No more meat?

[Poorisolation]

Did you mean something like this?

More like this.

I think we were both discussing exactly what you meant by grown and there is no evidence at this time that the process will be economically more efficient than capturing the so far unpriced energy from the sun in plants like grass and then feeding them to animals. Then you will need to price in the costs of collecting the raw materials that are required to form meat which in traditional husbandry is down by the foraged plants for free. True you might make up some costs in being able to focus purely on the meat parts of the animals but then you might well lose out on the loss of animal by-products.

[Mavorpen]

Fair enough. I would happily be a vegetarian if meat didn't taste so nice to me, but it does.

I think it tastes disgusting by itself. It all depends on how you prepare it, with me. Regardless, I always laugh when people say they like the taste of meat too much to become vegetarians. I have two problems. The first being is they usually have never tried any of the high quality vegetarian food. The second is it's akin to saying, "I would happily release my slaves if I didn't enjoy making a profit off of them, but I do."

[Terruana]

Fair enough. I would happily be a vegetarian if meat didn't taste so nice to me, but it does.

I think it tastes disgusting by itself. It all depends on how you prepare it, with me. Regardless, I always laugh when people say they like the taste of meat too much to become vegetarians. I have two problems. The first being is they usually have never tried any of the high quality vegetarian food. The second is it's akin to saying, "I would happily release my slaves if I didn't enjoy making a profit off of them, but I do."

I don't buy into the "it's immoral to eat meat" argument. I mean, in comparison what's worse? A few million farm animals a year being raised and killed specifically to sustain humans, without affecting the overall population much because we breed so many, or wiping out rainforests, desertifying fertile land and overfishing/polluting the oceans and wiping out entire species at a time?
Okay fine, that poor pig just got killed so people like me can have a bacon sandwich, but almost every vegetable you buy and eat has been grown on farmland which in all probability was probably originally a forest which was destroyed to make room for crops, killing hundreds, thousands, probably millions of animals if you include insects as well. But noone cares about insects dying because they're small and not cute.
I know some people try to argue the opposite, but it is not possible to live as a human being without killing something. If you eat vegetables you're killing weeds and whatever you cleared to make room for your farm, if you eat meat you're killing other animals. Every single resource you use comes at the price of animal lives, whether it's the environmental impact of mining, drilling for oil, farming, cutting down trees, fishing, harvesting plants for clothes, whatever.
Even if one day we advance enough technology wise that we can grow meat without killing anything or produce matter out of energy and not need to mine or deforest or anything, we'll have got there by climbing a mountain of more animal corpses than there are stars in the universe.
Living things evolve to survive off other living things. People say we go against nature by destroying the environment but actually we're being as true to nature as we can be. Destroying other species to benefit our own is what every successful organism ever has done.
It is both hypocritical and pointless to judge each other for what we do to other living things. Vegetarians, you might not be killing those poor farm animals, but if you live in a house, you've killed millions of animals and millions of plants. Same if you live in a caravan, a tent, an apartment, even under a bridge in a cardboard box. If you eat, you've killed something. Doesn't matter what you eat, if it gives you any nutritional value at all, something has had to die for you. Driving a car, you've not only already killed millions of animals, you're actively contributing to the deaths of entire species by polluting the atmosphere. Reading a book has killed hundreds of trees, plants and insects. Using a computer to read this, you've killed thousands, and are still indirectly contributing to the destruction of species. Hell, drinking water out of a tap means you've killed whatever died to make room for the materials for the pipes and infrastructure which cleans and distributes it.
You can argue over semantics about minimising the pain we cause to animals but let's face it, nobody cares enough to minimise the pain we cause to all animals. We just reduce the pain we cause to some which we find cute, or in such a way that we can feel better about all the pain we cause other animals instead.
Rather than sit around judging each other for who causes the most pain to other living things, how about you do something productive like go work on nuclear fusion or genetics in the hope we can eventually reach a state where no MORE things need to die for us.
Or you can realise nobody really gives a shit because we've evolved to survive even at the cost of other species and continue to go about your daily lives in the knowledge that if you really cared about animals more than yourself you'd just jump off a cliff. Buying free range eggs or being a vegetarian might make you feel good about yourself but you're still killing millions of living things and wiping out entire species. We're all committing genocide, me writing this and you reading it. I just don't pretend that I'm not hurting animals by refusing to eat something which we have evolved specifically to eat as part of our diets

[Occupied Deutschland]

Fair enough. I would happily be a vegetarian if meat didn't taste so nice to me, but it does.

I think it tastes disgusting by itself. It all depends on how you prepare it, with me. Regardless, I always laugh when people say they like the taste of meat too much to become vegetarians. I have two problems. The first being is they usually have never tried any of the high quality vegetarian food. The second is it's akin to saying, "I would happily release my slaves if I didn't enjoy making a profit off of them, but I do."

I've tried high-quality vegetarian food.
It actually tasted pretty good. I can't afford it. I can afford meat and even cheap meat tastes good.

And would it be possible to refrain from comparing people who eat meat to slave-owners? I think the difference in the degree of any immorality in the two acts (even assuming that eating meat IS in fact immoral) entitles me to that much at least.

Edit: Humorous reference to the above post

[Costa Alegria]

I dearly hope they don't follow on from each other.

It'd probably taste more like jerky anyway.

I didn't do what I just think I did, did I?

[PapaJacky]

Desalination tech's been around for decades, if not centuries. The problem is that it costs a lot and you need a lot of power for it. The second problem is that power plants also need huge amounts of water to operate. In fact, 50% of U.S. fresh water usage was from power plants. Cutting down on meat consumption's important, but so is the pursuit of renewable energy.

[The Doofishatropolis of Doofishistan]

Every vegetarian and vegan in the world is sitting back and laughing cruelly at you right now. Or at least one is. Eh, close enough.

I know i am!

jk

[Mavorpen]

How in the world did you type this so fast?

I don't buy into the "it's immoral to eat meat" argument. I mean, in comparison what's worse? A few million farm animals slaves a year being raised and killed forced to work specifically to sustainhumans white people, without affecting the overall population much because we breed so many, or wiping out rainforests, desertifying fertile land and overfishing/polluting the oceans and wiping out entire species at a time?

You wouldn't enforce this argument with humans, why with other species?

Okay fine, that poor pig just got killed so people like me can have a bacon sandwich, but almost every vegetable you buy and eat has been grown on farmland which in all probability was probably originally a forest which was destroyed to make room for crops, killing hundreds, thousands, probably millions of animals if you include insects as well. But noone cares about insects dying because they're small and not cute.

No shit. What does this have to do with meat being immoral? Absolutely nothing. This fallacy that somehow because the alternative also leads to deaths, meat is magically moral. That's not how it works, at all. Yes, deforestation would still have happened. But we would only need 25% of the land we use for livestock. The reason insects aren't a main concern is not because they're small, or they're not cute, but because insofar, we have yet to note them having any significant amount of pain capabilities.

I know some people try to argue the opposite, but it is not possible to live as a human being without killing something. If you eat vegetables you're killing weeds and whatever you cleared to make room for your farm, if you eat meat you're killing other animals. Every single resource you use comes at the price of animal lives, whether it's the environmental impact of mining, drilling for oil, farming, cutting down trees, fishing, harvesting plants for clothes, whatever.

Dear gods, enough with the misrepresentation of our stance. No one is arguing that it is possible to live without killing something. Any sensible person acknowledges this, even a Jain, whom are forbidden from eating root based vegetables. And again, I don't care what we have done in the past. I care about what we are doing now and the future. Drilling and mining is in the past, let's work towards better alternatives. Unsustainable farming is in the past, let's work towards making it sustainable. Deforestation is in the past, let's work towards slowing it down significantly or stopping. Unsustainable fishing is in the past, but we should be working to making it sustainable. The notion that because we have done bad things, therefore it's okay to continue doing them is completely asinine. Not only this, but you're completely ignoring the fact that most people, researchers, etc. do not advocate for the reduction of consumption of meat because they want to "save the planet" or "it's evil!" but because it is directly harming humanity as well.

Even if one day we advance enough technology wise that we can grow meat without killing anything or produce matter out of energy and not need to mine or deforest or anything, we'll have got there by climbing a mountain of more animal corpses than there are stars in the universe.

Again, who gives a shit? Seriously, stop with this logical nonsense of saying that because there will be costs, we shouldn't advance and go past the point where suffering is reduced significantly.

Living things evolve to survive off other living things. People say we go against nature by destroying the environment but actually we're being as true to nature as we can be. Destroying other species to benefit our own is what every successful organism ever has done.

What? Now you're using the hilariously asinine "it's natural!" argument? Please tell me you are joking. Let's use your logic, though: Rape in order to reproduce has been done by other successful organisms. Therefore rape is suddenly moral? The "other species do it" argument is unfathomably devoid of any logic whatsoever. It's akin to saying, "Well, Nazis killed millions of Jews, and Jews has been persecuted for centuries. So, it should be fine."

It is both hypocritical and pointless to judge each other for what we do to other living things. Vegetarians, you might not be killing those poor farm animals, but if you live in a house, you've killed millions of animals and millions of plants. Same if you live in a caravan, a tent, an apartment, even under a bridge in a cardboard box. If you eat, you've killed something. Doesn't matter what you eat, if it gives you any nutritional value at all, something has had to die for you. Driving a car, you've not only already killed millions of animals, you're actively contributing to the deaths of entire species by polluting the atmosphere. Reading a book has killed hundreds of trees, plants and insects. Using a computer to read this, you've killed thousands, and are still indirectly contributing to the destruction of species. Hell, drinking water out of a tap means you've killed whatever died to make room for the materials for the pipes and infrastructure which cleans and distributes it.

Except you're entire argument is based on this huge straw man you've constructed. You don't understand our argument, why are you bothering debating at all? Vegetarians do not say that we can live without killing things. No one does, not even pacifists. Stop with the completely asinine straw men.

You can argue over semantics about minimising the pain we cause to animals but let's face it, nobody cares enough to minimise the pain we cause to all animals. We just reduce the pain we cause to some which we find cute, or in such a way that we can feel better about all the pain we cause other animals instead.
Rather than sit around judging each other for who causes the most pain to other living things, how about you do something productive like go work on nuclear fusion or genetics in the hope we can eventually reach a state where no MORE things need to die for us.

I can't tell you how much I facepalmed. At one point "nobody" cared about throwing away slavery. Those that did obviously just wanted to get more support for their political party. Also, I don't care if people do it because animals are cute. I don't care if they do it to make themselves feel better. As long as the right thing is done, I don't care.
And please, you can just stop talking if you're going to make useless generalizations such as the one you just made. No one is "sitting around judging each other." This is a debate forum. We choose to debate in our free time. And for the record, I am studying to work in the sciences and innovate so less suffering is brought about. So please, shut up and stop pretending like you know me.

Or you can realise nobody really gives a shit because we've evolved to survive even at the cost of other species and continue to go about your daily lives in the knowledge that if you really cared about animals more than yourself you'd just jump off a cliff.

This point is just plain stupid, and isn't even an argument. "All the white people who wants blacks to have equal rights should just move out of the country, or kill themselves in regret!"

Buying free range eggs or being a vegetarian might make you feel good about yourself but you're still killing millions of living things and wiping out entire species. We're all committing genocide, me writing this and you reading it. I just don't pretend that I'm not hurting animals by refusing to eat something which we have evolved specifically to eat as part of our diets

No, it doesn't make me feel good about myself. I'm aware I'm a part of the problem. Hence why I'm trying to get to the point where I can do something. You're argument is completely hypocritical. You said we should just jump off a cliff, but what would that accomplish? You said it yourself, the majority of people wouldn't change. The best I can do is continue to live, continue to use resources to get to the point where I can be influential and improve the world as much as I can. I'm also not pretending I'm not hurting animals. Nowhere have I said that. We've evolved to eat nothing as a part of our diet. We've evolved to obtain certain nutrients, and some food just happens to contain varying amounts of it. Now that we have the technology to bypass that requirement, there is no need to eat meat. I'll say this last thing:

Take your condescending, straw-man, and asinine arguments out of here. Stop pretending you know who I am. Stop putting words in my mouth. Stop pretending you're more moral than me because you embrace the fact you kill things.

[Mavorpen]

I've tried high-quality vegetarian food.
It actually tasted pretty good. I can't afford it. I can afford meat and in my opinion even cheap meat tastes good.

Fixed.

And would it be possible to refrain from comparing people who eat meat to slave-owners? I think the difference in the degree of any immorality in the two acts (even assuming that eating meat IS in fact immoral) entitles me to that much at least.

No.

[Terruana]

How in the world did you type this so fast?

I don't buy into the "it's immoral to eat meat" argument. I mean, in comparison what's worse? A few million farm animals slaves a year being raised and killed forced to work specifically to sustainhumans white people, without affecting the overall population much because we breed so many, or wiping out rainforests, desertifying fertile land and overfishing/polluting the oceans and wiping out entire species at a time?

You wouldn't enforce this argument with humans, why with other species?

Okay fine, that poor pig just got killed so people like me can have a bacon sandwich, but almost every vegetable you buy and eat has been grown on farmland which in all probability was probably originally a forest which was destroyed to make room for crops, killing hundreds, thousands, probably millions of animals if you include insects as well. But noone cares about insects dying because they're small and not cute.

No shit. What does this have to do with meat being immoral? Absolutely nothing. This fallacy that somehow because the alternative also leads to deaths, meat is magically moral. That's not how it works, at all. Yes, deforestation would still have happened. But we would only need 25% of the land we use for livestock. The reason insects aren't a main concern is not because they're small, or they're not cute, but because insofar, we have yet to note them having any significant amount of pain capabilities.

I know some people try to argue the opposite, but it is not possible to live as a human being without killing something. If you eat vegetables you're killing weeds and whatever you cleared to make room for your farm, if you eat meat you're killing other animals. Every single resource you use comes at the price of animal lives, whether it's the environmental impact of mining, drilling for oil, farming, cutting down trees, fishing, harvesting plants for clothes, whatever.

Dear gods, enough with the misrepresentation of our stance. No one is arguing that it is possible to live without killing something. Any sensible person acknowledges this, even a Jain, whom are forbidden from eating root based vegetables. And again, I don't care what we have done in the past. I care about what we are doing now and the future. Drilling and mining is in the past, let's work towards better alternatives. Unsustainable farming is in the past, let's work towards making it sustainable. Deforestation is in the past, let's work towards slowing it down significantly or stopping. Unsustainable fishing is in the past, but we should be working to making it sustainable. The notion that because we have done bad things, therefore it's okay to continue doing them is completely asinine. Not only this, but you're completely ignoring the fact that most people, researchers, etc. do not advocate for the reduction of consumption of meat because they want to "save the planet" or "it's evil!" but because it is directly harming humanity as well.

Even if one day we advance enough technology wise that we can grow meat without killing anything or produce matter out of energy and not need to mine or deforest or anything, we'll have got there by climbing a mountain of more animal corpses than there are stars in the universe.

Again, who gives a shit? Seriously, stop with this logical nonsense of saying that because there will be costs, we shouldn't advance and go past the point where suffering is reduced significantly.

Living things evolve to survive off other living things. People say we go against nature by destroying the environment but actually we're being as true to nature as we can be. Destroying other species to benefit our own is what every successful organism ever has done.

What? Now you're using the hilariously asinine "it's natural!" argument? Please tell me you are joking. Let's use your logic, though: Rape in order to reproduce has been done by other successful organisms. Therefore rape is suddenly moral? The "other species do it" argument is unfathomably devoid of any logic whatsoever. It's akin to saying, "Well, Nazis killed millions of Jews, and Jews has been persecuted for centuries. So, it should be fine."

It is both hypocritical and pointless to judge each other for what we do to other living things. Vegetarians, you might not be killing those poor farm animals, but if you live in a house, you've killed millions of animals and millions of plants. Same if you live in a caravan, a tent, an apartment, even under a bridge in a cardboard box. If you eat, you've killed something. Doesn't matter what you eat, if it gives you any nutritional value at all, something has had to die for you. Driving a car, you've not only already killed millions of animals, you're actively contributing to the deaths of entire species by polluting the atmosphere. Reading a book has killed hundreds of trees, plants and insects. Using a computer to read this, you've killed thousands, and are still indirectly contributing to the destruction of species. Hell, drinking water out of a tap means you've killed whatever died to make room for the materials for the pipes and infrastructure which cleans and distributes it.

Except you're entire argument is based on this huge straw man you've constructed. You don't understand our argument, why are you bothering debating at all? Vegetarians do not say that we can live without killing things. No one does, not even pacifists. Stop with the completely asinine straw men.

You can argue over semantics about minimising the pain we cause to animals but let's face it, nobody cares enough to minimise the pain we cause to all animals. We just reduce the pain we cause to some which we find cute, or in such a way that we can feel better about all the pain we cause other animals instead.
Rather than sit around judging each other for who causes the most pain to other living things, how about you do something productive like go work on nuclear fusion or genetics in the hope we can eventually reach a state where no MORE things need to die for us.

I can't tell you how much I facepalmed. At one point "nobody" cared about throwing away slavery. Those that did obviously just wanted to get more support for their political party. Also, I don't care if people do it because animals are cute. I don't care if they do it to make themselves feel better. As long as the right thing is done, I don't care.
And please, you can just stop talking if you're going to make useless generalizations such as the one you just made. No one is "sitting around judging each other." This is a debate forum. We choose to debate in our free time. And for the record, I am studying to work in the sciences and innovate so less suffering is brought about. So please, shut up and stop pretending like you know me.

Or you can realise nobody really gives a shit because we've evolved to survive even at the cost of other species and continue to go about your daily lives in the knowledge that if you really cared about animals more than yourself you'd just jump off a cliff.

This point is just plain stupid, and isn't even an argument. "All the white people who wants blacks to have equal rights should just move out of the country, or kill themselves in regret!"

Buying free range eggs or being a vegetarian might make you feel good about yourself but you're still killing millions of living things and wiping out entire species. We're all committing genocide, me writing this and you reading it. I just don't pretend that I'm not hurting animals by refusing to eat something which we have evolved specifically to eat as part of our diets

No, it doesn't make me feel good about myself. I'm aware I'm a part of the problem. Hence why I'm trying to get to the point where I can do something. You're argument is completely hypocritical. You said we should just jump off a cliff, but what would that accomplish? You said it yourself, the majority of people wouldn't change. The best I can do is continue to live, continue to use resources to get to the point where I can be influential and improve the world as much as I can. I'm also not pretending I'm not hurting animals. Nowhere have I said that. We've evolved to eat nothing as a part of our diet. We've evolved to obtain certain nutrients, and some food just happens to contain varying amounts of it. Now that we have the technology to bypass that requirement, there is no need to eat meat. I'll say this last thing:

Take your condescending, straw-man, and asinine arguments out of here. Stop pretending you know who I am. Stop putting words in my mouth. Stop pretending you're more moral than me because you embrace the fact you kill things.

Sorry, but you were the one who likened eating meat to keeping slaves. If anyone's guilty of making strawmen, it's you. If you want to ignore everything I've said and pretend like you still have the moral high ground, go ahead. I don't care enough to argue. But I do not, and will never, agree with you that eating meat is somehow immoral because the animals the meat is made from have to die for me to eat it.

[PapaJacky]

The fine line between "animal of service" and "slave" is self-awareness and other higher emotional functions. There are not many concrete tests to prove such, but one of the more prolific ones is the mirror test, where the subject has a sticker on their face where they can't see it without looking at the mirror, and when presented to a mirror, they are observed whether or not they definitively spot the sticker and try to remove it or not. Not many animals have passed variations of this test, but all of those, save one, that have passed the test we, you could say, "expected" them to. Concurrently, all great apes have passed the test, elephants and dolphins and whales have passed the test, and a certain bird species has also passed the test. It has also been shown that toddlers will not pass the test until 18 months of age. The only flaw in using this definition is that toddlers less than 18 months of age would be considered property.

[Mavorpen]

Sorry, but you were the one who likened eating meat to keeping slaves.

No, I said the argument you used was comparable to the argument of a slaveowner. I did not compare the act to slavery.

If anyone's guilty of making strawmen, it's you.

Not at all.

If you want to ignore everything I've said and pretend like you still have the moral high ground, go ahead. I don't care enough to argue. But I do not, and will never, agree with you that eating meat is somehow immoral because the animals the meat is made from have to die for me to eat it.

How did I ignore what you said? I addressed everything. I addressed everyone of your straw men and your condescending arguments.


I don't care enough to argue. But I do not, and will never, agree with you that slavery is somehow immoral because the black people the labor is taken from have to be owned like property for me to make profit.

NOW I compared it to slavery.

[Gideus]

Laugh cruelly. It's more fun.

We'll need to get the poor guys better veggieburgers that feel and taste even more like meat than now. At least it's hard to notice the difference, and they're still pretty tasty.

Roo(may I call you Roo?), have you ever had the Vegan/Veggie Masala burgers? They are fucking amazing.

I myself am not vegan or vegetarian but my father and stepmom are vegan and vegetarian(in that order) and I usually go for weeks at a time without meat. I could make the jump to an entirely vegetarian diet fairly quickly. It also helps that my girlfriend's only meat that she eats is chicken and occasionally fish.

[Mavorpen]

The fine line between "animal of service" and "slave" is self-awareness and other higher emotional functions. There are not many concrete tests to prove such, but one of the more prolific ones is the mirror test, where the subject has a sticker on their face where they can't see it without looking at the mirror, and when presented to a mirror, they are observed whether or not they definitively spot the sticker and try to remove it or not. Not many animals have passed variations of this test, but all of those, save one, that have passed the test we, you could say, "expected" them to. Concurrently, all great apes have passed the test, elephants and dolphins and whales have passed the test, and a certain bird species has also passed the test. It has also been shown that toddlers will not pass the test until 18 months of age. The only flaw in using this definition is that toddlers less than 18 months of age would be considered property.

First of all, higher emotional functions has nothing to do with the mirror test, and every animal we slaughter for consumption has higher emotional functions. Second of all, the mirror test is extremely flawed and puts out false negatives all the time. Third, self-awareness has nothing to do with morality.

[Mavorpen]

We'll need to get the poor guys better veggieburgers that feel and taste even more like meat than now. At least it's hard to notice the difference, and they're still pretty tasty.

Roo(may I call you Roo?), have you ever had the Vegan/Veggie Masala burgers? They are fucking amazing.

I myself am not vegan or vegetarian but my father and stepmom are vegan and vegetarian(in that order) and I usually go for weeks at a time without meat. I could make the jump to an entirely vegetarian diet fairly quickly. It also helps that my girlfriend's only meat that she eats is chicken and occasionally fish.

Have you tried Tofurkey vegan pizza? I absolutely love it.

[PapaJacky]

The fine line between "animal of service" and "slave" is self-awareness and other higher emotional functions. There are not many concrete tests to prove such, but one of the more prolific ones is the mirror test, where the subject has a sticker on their face where they can't see it without looking at the mirror, and when presented to a mirror, they are observed whether or not they definitively spot the sticker and try to remove it or not. Not many animals have passed variations of this test, but all of those, save one, that have passed the test we, you could say, "expected" them to. Concurrently, all great apes have passed the test, elephants and dolphins and whales have passed the test, and a certain bird species has also passed the test. It has also been shown that toddlers will not pass the test until 18 months of age. The only flaw in using this definition is that toddlers less than 18 months of age would be considered property.

First of all, higher emotional functions has nothing to do with the mirror test, and every animal we slaughter for consumption has higher emotional functions. Second of all, the mirror test is extremely flawed and puts out false negatives all the time. Third, self-awareness has nothing to do with morality.

Self-awareness indeed, does. This argument will lead to the argument of whether or not the slaughter of vegetation is morally sound or not. The difference between a vegetable and a cow is in the cow's emotional abilities, while the difference between a cow and a human is in our self-awareness abilities, like you corrected me on. Thus, I see no moral reason not to slaughter non-self-aware animals.

[Ende]

Veggie burgers actually taste surprisingly close to real meat.

If they managed to eliminate the meat industry, I probably wouldn't mind. I'm not a vegetarian or vegan myself, but I don't eat a lot of meat.

Plus, hamburgers might be able to be grown fairly soon, and that would be fantastic.

[Czechanada]

Food corporations are still hoarding vast amounts of the world's food supply, so this won't be a n immediate issue.

[Mavorpen]

Self-awareness indeed, does. This argument will lead to the argument of whether or not the slaughter of vegetation is morally sound or not. The difference between a vegetable and a cow is in the cow's emotional abilities, while the difference between a cow and a human is in our self-awareness abilities, like you corrected me on. Thus, I see no moral reason not to slaughter non-self-aware animals.

Oh my...

Look, there's a fundamental issue with what you just did. You create standards that allow you to not bear responsibility for your actions. I can just as easily use your logic to defend atrocities.

The difference between white people and black people is white people conquered much of the world.
The difference between Jews and Nazis are that Jews are inferior and Nazis have power.
The difference between mentally handicapped individuals and normal people is that normal people have more intelligence.

Therefore, slaughtering black people, Jews, and mentally handicapped people is morally right.

Differences exist everywhere. Focusing on differences and using them to defend atrocities does not make them morally permissible.

[PapaJacky]

Self-awareness indeed, does. This argument will lead to the argument of whether or not the slaughter of vegetation is morally sound or not. The difference between a vegetable and a cow is in the cow's emotional abilities, while the difference between a cow and a human is in our self-awareness abilities, like you corrected me on. Thus, I see no moral reason not to slaughter non-self-aware animals.

Oh my...

Look, there's a fundamental issue with what you just did. You create standards that allow you to not bear responsibility for your actions. I can just as easily use your logic to defend atrocities.

The difference between white people and black people is white people conquered much of the world.
The difference between Jews and Nazis are that Jews are inferior and Nazis have power.
The difference between mentally handicapped individuals and normal people is that normal people have more intelligence.

Therefore, slaughtering black people, Jews, and mentally handicapped people is morally right.

Differences exist everywhere. Focusing on differences and using them to defend atrocities does not make them morally permissible.

These are not atrocities. As living animals we require sustenance, and we can, right now, get that sustenance from either vegetation or other living animals. That's clearly something everyone understands. Whether or not you "murder" a carrot or "murder" a cow does not change the fact that us humans do need to eat that to survive. The fallacy in assuming that categorizing life by sentience will lead to genocide is an absurd statement that was probably only used to rustle some emotions. Remember that categorizing life by sentience is used in legal contexts already (there's a whole debate on that too). Either way, we need meat to survive, whether it's slaughtered from an animal or whether it's grown in a lab.

[Norsklow]

Show me the mos underlying your morality. Unless you do, morality is just another empty word.
Show me the ethos underlying your Ethics. Until you do, an empty word.
Show me the ius under your justice justice. Until you do, an empty word.

And even when you have done so, prove to me that YOUR mos, YOUR ethos, and YOUR ius are somehow, my problem.

[Mavorpen]

These are not atrocities. As living animals we require sustenance, and we can, right now, get that sustenance from either vegetation or other living animals. That's clearly something everyone understands.

Of course.

Whether or not you "murder" a carrot or "murder" a cow does not change the fact that us humans do need to eat that to survive.

Uh? Slavery does not change the fact that humans do need labor to run the economy.

The fallacy in assuming that categorizing life by sentience will lead to genocide is an absurd statement that was probably only used to rustle some emotions. Remember that categorizing life by sentience is used in legal contexts already (there's a whole debate on that too). Either way, we need meat to survive, whether it's slaughtered from an animal or whether it's grown in a lab.

No. Categorizing life by sentience does not take place in any real academic setting. It is categorized by something called biological classification and goes as follows:

I don't care about how it is categorized in a legal context. Besides, you're going to need to be specific. I assume you mean abortion. Regardless, it is still illegal to kill mentally handicapped individuals unless in self defense, so obviously sentience means shit in legality.

[PapaJacky]

Whether or not you "murder" a carrot or "murder" a cow does not change the fact that us humans do need to eat that to survive.

Uh? Slavery does not change the fact that humans do need labor to run the economy.

Non sequitur. There's an obvious difference between pure survival needs and constructed survival needs.

The fallacy in assuming that categorizing life by sentience will lead to genocide is an absurd statement that was probably only used to rustle some emotions. Remember that categorizing life by sentience is used in legal contexts already (there's a whole debate on that too). Either way, we need meat to survive, whether it's slaughtered from an animal or whether it's grown in a lab.

No. Categorizing life by sentience does not take place in any real academic setting. It is categorized by something called biological classification and goes as follows:

(Image)

You're thinking of biological classifications. We're discussing consciousness classifications.

I don't care about how it is categorized in a legal context. Besides, you're going to need to be specific. I assume you mean abortion. Regardless, it is still illegal to kill mentally handicapped individuals unless in self defense, so obviously sentience means shit in legality.

No, I'm talking about brain-dead individuals. They are for all intents and purposes, a vegetable.

[Norsklow]

careI don't about how it is categorized in a legal context. Besides, you're going to need to be specific. I assume you mean abortion. Regardless, it is still illegal to kill mentally handicapped individuals unless in self defense, so obviously sentience means shit in legality.

Why would anybody give a

shit

or

care

about the arguments of someone with such an atrocious concept of civility?

[Mavorpen]

Non sequitur. There's an obvious difference between pure survival needs and constructed survival needs.

No, there really isn't. If the constructed survival needs becomes the new environment in which the species is subject to, it becomes a part of its pure survival needs. The new environment affects the actual need of said "pure" needs as well. For example, if you cannot afford food due to money (a constructed object), then it affects your pure survival needs. And if you live in a third world country and can afford to choose options that reduce the amount of suffering through not eating meat, then there is no "pure survival need" to actually eat meat.

You're thinking of biological classifications. We're discussing consciousness classifications.

We are? Why? Consciousness classifications again, hold no weight in morality. Arguing otherwise allows for us to begin arguing whether killing newborns simply because they are not conscious for food is perfectly moral.

No, I'm talking about brain-dead individuals. They are for all intents and purposes, a vegetable.

And yet, they are still protected. It goes to the immediate family, and they choose whether said person should be taken off of life support. Also, this is a false equivalency, since animals are not brain dead, and the ones we slaughter have feelings.