[Goku]

firedodger, on 07 July 2017 - 07:51 PM, said:

Eating meat is less ethical to you, by your own code of ethics. By mine it's ok. Our codes are different.

If I can't have poncy you can't have wishy washy.

My values have been reasonably consistent for the last 25 years, I doubt you can say the same? But that's fine as during that time you have come through childhood and are going through the maturing process, at that stage in your life it's natural to question things, to go through the protester stage etc. None of that is judgemental you may well keep your current values for 25 years, or the rest of your life, or they may change in October, who knows?

If I do something illegal then anyone and everyone is entitled to judge me, if I do something immoral (subjectively in the eye of the beholder) they can raise that with me and I can come to an informed decision, if my actions directly affect them I'll listen, if it doesn't then I may well just ignore them.
Legality is pretty much black and white, morality is an enormous spectrum of grey where nobody is right or wrong which it makes it so difficult to question in any direction.

But why is it ok? Please explain why you think it's ok to do so. You're not alone, you're backed up by the vast majority of the planet, so there should be plenty of cast-iron reasons.

I definitely can't say the same because I'm 24, if I'd kept my values consistent I'd be unfortunately eating meat still, it's not necessarily a bad thing to change your values.

Again I don't dispute legality, I ask about ethics and your response summed up so far have been 'I can do what I want cos it's legal', if you actually want to debate or discuss ethics as in not just relying on legality then let's go, but if you're going to view it from a solely legal perspective there's nothing to discuss because it is legal.

[Goku]

a kick in the balls, on 10 July 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

The debate around Lab grown meat is an interesting one, and will no doubt become something that gains momentum in the future, you make some really good informed points, then completely undermine your argument with silly comments like it's an eternal treblinka, or breast feeding and so on.
Which is a shame, as I do enjoy reading your informed posts. Well thought out and informative.

Another question for you regarding food,production- (if you know of course) before the combustion engine and steam replaced oxen and horse powered agriculture would the % of food production for animals have been as high as it is now? How did motorisation improve production and feed %, if at all?

The eternal treblinka quotation was from a holocaust survivor who went vegan because he saw the comparisons between animal agriculture and treblinka, breast feeding is literally what most humans do, i just put it more bluntly (yet still factually)

good question and not one i know the answer to sadly, wouldn't really know where to start on that one

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 10 July 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

I think all the save the planet stuff needs to be targeted at kids at the nurseries and infants schools and let them grow up with it. Anything above that age most people are entrenched in their views and opinions, myself included and whilst a few may change their minds, in most cases it is a waste of effort, time and breath

very fair point, can't argue

trickytrevsfanclub, on 11 July 2017 - 04:56 PM, said:

My six year old seems to know what's healthy to eat and what isn't from his school lessons.

'healthy' is subjective

[firedodger]

Goku, on 11 July 2017 - 07:38 PM, said:

But why is it ok? Please explain why you think it's ok to do so. You're not alone, you're backed up by the vast majority of the planet, so there should be plenty of cast-iron reasons.

I definitely can't say the same because I'm 24, if I'd kept my values consistent I'd be unfortunately eating meat still, it's not necessarily a bad thing to change your values.

Again I don't dispute legality, I ask about ethics and your response summed up so far have been 'I can do what I want cos it's legal', if you actually want to debate or discuss ethics as in not just relying on legality then let's go, but if you're going to view it from a solely legal perspective there's nothing to discuss because it is legal.

I don't get what you want me to explain, I eat meat because I like the taste of it, I know animals die to provide it, I know sometimes the conditions are horrendous, I don't feel the need to read loads of academic studies or watch things on YouTube about it, I don't need to soul search and come up with cast iron reasons it's a matter of personal choice.

As I said changing values is all part of getting older some do it loads some don't do it at all, personal choice again I suppose.

And as for your ethics debate, what's to debate? My ethics are different to yours, I don't really believe I'm right or wrong on some of my ethics and morals (the meat eating for example, if it is to do with ethics) it's just my choice. You believe you are right with your vegan choice, fine fill your boots, but that doesn't make it right, it's just summat we disagree on.

I don't really see my choice to eat meat as ethical, I don't dig too deep into it I just say yes or no.
Drink driving or speeding on the other hand are matters I feel ethically and morally very strongly about.
I'm sure we've been round in several circles on this, we wont have the same ethics and morals and it's impossible to judge mine against yours unless it's against a constant parameter like the law, I know that's not what you are talking about but that's why I keep mentioning it, otherwise there is no justifiable comparison, at least that's how I see it?

[Goku]

More illogical reasoning I'm afraid mate. Personal choice, just like 'morality is subjective' isn't a logical way to excuse one's actions. If it is, then using this line of thinking, it would be fine for me to rape whoever I wanted. It's my personal choice. I know women suffer, it's horrific for them, I don't feel like I need to empathise with them about it, it's a matter of personal choice. If you want to use your legality argument, female genital mutilation is legal in many African countries, so by that line of reasoning you'd have to support somebody's decision to do that to their daughter if you lived in that country. Do you see how easily this line of thinking is defeated using logical consistency? A true personal choice doesn't have a victim.

Re. third paragraph I'm asking you to explain your decision beyond 'I do it cos it tastes nice'. You were the one who replied to me initially a few pages back. Surely it's not that hard to think a bit deeper? You've basically admitted you don't think about it and you just go ahead and get on with it. That's not a logical thing to do. Being purposely ignorant isn't something to be proud of, you admitting to saying 'I don't dig too deep into it' isn't a good thing.

It's very possible to judge my morals against yours. Here's my comparison, see if you disagree;

- I don't support the suffering, enslavement and death of animals for sensory pleasure
- You support the suffering, enslavement and death of animals for sensory pleasure

How do you argue against that? Surely it's clear that these two different viewpoints can indeed be compared? It is being judged against a constant parameter - that parameter is animal life itself. I'm not submissive to the law beyond any more than I have to be, I don't need it to tell me what I should and should not do, I am capable of making my own decisions based on ethics and I'm fully confident explaining them to any degree a questioner would see fit. I don't rely on weak excuses like 'you can't compare my morals to yours' (you can) or 'morality is subjective' as a reason to participate in the animal holocaust. Morality is a pretty basic thing in this instance - you don't wanna be stabbed to death, so why do you support stabbing other things to death?

I argue from a position that works regardless of whether you believe morality is subjective or objective. All that my position requires is logical consistency and a belief in human moral value. Let me explain further and make it as clear as I can;

Quote

Do you hold the position that it is wrong to stab a human to death needlessly?

(I'm going to assume you answered yes)

If you said yes to that, then someone can say 'well I think it's wrong to stab animals to death' and in order for you to tell me that 'no, it's okay to stab animals to death' you're gonna have to present some kind of justification that if you applied to humans you would have to accept - ok? - cos otherwise, you'd be presenting a justification that you reject, which is a contradiction.

This is purely anecdotal but plenty of people have told me that they know vegan is the 'right' choice just based on common sense but they choose to eat meat because they value taste over animals. I can't argue against that. When somebody admits they know what they're doing is wrong but continues to do it, I can't say anything on top of that. I'd rather people do that than be purposely obstructive and disingenuous, unable to break through their social conditioning whilst admitting they don't want to look in to it in any level of depth. I was once seeing a girl, we agreed that although we weren't in a relationship, we weren't going to meet other people whilst we were seeing each other - a couple of weeks later I went and had sex with somebody else. I recognise that what I did was absolutely wrong. I don't need to hide behind weak reasoning like 'morality is subjective' and 'personal choice' - I can admit when I've done something destructive and unethical, however this seems to be too tough for some people *shrug*.

[Town_Fan]

But it's not needlessly. I'm eating their rather tasty flesh with some barbecue sauce.

Edit: that quoted the wrong bit.

This post has been edited by Town_Fan: 18 July 2017 - 09:32 AM

[Goku]

nice post bro!

[calvin plummers socks]

Town_Fan, on 18 July 2017 - 09:30 AM, said:

But it's not needlessly. I'm eating their rather tasty flesh with some barbecue sauce.

Edit: that quoted the wrong bit.

Stay classy Town Fan....

[spireitetoo]

https://www.google.c...-university/amp

Smile bud, its not that bad.... lol

[Wooden Spoon]

HB, did you see country file today? Really good piece on dairy farming.

In Rutland, there's a farm that don't slaughter any animals. Bulls are used as working oxen, plugging and drawing carts etc.

Cows milked by hand, and no artificial insemination. Cows when get to the age are retired to live out their days.

Really good piece.

[Goku]

I didn't, I've been travelling back from London after a mate's engagement party. That would be a much more preferable way of doing things than what is currently the norm.

[Wooden Spoon]

Goku said:

1502645638[/url]' post='1320895']
I didn't, I've been travelling back from London after a mate's engagement party. That would be a much more preferable way of doing things than what is currently the norm.

Watch it on iplayer mate, about 20 mins in. You'd appreciate it.

[Misnomer]

a kick in the balls, on 13 August 2017 - 05:21 PM, said:

HB, did you see country file today? Really good piece on dairy farming.

In Rutland, there's a farm that don't slaughter any animals. Bulls are used as working oxen, plugging and drawing carts etc.

Cows milked by hand, and no artificial insemination. Cows when get to the age are retired to live out their days.

Really good piece.

My kind of farm.

[Goku]

Slaughterhouse workers often suffer from PTSD (an often overlooked part of the industry whilst people leer and type 'bacon lol')

https://www.texasobs...slaughterhouse/

http://www.mercyfora...sd-from-killing

https://yaleglobalhe...rhouse-workers/

This post has been edited by Goku: 19 August 2017 - 12:45 PM

[Bonnyman]

https://goo.gl/images/A3qo7J

This post has been edited by Bonnyman: 21 August 2017 - 03:37 PM

[Goku]

https://www.theguard...human-societies

That's a surprisingly high number

[Misnomer]

Goku, on 20 October 2017 - 10:22 AM, said:

https://www.theguard...human-societies

That's a surprisingly high number

I remember reading an article in the mid 90s, which stated that running for 45 minutes on busy London roads, was the equivalent of smoking 20 fags a day; the pollution was that bad...in the 90s!

[Goku]

Example of a British RSPCA assured free range high welfare chicken farm which provides to Waitrose, KFC, M&S and Aldi

https://www.facebook...22644984538635/

Disgusting. If you're against all forms of slavery you'll stop eating meat.

Also, multiple supermarkets caught out using fictitious farm names to pretend the meat has came from a small sounding local farm; https://www.theguard...fake-farm-names

Anything to feed into the free range sham, I guess.

This post has been edited by Goku: 17 December 2017 - 07:30 AM

[Goku]

https://www.google.c...amages-dna.html

Not a 'green' issue but I posted this in another thread. This might be a bit of a leap and may well show my complete lack of understanding on issues like this but are we damaging our cells/bodies by consuming alcohol/food that is bad for us/drugs etc and then having kids thus producing 'weaker' offspring with the potential to suffer from our decisions? More likely to suffer from ____, that type of thing?

If our child is born and then later in life it is found out that they are more genetically predisposed to cancer for example, is it logical to think that our lifestyles/the lifestyles of our parents and our parents' parents could indeed have contributed to this thus we could theoretically shoulder some of the blame?

Don't mean to offend anybody with this, just thinking out loud.

[fishini]

Goku, on 07 January 2018 - 10:38 AM, said:

https://www.google.c...amages-dna.html

Not a 'green' issue but I posted this in another thread. This might be a bit of a leap and may well show my complete lack of understanding on issues like this but are we damaging our cells/bodies by consuming alcohol/food that is bad for us/drugs etc and then having kids thus producing 'weaker' offspring with the potential to suffer from our decisions? More likely to suffer from ____, that type of thing?

If our child is born and then later in life it is found out that they are more genetically predisposed to cancer for example, is it logical to think that our lifestyles/the lifestyles of our parents and our parents' parents could indeed have contributed to this thus we could theoretically shoulder some of the blame?

Don't mean to offend anybody with this, just thinking out loud.

We have fostered a number of babies. One of which was born a drug addict heartbreaking to witness this poor girls recovery. The good news is that she has made a full recovery. Not so the lucky one little boy we fostered. He was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. He was born blind and deaf, brain damage and damage to many of his organs. The monster who did this to him is again pregnant. If someone gave alcohol or drugs to a child they would be charged with child cruelty. Should not a baby in the womb be protected by the same laws. Imo women who do these horrendous things on their unborn babies should be made to pay under the law

[Westbars Spireite]

fishini, on 07 January 2018 - 09:03 PM, said:

We have fostered a number of babies. One of which was born a drug addict heartbreaking to witness this poor girls recovery. The good news is that she has made a full recovery. Not so the lucky one little boy we fostered. He was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. He was born blind and deaf, brain damage and damage to many of his organs. The monster who did this to him is again pregnant. If someone gave alcohol or drugs to a child they would be charged with child cruelty. Should not a baby in the womb be protected by the same laws. Imo women who do these horrendous things on their unborn babies should be made to pay under the law

Fish, you're a cantankerous b*gger, but I'd love to buy you a pint one day.