This Makes Me Sad.

[Fkeu'itan]

Ok, i'd just like to cut in here and say this...

To all the people esentially saying "The Na'vi eat meat, why don't you?", the difference is, the meat the Na'vi consume is completely free and wild. The animal does as it pleases before it is killed. It is not, as in out world, raised for the sole purpose of being eaten in a warehouse somewhere and then slaughtered by machines.

[Sovereign]

Well, as I predicted earlier in this thread, we've hit an impasse of sorts. It boils down to "I think what you're doing is wrong and wasteful" (argument on moral and economic grounds against eating meat) vs. "I don't agree with your interpretation of morals" and even the more ideological "Don't tell me how to live my life if what I'm doing isn't hurting you."

While these words have not been posted (except for what I just said), that's the general vibe I'm getting.

In terms of debates I've seen, meat-eating is very much like abortion in that people get entrenched. They sometimes judge each other, throw around nasty pictures (of aborted fetuses, mangled women, suffering animals) and in general let emotion trump logic. Emotion has a place (as do morals) but once they lead to personal attacks (which I think some people might be feeling it has, even though no direct accusations have been made) things get ugly.

I will reiterate: I think raising animals purely for food purposes is morally permissible. What bothers me is mass-production factory systems where animals grown up in filthy conditions, not the actual creation of animals for food. At this point, that view will not change even if it brings condescension, judgment or even outright accusations that I'm a despicable human being.

I also believe that the "murder and rape" accusation (while offensive to some) is just as logically flawed as the argument it seeks to refute, for the following reason: Murder and rape are (im)moral decisions. Animals do not possess the premeditation (as far as we know) to commit acts like this. The argument that animals have no sense of morality, but humans do and therefore humans should hold themselves to a different standard inherently undermines the assertion that saying "animals eat other animals" argument is equivalent to "animals murder and rape."

I'll concede that it is within the realm of possibility to create a world in which meat becomes unnecessary. At this point, my "let me live my life" reflex kicks in. I'm well-aware that arguing from personal positions is probably the weakest form of argument (cue being accused of saying "murder is my way of life") but that's how I see it.

As to the idea that meat is energy-intensive, I almost have to say "so what?" Energy sources will be found. Traveling-wave reactors have shown promise. A lot of items in this world could be classified as "wasteful." If meat is bad specifically because it uses energy we don't need to use, I envision an entanglement between "You're wasting energy" and "You're trying to take away my luxuries." We don't need a Lexus LS600 to drive from the house to the Wal-Mart, but some people buy them. See the problem? If something is attacked as "wasteful and unnecessary" (meat) I can turn around and say that we don't need game consoles, high-def TVs, super-sports stadiums, video games, movies, music, clothing... The list goes on! In order to live biologically, we need none of those. Defining something as "wasteful" is so subjective because one person's "waste" is another person's "need" or "luxury that you have no right to take away."

I think discussions like this, carried out in this manner, hurt the spirit of these forums. Lets try not to create an "us and them" division in our own backyard.

[Sovereign]

Originally Posted by Shatnerpossum

I think discussions like this, carried out in this manner, hurt the spirit of these forums. Lets try not to create an "us and them" division in our own backyard.

That's the problem though. Discussion of issues that are justified (or not) mostly on moral grounds inevitably creates division.

I have yet to see any moral issue that can be justified solely on logical grounds. Why? Because (assuming mature debaters) everyone disagrees with everyone else's premises. Example in elementary-logic speak:

Assume A.
A -> B
Thus, B, via modus ponens.

Simple enough, right? Wrong. With issues revolving around morals, "A" is usually valid because of a person's particular frame of mind, values and beliefs.

Again, in a mature debate no attacks against the person are lodged. However, disputes on the value of "A" as a premise, by nature, are fired in every direction. Let's look at an example from this thread.

Assume that killing animals for food is wrong. Conclusion: We should not eat meat.

Logically airtight as long as we accept the assumption. However, not everyone accepts that assumption because it is an inherently moral judgment. Thus, we run into a situation of "I reject your assumption" and thus, for the rejecting party, assumption "A" fails to hold, so "B" is not justified via modus ponens. And never mind that in reality there are far more complex premises (both on this issue and others).

Basically, it becomes an endless cycle. The person arguing "A" tries to convince the rejecting party that their rejection of "A" in and of itself is wrong, but that always involves another moral judgment, bringing us back to the original situation with "A."

It's like one of those fun-house mirrors that never ends, hence why while I enjoy these discussions (you never know, someone may say something that changes how you view things), they often go nowhere and can result in hurt feelings.

[zongtseng]

I realize I'm coming into this 49 posts in, and I don't want to debate the merits, simply say what I am doing.

This is one of the major effects Avatar has had on me. I've always had a major problem with how industrial livestock are treated, but I've never been able to do anything about it. I am now in the process of very slowly converting to vegetarian. I am aiming for pescatarian at first. I dropped beef nearly 2 months ago, and have had it once since. It nearly made me sick the one time I did. I have replaced almost everything with fish, violating a pure pescatarian diet maybe twice a week now.

I don't want to push my ideas on anyone. It simply makes me extremely uncomfortable knowing how most of the animals live that are going on the shelves. If it was all organic, free-range, or personally hunted, I would have much less of a problem with it.

Also, I am moving this to debate. It clearly belongs there.

[Anima]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

Assume A.
A -> B
Thus, B, via modus ponens.

Simple enough, right? Wrong. With issues revolving around morals, "A" is usually valid because of a person's particular frame of mind, values and beliefs.

Soverign, you have a lot of good points and I agree that moral discussion can be just like the fun house mirrors but I have to say, logic is still logic so you have to disagree with A to disagree with B. I think one is doing a logic faulting (don't know the english word here) when you agree with A but still disagree with B. So at least that part should be "simple".

Originally Posted by zongtseng

I don't want to push my ideas on anyone. It simply makes me extremely uncomfortable knowing how most of the animals live that are going on the shelves. If it was all organic, free-range, or personally hunted, I would have much less of a problem with it.

This is about what I originally was trying to say. But un fortunately some people felt I was trying to tell them how to live their life. I'm sorry that my attemps to explain my point of view came out like that. I never said "All you meateaters stop what you're doing!" I said "It makes me sad the way some people view the animals".

I don't have a problem with people don't agreeing with me, but I do mind very much when they don't tell me why (they don't agree with A not B ) they think I'm wrong and when someone missinterpret me and then turns it against me...

[Iceri]

I abstain from eating meat solely because I don't like it. I'm not involved in vegan things or animal rights groups or whatever. Of course I don't condone cruel behavior and the way some animal "farms" work but I'm definitely not an activist on the subject.

And I'm also very healthy I eat good, natural foods, exercise, and take supplements to get essentials I miss out on from not eating meat.

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Iceri

I abstain from eating meat solely because I don't like it. I'm not involved in vegan things or animal rights groups or whatever. Of course I don't condone cruel behavior and the way some animal "farms" work but I'm definitely not an activist on the subject.

I think this is a good way to think in general.

I'm only 15, so I get free food at school and ofc at home. I don't yet fully decide what I buy and cook, but my many other decisions I make are based on these two simple points:

1. Do I really want/need/like it?
2. What do I want to support?

In the end it shows up.

I could buy candy and energy drinks almost every day like many of this age-group do, I just don't want. => My teeth stay healthy and I can use my money for something more important.

Many of my clothes are Globehope or Armedangels. It wont save the world, but at least I feel good of what I wear, and that keeps my mental health up.

When it comes to eating meat, the answers are:
1. Yes, I do like abstemious amount of it.
2. Most of the meat I eat at home, is organic (thanks to my parents who also happen to care about these things). At school, It wont make a difference whether I eat the meat or not, and tbh in our school, being a vegeratian means hardly have anything to eat...

[Sovereign]

Anima, people (myself included) will often make the mistake of "accepting" a premise without clarifying an important point: while I might agree with premise "A," I do not believe that B necessarily follows A. This is not automatically a logical error.

I should have been clearer earlier, but I'll say it here anyway. One is only being logically inconsistent if one accepts that B necessarily follows A and one accepts A. Thus, there are two necessary steps for a logically-complete modus ponens, not just one (acceptance of A). B must indisputably be a result of A's truth.

Example:
Assume the sky is blue (this is a known truth and a valid premise).
Conclude that monkeys are dolphins (an obvious falsehood that does not necessarily follow A being true).

Granted, this is ridiculous on purpose, but I hope that everyone can see what I'm trying to say with regard to logic. You can agree with A without accepting that A leads to B. This often happens with these moral discussions when there is general agreement on a premise ("X is bad") but no consensus on what "X is bad" implies. I believe it falls under "accepting the premise but not the application."

Here's an example from the thread:
Assume animal cruelty is wrong (I agree with this).
Conclude that humans should not eat meat (I do not agree with the conclusion simply because eating meat is not "animal cruelty" to me).

[Gunny]

Okay let me clarify my standing here. I agree that some animals are treated unfairly but this is not going to stop me from eating meat. While some are not held in the best conditions there are also some that are. It is not that I choose to ignore the problem but that meat is part of my diet, and I like it.

Also that while being a vegetarian is good for some people as I said before would not be plausible if it wasnt for present times. Most vegetarians have to take supplements, if you were to try and live in the wild with that diet you would not survive long.

Now I am not trying to say that I am living how I was meant to because I do not hunt. Rather that the protein and such given to us from eating meat is good for us. I need everything I get from that meat to keep myself in the best shape I can. I am thankful for the meat I eat every time I consume it. For without the aided help in how we buy our meat I would likely starve to death in competition for food with the current population.

Oh, and on a side note, I have raised my own chickens for food/show before and that was some of the best chicken I have had, a testament to the difference fresh meat makes compared to the crap we get at markets. Sadly I am just a poor college student so till I have more money I unfortunately have to support these other forms of raising the live stock for food.