

As to eating meat being immoral, I maintain that it is. I think that higher sentience should equal higher consideration, thus a retarded baby would have no rights in my viewing, but an animal as intelligent as a Human such as a Porpoise, would have more rights. But, as higher animals, I think we have some right to eat lower ones.

Chickens don't actually live in coops anymore, but in tiny cages. What they show on that website is indeed disturbing. I just don't agree with the interpretation. Because chickens have been bred to the role of egg production, they can now either serve that function, or become extinct, since the average domestic chicken would have a very hard time eeking out a living in the wild.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: April 18, 2009, 01:31:49 pm »

I don't think vegetarianism is flawwed. In fact I made the attempt. I only think the argument that everyone should be vegetarian is flawwed, since it intends to minimalise the suffering of animals, but will actually cause extinction on those animals.

It's a proven scientific fact that meat is and has always been part of the natural human diet. Vegetarians frequently say that it's not... which makes sense seeing as how they have to find so many meat substitutes human's would never normally eat in the wild.

Vegetarians claim eating meat makes you fat. WRONG! In fact, eating diets high in carbohydrates and fatty oils found in most plant foods as well as starches is what is causing the American Obesity epidemic (that and lack of exercise). Natural human diet consists of balanced portions of whole grain carbohydrates, fruits, and vegetables, as well as meat not huge portions of carbohydrates and sugars as many vegetarians would have us believe.

Vegetarians claim eating meat causes heart disease. Also a distortion, eating large amounts of red meat can contribute to heart disease but it is not the primary cause. Obesity and arterial plack as well as high sugar diets are. High protein diets (including high amounts of lean protein) have actually shown clinical results to reduce both bad cholesterol levels and risk for heart disease.

Vegetarians claim eating meat is immoral because animals have rights. Firstly they need to prove how it is animals acquire the same rights as humans, and how eating meat is any more "immoral" logically speaking then eating plant life. Both are living, just because one can feel pain and the other does not does not make something immoral. I haven't seen any convincing arguments as to the immorality of meat eating.

Vegetarians claim meat eaters encourage and sustain animal cruelty, that is flat out wrong. Consumers are not responsible for the actions of companies they buy from.

I am all for less animal cruelty in the meat industry, I am all for strict fishing regulations because I see a logical necessity to protect the oceanic environment by not causing entire species of fish to go extinct.

I do not see how chicken coups are equivalent to Auschwitz, I don't see how animals have rights comparable to those of humans, and I don't see how eating meat is both bad for people and immoral.

Thus is why I say Vegetarianism is fundamentally flawed. I'm not going to begrudge anyone being a vegetarian or a vegan though, I just absolute hate their air of moral superiority, their attempts to force their ideology on the entire human populous, their complete distortions and lies of known scientific evidence about both vegetarianism and meat eating, ect...
Posted by: Lucid
« on: April 18, 2009, 01:18:29 pm »

I think you phrased your argument quite well.  It's insane to demand that everyone become a vegetarian.  I think Americans should eat less meat, but that's a personal decision, and one that shouldn't be forced on anyone.

I'm not sure if everyone becoming vegetarian would cause the outright extinction of foodstock animals, since cattle and most forms of poultry can still manage to live in the wild, but it's a silly proposition none-the-less.
Posted by: Alia
« on: April 18, 2009, 12:27:22 pm »

I don't think vegetarianism is flawwed. In fact I made the attempt. I only think the argument that everyone should be vegetarian is flawwed, since it intends to minimalise the suffering of animals, but will actually cause extinction on those animals.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: April 18, 2009, 12:24:05 pm »

That's gnaw, sweetie. Naw is what rednecks say to indicate negation.

So, Sandy... Do you think I lost the argument? I still can't shake the feeling that I did.


Well I do have a bit of redneck in me so you'll have to excuse this good ole southern boy hun. ;)

And no I think it's pretty much impossible to lose an argument against vegetarianism, seeing as how it is fundamentally flawed on the most basic of levels as an ideology.
Posted by: Alia
« on: April 18, 2009, 11:58:11 am »

That's gnaw, sweetie. Naw is what rednecks say to indicate negation.

So, Sandy... Do you think I lost the argument? I still can't shake the feeling that I did.
Posted by: SandStone
« on: April 18, 2009, 10:58:29 am »

God damnit... I hate vegetarians... god I just want to bite off the head of a small bird and naw it's bloody neck every time I see one.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: April 17, 2009, 10:27:29 pm »

Do either of you think I lost the argument? I can't shake the feeling that I did.

No, you won it. But it had no effect on the people who got beaten, arguing with moonbats is like arguing with boulders, they can't produce a legitimate rebuttal, but they are almost impossible to move.
Posted by: Nin
« on: April 17, 2009, 10:10:28 pm »

You can not apply logic to illogicy, it can't be won simply because no matter how perfect your argument, is, it will mean nothing.
Posted by: Alia
« on: April 17, 2009, 10:03:54 pm »

Do either of you think I lost the argument? I can't shake the feeling that I did.
Posted by: Nin
« on: April 17, 2009, 09:55:56 pm »

Irrelevant morality response, another cheap tactic.
Posted by: Giuliano Taverna
« on: April 17, 2009, 09:53:32 pm »

Posted by: Alia
« on: April 17, 2009, 09:45:03 pm »

What is the etymology of "moonbat"?