If suffering is the enemy and if we eventually succeed and remove suffering, can we any longer know who the good guys are? What games shall we play then?

How about just face it. You (generic and including me) don't see past our own own clits.

It's not ethical. It's not okay. That's all. We just go on and do it anyway.

Don't we?

Of course humans relied on animals to survive thousands of years ago, but it's very misleading (and borderline incorrect) to say civilization developed because it.

And what humans needed to do thousands of years ago does not apply to modern, current day humans. How many people do you know still live in caves?

This is missing the point. We chose to enslave our own kind for the better part of civilized human history because we saw them as inferior and "unintelligent", the same we look at animals.

True, but that also doesn't mean that I create unnecessary death for pleasure or convenience. I don't go outside and kill/harm random insects, unless they may be a threat to me. If you stab an ant's abdomen, you will see it legs wrap around its antennaes, and its mandibles open and close. That's pain. Moreover, it's qualia, so we cannot dismiss that even insects have at least a minuscule amount of consciousness.

I performing quite well mentally and physically as a vegetarian, perhaps better than most, thank you. I also take comfort in knowing that I'm not clogging my arteries with saturated ****, which will come in handy as I age. I know many who have become vegetarians in the later parts of the lives solely for the health benefits it offers.

If this is your main argument, then I think we can safely stop eating meat.

Killing animals for food is not a sacrifice, it's barbarism. A sacrifice would be a lab rat dying when tested with human medication.

An animal's death is not of the same nature as a human being's death. This doesn't mean that one gets the go ahead to kill all the animals but it does mean that the differences between animal and Man should be considered, not to blithely run over the differences, unscientifically as the moderns are wont to do.

Yes, the animal has soul and does experience pain but if you see the lion, for instance, what you are seeing is an image projection of the lion species to which is the soul nature of the individual lion. Another way of putting this is place your fingers through a sheet of paper and watch the movement of the fingers distally and your fingers are an expression of you and do not have individual life, such is the individual lion.

With respect to the above, and curtly, the death of the lion is of the same nature as you and I clipping our fingernails. Be careful with this, its still not an invitation to pursue the tragedy of the animal death.

Our civilization's basics begin with the agrarian culture as apposed to the nomadic. As soon as Man lays down his roots and starts to build we have what we live within at present but again, it doesn't mean that we are of the hopeless degenerates because we eat animal flesh.

Long, long, long ago, the animal nature fell to a lower state, as rejected by the Human nature, and correspondingly the human being rose and in a real sense we are what we are because of the animal's sacrifice and we thank them by eating them.

This last paragraph relates to Darwinism as Darwin did have an insight of the relationship of the animal to Man but modern ethos has us as being a direct descendant of our uncle apeie but this is foolishness and lugubrious thinking.

In the evolution of the human being He has progressed by "rejecting" the animal nature and rose to higher levels of existence . And so, what is in Man is the entire animal kingdom, in the negative . This means that if you perceive the ant, we have the ant nature within as the rejective negative, in a manner of speaking, likewise the plant and mineral kingdoms. Man has never been, in any consideration, an animal.

With this knowledge the ancient and future healing physician can use the externals of the earthly to heal Man in disjunctive illness, another story but fascinating in the unwritten and barely known.

My conscience remains clear after all these years of eating. Which variable is that in the moralist logic? Are they using advanced reasoning technology to experience my conscience for me?

Of course no other person can experience another's conscience to determine whether or not it is truly clear. Most people are not even fully aware of their own conscience. They think it's clear when really it's not and it's causing them harm. That is what keeps therapists in business. There are layers to the human psyche.

This goes back to the discussion earlier in the thread where veedzz quoted Nietzsche. Veedzz' position was (at least as i understood it) that absolute freedom is freedom from conscience, or the ability to change how we feel about anything. I believe if that were possible it would not make us anymore "free" as we are are bound by cause and effect. This makes it so that we'd still be forced to constantly change how we feel about things.

If you are acting in a way that naturally has a negative effect on conscience then I don't even think it is possible to change it. Maybe it is possible in the case of pure ignorance. For instance, if you ran someone over with your car without realizing it then you might be able to maintain a clear conscience. But even that is questionable as it likely registers somewhere in the subconscious. If you’re intentionally running people over I don’t think you’ll be able to maintain a clear conscience no matter how hard you try. Humans have innate mechanisms to prevent that.

EVEN IF we maintain a clear conscience, that still does not necessarily mean we are acting logically. One way this illogicality occurs is when our values are inconsistent with our other values and actions.

You'll be forced to change how you feel about things for about as long as you decide to be forced. Determinist belief is an excuse for cowardice. It's "the dog ate my homework" version of more refined and sophisticated fools.

No!!! We rationalize it. That makes it ok.

We aren't logical. We have never been logical. We will never be logical. We occasionally do some logic problems, but this isn't one of them.

I agree that we aren't wholly logical. I'm not trying to argue against that claim. I wanted to point out that assuming clear conscience isn't necessarily assuming rationality.

Yet we can work towards becoming more logical to help align our values with our actions.

Can't we have freewill within the framework of cause and effect? That's how i interpreted part of the other Nietzsche quote in this thread posted by Original Position- the one about Causa Sui.

Your view is intriguing. I'm trying to understand but I'm having trouble. Can you give me an example of how you incorporate this into your life? Is it like...I got a flat tire. No problem! I love flat tires!

If you kill and eat an animal or have others do it for you, you are forever bound to the oath to improve the process one day, to create a world that it wont be a sacrifice, it wont be a suffering that creates your food, it will be instead a final victory where you can have it all, ready to move to bigger and better things that are not founded on suffering.

We will have artificial food one day and it will be superior to the real thing and healthier. We owe it to the sacrifices that have already taken place over the rise of this animal in this planet. It is our only redemption.

It's to do with your values. If you consider values, simply, as preference orderings, and your preference for functional tyres is below your preference for flat tyres then your response to a flat tyre may actually be - ohh great, I love flat tyres! Unfortunately though, your preference for flat tyres - as a value - is likely never going to be so strong that you love flat tyres. Values we hold most strongly instead are often likely to be ethical values. These too, are easily changeable; contrary to how viscerally you may feel about some ethical issue or another.

I'm not of the camp that sees determinism as compatible with free will. These ghosts like substituting all things subjective with all things objective, until eventually and absurdly they define themselves out of existence. An exercise in humility; gone array. You may be lucky enough to meet some of these ghosts right here, and hear their fantastical stories about how unreliable subjective experience is and how you should value sacrifice for the collective ghost town; 3 rocks from the nearest fireball in the void.

Who are you trying to convince with these types of arguments? So we should kill millions of animals each day until 2400 when we can zap create our food like they do in Star Trek?

And stop calling eating meat a sacrifice. Having an animal die for 15 minutes of your pleasure is no more a sacrifice than seeing your sister get date raped. Why don't we excuse all barbaric behavior by quoting Nietzsche?

I was just like you guys one day. I knew it was wrong to eat meat, yet I did it anyway for years until I stopped, spewing pseudo intellectual nonsense because it made me feel better about what I was doing.

Hey stop it, you have now officially become the definition of the reason Trump got elected and we are in this bs mess. Hysterical positions.

I have no sister but f u for real for this idiotic example.

2400 is an eternity way. The problem will be solved very soon within this century.

It is a sacrifice for a greater cause indeed when done properly and a vicious bad practice that is unethical when done badly. Me living another day is more important than a chicken or a fish. I eat mostly vegetarian diet and fish and chicken a few times here and there and more rarely pork and beef meat. And i do not eat a chicken per week or anything like that. I do not eat fast food more than 1 time per two years or something.


Fish will be eaten by other fish anyway, whats your problem that we are the ones to do it instead? The only problem is doing it right and not torturing them in the process of their cycle. That has nothing to do with whether its ok to eat them, its about stupid money culture and its priorities.

How can you compare the suffering of a higher animal with some that are totally clueless about what is going on. Yes i am sure a chicken or a fish or shrimp understands poetry too , theoretical physics and mathematics and designs plans for the next week. And what the hell is this comparison with slaves? How can it ever be argued this way when it would have always been obvious to a reasonable ethical, scientifically minded person that abusing others and removing their freedoms is not an ok thing that is not a big problem. Any decent person would have always been against the suffering of other humans that way.


Those that fight for vegetarianism so ferociously to the point to think the others are all unethical or whatever you want to add there, are totally dead wrong in the head and hysterical even at times. Almost like religious zealots.

Yes congratulations you will live 0.5 years more because you do not eat a few eggs, milk, cheese and fish and chicken a few days per year. You probably will live more because you do not overdo the meat consumption not because you do not eat anything at all. You cannot seriously believe that completely banning animal protein is going to give one such huge edge vs say 1 in 7 or 4 days. Only vs those that overdo it and focus also on processed meat etc. But then there is something like quality of life too. I can go on for a while with plant food and i can have 90% of the daily food being that but it is way better when you combine also some animal products in reasonable balance in the other 10%.

It is absolutely more important to enjoy your food and life and not have to spend endless hours preparing it by the way or enslaving others to do it for you because of such huge restrictions in diet. That gives me time to learn things, study things, research things and yes create the future i am describing about all the time with my victories where it counts. So yes i will eventually put to greater cause these sacrifices that helped me live better and easier. Plus it is not a sacrifice if done right either.

People that have a problem with milk, cheese and eggs for "ethical reasons" are super morons by the way. Your problem should be with money culture practices not the food itself. The hens will have an egg every day or two anyway without suffering anything and if you take care of animals properly the secondary products from them are not causing any harm to them at all. And lets not go back again to fish and how ridiculous it is to let them be eaten by other fish at a different type of equilibrium (eg higher populations of the top predators) that if properly done wont impact the planet either badly.

The argument that animals eat each other therefore it's okay for us to do likewise has always struck me as ridiculous. Why should we take our moral cue from what animals do?

If framed that way yes its ridiculous. We do not take a moral cue from animals, we are an animal! We eat both plants and animals. The argument with fish is that the fish will be eaten anyway in a horribly violent manner so what is the point to think its unethical to eat it after it has lived a reasonable long life. By not eating it you reduce resources from you in order for another predator to have higher populations in a new different equilibrium. Why is that a superior outcome? Over consumption and over fishing is another issue. The problem is not essentially the eating of meat or fish. The problem is the rate some people do it and the way the industry works and the extremes we take to consume so much beyond our needs with money as the main criterion.

We should modify our practices in food industry so that animals in the food chain are treated much better. It is absolutely not unethical to eat them if they do not have a higher planned life and are not tortured at death or during life. Every day is the same for them. Additive repetitive days add exactly what that is so precious?

I see absolutely no essential loss if 1 in 1 trillion animals that do not even begin to understand what is going on beyond some basic survival daily routine dies in its sleep without stress after it has lived a few good years. A loss of a human in contrast is a tremendous complexity loss.

I do have a problem with meat industry practices. The solution is not to not eat it. Others will. You cannot change the world this way with such overpopulation. It's to eat it efficiently and use it to have more energy and desire to change the world with better choices, ideas and efforts.

This is not unethical. It is supremely more ethical to have a higher intellect animal work out the future designs and execution of a world that will have far less suffering and even more life across the universe.

I do believe a better designed diet that is minimizing meat protein to optimal levels is the proper solution not a strict religiously executed vegetarianism. All this absolute permanent rejection of good food groups to the point of hysteria are disturbing because this is not how a rational person operates, this is how zealots operate while obsessed with an unexamined doctrine. It shows an excessive obsession with unimportant things in my opinion.

It is true that a sensible balance in diet is the best solution not a complete banning of things that can be shown are not the result of suffering.

Where is the unethical action in killing (properly without some violent action if we can do it fast or with loss of consciousness first) a salmon before it has its eggs deposited (then it dies immediately anyway and the others you do not kill will maintain the species numbers) or eating eggs or cheese or milk that was produced under more appropriate farming conditions?

My point is that strict vegetarians show an irrational repulsion towards even animal protein that can be shown to be not at all unethical to obtain since the alternative still leads to death anyway or no suffering. Ie fish that will be eaten are dead anyway, eggs will be produced by hens anyway and milk exists in some animals beyond needed levels due to genetic modification of their properties over the centuries. If something statistically will die anyway its best to be consumed by a higher complexity animal. There is nothing unethical here unless you take the fish and put it to live in another sea that has no predators but then it will be the predator to others there because this is how life cycles work.

But what does this mean?

I would say that humans are capable of being horribly violent but that animals are not. Also, what sense does it make to speak of a fish experiencing horrible violence?

Political extremes exist on all sides. But I'm pretty the two-party system, the electoral college and external influences had a bigger role than a few extreme right-wing groups.

That was not the point, nor do I care

I agree, but you will not die or be malnutritioned going on a total vegetarian diet.

You are creating more unnecessary pain and suffering. You don't think there's a difference between human and other animals, i.e. superior ability to empathize and understand suffering, and the ability to digest planet based food?

You have bigger issues in life if you feel you'll suffer by giving up meat.

Just like any decent person today would be against the millions of unnecessary deaths of animals everyday, right?

There are at least two meat eaters in this thread who have admitted that eating meat is immoral. Also, if you didn't think there was anything wrong with it, you woudn't be calling it a "sacrifice" in literally every one of your posts.

I'm not the one (mis-) quoting philosphers and texts to justify my position.

Personally, I don't do it for the health reasons, but I'll welcome any additional benefits. And I'm not a vegan.

Why does vegetarian food take endless hours and eating meat doesn't? Personally, I microwave all of my food in minutes.

And learn to say more with less words.

For who?

If he actually enjoys the taste of steak then he's creating the opposite of pain and suffering.

We do align our values with our actions. That is what rationalization is. Given sufficient time and effort (no more than 3 minutes if the questions about my values are difficult and I put the same attention to the problem as I do when I'm listening to my wife talk about her day at work that is invariably the same as every other day she ever has at work), I can align eating a nice country ham with my values.

Foie gras takes no time at all. I've met ducks and geese. They have it coming to them. "But it makes them uncomfortable!" "Good. They are *******s."

Same can be asked about kidnappers who lock up their victims in their dungeons.

But the right question isn't "For who?", rather "Until (if) when?" And it's until you develop a mild emotional discomfort while chewing meat that it overcomes whatever was gained by taste and convenience.

You equating human suffering with animal suffering? Like comparing apples with apples yea?

If and when I develop an emotional discomfort from eating meat, then I'll stop eating meat. But this is different from saying that i should develop that discomfort. I don't see it happening, I love cooking and I love variety.

Why Are Geese Such A$$holes?
https://www.thedodo.com/goose-attack...778903851.html






Still laughing at the quoted and mine lol


Ps: I used my brakes hard to save a rabbit that ran into my car's path tonight (no humans behind me) . He made it! He didnt have it coming unlike ducks and geese, don't forget some crows, squirrels and pigeons too lol! How's that for having your ethics straitened out!

I try to rescue lizards from the cats when I can, but they are fast. I guess it's the skinks fault for resembling snakes? They don't play with them like the occasional mouse that makes it in, they strike fast and hard to kill.