Biggest lie in the history of mankind

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
there's no such thing as worth independent of desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are a nihilist? I already pointed in OP that my reasoning is only valid if humans have inherit value. If abusing and killing people is ok (if you don't get caught), then doing the same to animals is ok too.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you're inferior because of your beliefs,

[/ QUOTE ]
I do not believe you are being honest here.

[ QUOTE ]
I seriously suspect you're a dumb person though, because you are incapable of argumentation and stating WHY you have the opinions that you have (or answering simple questions).

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't answer your questions because they are not germane to the reason I eat meat.

There is nothing to argue -- I eat meat because I'm hungry, it's easy to prepare, and it tastes damn good.

I like a cute little kitty as much as the next person, but the only thought I give to the "poor cow" is -- damn, this tastes good.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Me macho man, me stronger&personally climbed to top of food chain and eat wtf ever I want.

You also rape women/innocent kids if you think you'd enjoy that?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes i would, obviously. why wouldn't i do anything i think i'd enjoy? if you come up with a reason, what's the difference between that reason and a reason that i shouldn't think i'd enjoy it?

[ QUOTE ]
We are so intelligent and animals are dumber than miss South Carolina

Why is this more significant than, say, being able to run faster or fly? Also this would mean young children and mentally retarded people would be available to be used as food.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's significant with regard to how we feel about killing and eating because people think it's correlated with the capacity for suffering, while things like flying aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
We can feel pain and suffer but animals can't.

They can. Maybe less, but they definitely can suffer (even fish, according to new studies, although fish don't express emotions well).

[/ QUOTE ]

this is pretty much the "god made us different" argument again. there aren't too many atheists saying animals can't suffer.

[ QUOTE ]
We can create and enjoy art

Yeah, so..? Many animals can also enjoy things we can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think that's a complete argument.

[ QUOTE ]
We have consciousness and animals don't

And what exactly is consciousness, why is it so important and where's any evidence that points to the direction that animals don't have it? Many animals are self-aware.

[/ QUOTE ]

nobody really knows what it is, but it's important because it seems to be required for suffering. in general, people who think no animals are conscious believe consciousness comes from a soul and god only gave it to us, bible says so.

[ QUOTE ]
We can love others etc.

And well, no animal cares about it's children? Some are monogamous too. Also, most human relationships definitely seem like just trading things, so that both sides benefit. While that's fine, I don't see it making us any more worthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

again, it's not a whole argument, it's part of a bigger one.

[ QUOTE ]
We have made a deal with animals that we help them exist in big numbers and then can eat them in exchange

Such a deal definitely has not been made.

[/ QUOTE ]

um, ok.

[ QUOTE ]
Life in pain is better than not living at all

If a being never exists, it simply never exists and so can't have any kind of rights or "will to live". And when a being exists it has rights. Just like a person is free to never have kids, but if a child is born, it has rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think you're talking past this particular argument.

[ QUOTE ]
But why would anyone try to claim that humans would be worth less than others? Because we are capable of doing absolutely sick things (even when not counting animal abuse). From nazis etc. to more common things like raping, scamming, murdering, bullying, adultery, incest etc. that can cause huge suffering, while we can fully realize what we are doing and the pain it causes. Animals do kill, but they are simply not capable of nearly similar, systematic things as us. In the other end of the spectrum, AFAIK there's no evidence that a happy person would be somehow happier than a happy animal, and the opposite could be true as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's fine if you value animals over humans, but it's not like there's some objective strandard of value and your own sensibilities conform to it more closely than others' do.

you should just call people hypocrites and try to point out ways that their behavior doesn't match the beliefs they espouse rather than criticising their values.

i eat animals because i enjoy it. my eating meat probably causes a few additional animals to be born, raised, and slaughtered. maybe if you could somehow give it a choice, a chicken would prefer not to be born, but the value i get from eating it is enough for me to impose life upon it. you don't need to convince me that animals can suffer, you need to make me feel really bad about their suffering.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there's no such thing as worth independent of desire.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are a nihilist? I already pointed in OP that my reasoning is only valid if humans have inherit value. If abusing and killing people is ok (if you don't get caught), then doing the same to animals is ok too.

[/ QUOTE ]

you said "if humans have inherent rights," which doesn't necessarily mean their rights are something more than the way other humans treat them.

the only thing with inherent value is currency. which is strange, because the value is not intrinsic. do you see why?

abusing people is not OK, because people make it not OK. getting caught has absolutely nothing to do with it.

abusing animals is not OK either. you're begging the question.

someday eating animals could become not OK, but right now it's OK.

[lucksack]

Sephus, if I understood correctly, you are basing ethics on social norms and emotion (are you female btw?). Both of those things are based largely, if not completely, on random factors and change a lot. Do you think killing jews in nazi-Germany was ok? Also, how can you then say it would be ok to rape a kid, when it clearly is against the social norm?

Also, intrinsic seems to be a better word for what I ment than inherit.

If you know, what are the bigger arguments that those few things I could recall are parts of?

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to argue -- I eat meat because I'm hungry, it's easy to prepare, and it tastes damn good.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't think ethics exist at all and "might makes right"? Like if a stronger species came (be it aliens or whatever), that enjoyed torturing humans and breeded tons of us for that purpose, you would consider it just a bad beat and there would not be anything wrong about it?

[oe39]

i would like to see you and howard zinn team up and write "an animal's history of the united states"

if we really were "just another animal species," would we sacrifice our own agendas for the good of other species?

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Sephus, if I understood correctly, you are basing ethics on social norms and emotion (are you female btw?). Both of those things are based largely, if not completely, on random factors and change a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm not talking about ethics, i'm talking about morals, but it's not a critical distinction.

i'm not saying morality is "based on social norms and emotion," i'm saying morality is social. you're wrong that "social norms" are based on "random factors." there's nothing particularly random about it.

as for "changing a lot," first there has to be an "expected level of change" to make that judgment, and the fact that social norms change at all has nothing to do with anything.

i am male.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think killing jews in nazi-Germany was ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

no.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, how can you then say it would be ok to rape a kid, when it clearly is against the social norm?

[/ QUOTE ]

who is saying it's OK to rape a kid? i said i would rape a kid if i thought i would enjoy it, that doesn't mean it's OK. i think it's disgusting. that's the biggest reason i wouldn't enjoy it.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, intrinsic seems to be a better word for what I ment than inherit.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah but it's still not entirely clear what it means.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
So you don't think ethics exist at all and "might makes right"?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying I'm hungry, and cow is available as food in many different forms, right there at my local supermarket. Ethics have nothing to do with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Like if a stronger species came (be it aliens or whatever), that enjoyed torturing humans and breeded tons of us for that purpose, you would consider it just a bad beat and there would not be anything wrong about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
If an alien came to eat me, I'd be food -- not a whole lot I can do about it, eh? Same as if I was a cow.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you know, what are the bigger arguments that those few things I could recall are parts of?

[/ QUOTE ]

most things are a part of the larger consciousness/capacity for suffering argument.

if people are talking about things like art without trying to relate it back to intelligence/consciousness, then i think they're a little confused.