[firedodger]

Misnomer, on 06 July 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

Because, convenience prevails and takes away all thought processes.

If the meat industry suddenly disappeared over night, how many people would go out and catch an animal, kill it, butcher it, cook it, then eat it?

Good point, and it applies to any area of the food market I suppose. If the entire pre prepared or imported food industry disappeared then we would just eat what we can cultivate in our immediate environment. In which case I'd probably keep chickens and pigs.

[Goku]

firedodger, on 06 July 2017 - 08:05 AM, said:

The whole first paragraph is irrelevant really as morality is superseded by legality.
Eating meat isn't illegal, so people can make their own minds up.
As for ethics I'm sure if we look hard enough we'll find 'ethical' wrong doing in anyone's choices, depends where your ethical goal posts are really.

Legality supersedes morality in which way specifically?

But anyway I'm not talking about legality, I'm aware people can legally eat meat? It's legal to chuck one up your lass's mate, doesn't mean it's ethical to. If you only want to focus on morality with regards to legal matters then if your wife started riding your best mate's member then would you respond with 'morality is subjective' or 'that was your choice to do that babe, I accept it'? Sorry for the visuals and references to cheating, first thing that came to my mind.

We all participate in some level of unethical activity, knowingly or unknowingly, we live in a capitalist society so it's a given, some people simply make more of a conscious effort than others to limit their impact on sentient life/the planet. They might not be perfect but trying is better than not trying. Some people think they can do whatever they like and say 'opinions innit' (not speaking specifically about this topic when I say that).

This post has been edited by Goku: 06 July 2017 - 07:11 PM

[Goku]

Misnomer, on 06 July 2017 - 08:07 AM, said:

Because, convenience prevails and takes away all thought processes.

If the meat industry suddenly disappeared over night, how many people would go out and catch an animal, kill it, butcher it, cook it, then eat it?

Yeah. It's years and years of everybody telling you that you need animal products in your diet, advertisements everywhere, parents drilling it into you that you need it, schools, the government, 'happy' animals shown on farms, the brainwashing starts from young in children's books and nursery rhymes. It's a multi billion pound industry at the end of the day, it'd be naive to think we're not affected by this. It sounds stupid - obviously I realised when I ate meat that the food was from animals but until you see the suffering and pain they go through you don't think twice. It's objectively a holocaust.

To quote Isaac Bashevis Singer, Yiddish author, Nobel Laureate, & Holocaust survivor - "What do they know—all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world? They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them [the animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka.”

This post has been edited by Goku: 06 July 2017 - 07:34 PM

[firedodger]

Goku, on 06 July 2017 - 07:01 PM, said:

Legality supersedes morality in which way specifically?

But anyway I'm not talking about legality, I'm aware people can legally eat meat? It's legal to chuck one up your lass's mate, doesn't mean it's ethical to. If you only want to focus on morality with regards to legal matters then if your wife started riding your best mate's member then would you respond with 'morality is subjective' or 'that was your choice to do that babe, I accept it'? Sorry for the visuals and references to cheating, first thing that came to my mind.

We all participate in some level of unethical activity, knowingly or unknowingly, we live in a capitalist society so it's a given, some people simply make more of a conscious effort than others to limit their impact on sentient life/the planet. They might not be perfect but trying is better than not trying. Some people think they can do whatever they like and say 'opinions innit' (not speaking specifically about this topic when I say that).

Supersedes in terms of if I do something that some people perceive is morally wrong but it's legal, the worst consequence is I upset a few people. If I do something illegal that some may perceive is morally right (drug offences?) then the worst consequence is you will go to prison and potentially cock your entire life up.

[Goku]

firedodger, on 06 July 2017 - 08:15 PM, said:

Supersedes in terms of if I do something that some people perceive is morally wrong but it's legal, the worst consequence is I upset a few people. If I do something illegal that some may perceive is morally right (drug offences?) then the worst consequence is you will go to prison and potentially cock your entire life up.

Legality supercedes morality on a legal basis obviously with the potential for it to also supercede it on a moral basis if we're talking about things like assault/rape/murder etc but that's not the discussion at hand. It's about ethics, not legality, and just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical, as shown by my examples. Using the moral baseline you've established, you'd have to respond to your wife having sex with your friend without your say-so with 'that's fine, it's up to you what you do, I'll have tea done by the time you get back' because morality is subjective, therefore her decision shouldn't be questioned and why should she be held accountable for that? She's just doing what she wants to do, people's own ethics differ from person to person, you don't get to tell her what to do.

Your counter point to what I've said above may be 'Yes Goku, I can't tell her what to do, but I can choose to leave her as a result of the cheating' to which I would respond with 'Aha! Yes, you would leave her, thus you acknowledge that what she did was unethical' which is the exact point I made with regards to actual meat vs Lab created meat which you disagreed with in the first place.

And I think you would then be trapped in your own logical fallacy.

This post has been edited by Goku: 06 July 2017 - 09:11 PM

[firedodger]

Goku, on 06 July 2017 - 09:06 PM, said:

Legality supercedes morality on a legal basis obviously with the potential for it to also supercede it on a moral basis if we're talking about things like assault/rape/murder etc but that's not the discussion at hand. It's about ethics, not legality, and just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical, as shown by my examples. Using the moral baseline you've established, you'd have to respond to your wife having sex with your friend without your say-so with 'that's fine, it's up to you what you do, I'll have tea done by the time you get back' because morality is subjective, therefore her decision shouldn't be questioned and why should she be held accountable for that? She's just doing what she wants to do, people's own ethics differ from person to person, you don't get to tell her what to do.

Your counter point to what I've said above may be 'Yes Goku, I can't tell her what to do, but I can choose to leave her as a result of the cheating' to which I would respond with 'Aha! Yes, you would leave her, thus you acknowledge that what she did was unethical' which is the exact point I made with regards to actual meat vs Lab created meat which you disagreed with in the first place.

And I think you would then be trapped in your own logical fallacy.

Speaking of which, your first paragraph says morality is subjective and as such decisions based on an individuals morality should not be questioned, yet you persistently question the morality of people who choose to eat meat.

I think your original point was if the two foods taste the same and cost similar why would anyone choose meat, to which my point still stands, they choose it because they can, it's up to them. Their actions are legal and within their own moral code so it's not up to you or me to judge them even if you disagree with their morality.

Regarding the analogy, it's a bit deep and poncy to base that on ethics, I'd kick her out because I've gone off her, and I'd probably get a divorce and custody because what she did goes against the marriage vows (pretty sure there was nothing about ethics in there, although I'm aware you can write your own vows if you want to put them in) and I'd make him walk with a limp for along time because it would put a smile on my face.

As for the discussion being about ethics, it's a message board, threads can be diversified surely? It isn't your decision to keep it purely on ethics is it?

Morals are different for everyone, and if a situation or act affects you but doesn't physically involve you it's perfectly acceptable to have a different moral standpoint to the people directly involved.
For instance you have your own morals regarding meat eating which I neither respect not disrespect because they make no difference to me, they're yours and nowt to do with me, and vice versa.

[Goku]

firedodger, on 06 July 2017 - 10:05 PM, said:

Speaking of which, your first paragraph says morality is subjective and as such decisions based on an individuals morality should not be questioned, yet you persistently question the morality of people who choose to eat meat.

I think your original point was if the two foods taste the same and cost similar why would anyone choose meat, to which my point still stands, they choose it because they can, it's up to them. Their actions are legal and within their own moral code so it's not up to you or me to judge them even if you disagree with their morality.

Regarding the analogy, it's a bit deep and poncy to base that on ethics, I'd kick her out because I've gone off her, and I'd probably get a divorce and custody because what she did goes against the marriage vows (pretty sure there was nothing about ethics in there, although I'm aware you can write your own vows if you want to put them in) and I'd make him walk with a limp for along time because it would put a smile on my face.

As for the discussion being about ethics, it's a message board, threads can be diversified surely? It isn't your decision to keep it purely on ethics is it?

Morals are different for everyone, and if a situation or act affects you but doesn't physically involve you it's perfectly acceptable to have a different moral standpoint to the people directly involved.
For instance you have your own morals regarding meat eating which I neither respect not disrespect because they make no difference to me, they're yours and nowt to do with me, and vice versa.

My first paragraph was me using your own arguments against you, I don't actually believe that an individual's morality should not be questioned, I was using your argument to show how it doesn't make sense to me personally. May not have come across well in text format but I was as clear as I could be.

Yes, your whole argument has been based on people doing things because they can as long as they are legal. I don't disagree that this is the world we live in, people are indeed allowed to do this as I've previously said, I'm discussing morals, there's absolutely no discussion to be had on the sheer legality of an action because I've never once questioned that. My point is something can be legal yet immoral and i can certainly judge them if I wish. We can judge whoever we want for whatever reason we choose.

You can't just dismiss a point by calling it poncey. It wouldn't even have to be marriage, it could be a long term girlfriend, just to take marriage out of the question. You surely can't disagree that what she did was ethically wrong in your mind - she betrayed your trust and as such, you take the decision to end your relationship with her because she has broken your personal code of ethics. That's not 'poncey', that's literally what I'm speaking about. What she did was legal yet unethical which is my entire point and to keep a consistent moral baseline you simply can't disagree with what I've said there. You can't pretend that you splitting up with your hypothetically cheating partner isn't a decision based on ethics.

Answered your fourth paragraph in this post previously.

'Morals differ from person to person' is true yet a bit of a wishy-washy response if you're wanting to debate something. Your entire argument is that people can do what they like if it's legal and should retain the right to not be judged by others for doing so, correct? Hence why I've used the example of a cheating partner to point out what I believe is hypocrisy. You think ethics don't need to be brought into the equation as long as it meets the requirement of 'legal', im saying that may be how you choose to live your life but I believe even on a daily basis you'd find yourself contradicting this stance frequently - for example somebody calls somebody in your family a c**t in a non-joking manner for no reason, you'd probably think 'wow why did they do that? That's not very nice, they can't be a very pleasant person' - that is you judging somebody again using your own code of ethics which contradicts what you previously said because if you kept that logic consistent you would have to simply shrug your shoulders and say 'ah well, he's entitled to his opinion, I shouldn't judge' unless you believe that you wouldn't react in any way to this hypothetical scenario in which case I think you'd be lying to yourself.

I'm asking you to hold a consistent set of views - if you say that eating meat is fine because it's legal and I shouldn't question an individual's decision to eat meat (or more specifically choose a plant-based exact copy of a meat burger) then to retain logical consistency based on your previous statement you would have to hold that exact view on a cheating partner - 'it's fine because it's legal and I shouldn't question her decision to cheat' and if you didn't and instead chose to break up with her, you are agreeing (whether you admit it or not) that her behaviour was unethical and you judged her accordingly which again contradicts yourself.

We are free to judge how we please regardless of how much the person being judged cares or not. We are free to judge decisions based on ethics, if you don't do something in line with my ethics I can raise that point - you could judge me if I consumed lettuce and almond milk for their high water usage (I don't), I can judge you for eating meat for its objective cruelty + damage to the planet and its environment. Neither of us have to care, but eating meat is definitely less ethical than not eating meat regardless of your feelings towards it unless you base your entire argument off legality which I deem a very closed-minded and illogical way to view a topic.

[firedodger]

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.

[trickytrevsfanclub]

Get a room you two.

[trickytrevsfanclub]

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.

Please note. When you sit next to me in the South Stand this coming season topics of conversation will be, football, the good old days/the bad old days and more football. Any deep and meaningful/less debates such as this and you'll be banished back to the East Stand forthwith.

[firedodger]

trickytrevsfanclub, on 08 July 2017 - 01:31 AM, said:

Please note. When you sit next to me in the South Stand this coming season topics of conversation will be, football, the good old days/the bad old days and more football. Any deep and meaningful/less debates such as this and you'll be banished back to the East Stand forthwith.

Lets see how long that lasts, I'll give it 20 minutes before work, retirement and pensions come up!

[trickytrevsfanclub]

firedodger said:

1499504625[/url]' post='1313672']
Lets see how long that lasts, I'll give it 20 minutes before work, retirement and pensions come up!

Yeah good point

[Wooden Spoon]

Goku said:

1499369653[/url]' post='1313423']
Yeah. It's years and years of everybody telling you that you need animal products in your diet, advertisements everywhere, parents drilling it into you that you need it, schools, the government, 'happy' animals shown on farms, the brainwashing starts from young in children's books and nursery rhymes. It's a multi billion pound industry at the end of the day, it'd be naive to think we're not affected by this. It sounds stupid - obviously I realised when I ate meat that the food was from animals but until you see the suffering and pain they go through you don't think twice. It's objectively a holocaust.

To quote Isaac Bashevis Singer, Yiddish author, Nobel Laureate, & Holocaust survivor - "What do they know—all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world? They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them [the animals], all people are Nazis; for the animals, it is an eternal Treblinka."

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?

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Goku, on 07 July 2017 - 06:01 AM, said:

My first paragraph was me using your own arguments against you, I don't actually believe that an individual's morality should not be questioned, I was using your argument to show how it doesn't make sense to me personally. May not have come across well in text format but I was as clear as I could be.

Yes, your whole argument has been based on people doing things because they can as long as they are legal. I don't disagree that this is the world we live in, people are indeed allowed to do this as I've previously said, I'm discussing morals, there's absolutely no discussion to be had on the sheer legality of an action because I've never once questioned that. My point is something can be legal yet immoral and i can certainly judge them if I wish. We can judge whoever we want for whatever reason we choose.

You can't just dismiss a point by calling it poncey. It wouldn't even have to be marriage, it could be a long term girlfriend, just to take marriage out of the question. You surely can't disagree that what she did was ethically wrong in your mind - she betrayed your trust and as such, you take the decision to end your relationship with her because she has broken your personal code of ethics. That's not 'poncey', that's literally what I'm speaking about. What she did was legal yet unethical which is my entire point and to keep a consistent moral baseline you simply can't disagree with what I've said there. You can't pretend that you splitting up with your hypothetically cheating partner isn't a decision based on ethics.

Answered your fourth paragraph in this post previously.

'Morals differ from person to person' is true yet a bit of a wishy-washy response if you're wanting to debate something. Your entire argument is that people can do what they like if it's legal and should retain the right to not be judged by others for doing so, correct? Hence why I've used the example of a cheating partner to point out what I believe is hypocrisy. You think ethics don't need to be brought into the equation as long as it meets the requirement of 'legal', im saying that may be how you choose to live your life but I believe even on a daily basis you'd find yourself contradicting this stance frequently - for example somebody calls somebody in your family a c**t in a non-joking manner for no reason, you'd probably think 'wow why did they do that? That's not very nice, they can't be a very pleasant person' - that is you judging somebody again using your own code of ethics which contradicts what you previously said because if you kept that logic consistent you would have to simply shrug your shoulders and say 'ah well, he's entitled to his opinion, I shouldn't judge' unless you believe that you wouldn't react in any way to this hypothetical scenario in which case I think you'd be lying to yourself.

I'm asking you to hold a consistent set of views - if you say that eating meat is fine because it's legal and I shouldn't question an individual's decision to eat meat (or more specifically choose a plant-based exact copy of a meat burger) then to retain logical consistency based on your previous statement you would have to hold that exact view on a cheating partner - 'it's fine because it's legal and I shouldn't question her decision to cheat' and if you didn't and instead chose to break up with her, you are agreeing (whether you admit it or not) that her behaviour was unethical and you judged her accordingly which again contradicts yourself.

We are free to judge how we please regardless of how much the person being judged cares or not. We are free to judge decisions based on ethics, if you don't do something in line with my ethics I can raise that point - you could judge me if I consumed lettuce and almond milk for their high water usage (I don't), I can judge you for eating meat for its objective cruelty + damage to the planet and its environment. Neither of us have to care, but eating meat is definitely less ethical than not eating meat regardless of your feelings towards it unless you base your entire argument off legality which I deem a very closed-minded and illogical way to view a topic.

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

[Misnomer]

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

I agree, but with that I would add cooking, nutrition and fitness...none of which are remotely important at that level. PE is outsourced (if they are lucky); cooking is virtually non-existent; nutrition is taught but with no tangible conceptualisation.

[Mr Mercury]

Misnomer, on 10 July 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

I agree, but with that I would add cooking, nutrition and fitness...none of which are remotely important at that level. PE is outsourced (if they are lucky); cooking is virtually non-existent; nutrition is taught but with no tangible conceptualisation.

When state schools are being starved of so much needed funding that they even struggle to provide a basic service to learn kids to read, write and add up then sadly the above is wishful thinking!

[fishini]

Mr Mercury, on 10 July 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:

When state schools are being starved of so much needed funding that they even struggle to provide a basic service to learn kids to read, write and add up then sadly the above is wishful thinking!

Now now. Don't you know the Tories are spending more than ever on education? Mrs May says so ! Mind you she is a Tory and as such she lies through her teeth

[mr. smith]

Mr Mercury, on 10 July 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:

When state schools are being starved of so much needed funding that they even struggle to provide a basic service to learn kids to read, write and add up then sadly the above is wishful thinking!

teach

[trickytrevsfanclub]

Misnomer, on 10 July 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

I agree, but with that I would add cooking, nutrition and fitness...none of which are remotely important at that level. PE is outsourced (if they are lucky); cooking is virtually non-existent; nutrition is taught but with no tangible conceptualisation.

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

[trickytrevsfanclub]

Misnomer, on 10 July 2017 - 08:12 PM, said:

I agree, but with that I would add cooking, nutrition and fitness...none of which are remotely important at that level. PE is outsourced (if they are lucky); cooking is virtually non-existent; nutrition is taught but with no tangible conceptualisation.

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