• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Veganism makes me feel amoral

ecofarm said:
Equating breeding with GM is idiotic. I mean really a height of ignorance. Downright pathetic.

Corn and bacteria, or corn and synthetic genes, have not been mating for centuries. Antibiotic resistance, a part of the process, has not been mating with corn for centuries. Herbicide (Roundup, an herbicide made by the same company providing the GM plants) resistance genes, capable of being transferred to other (unintended) plant species, has not been mating with corn for centuries.

Gene splicing at all, let alone between different kingdoms or synthetics, has not been around for centuries.

Who told you that moronic crap you spewed. It's a false equivalence that only someone totally ignorant on the subject could accept.
Click to expand...

Huh you have a bee in your bonnet.

You must be one of those anti GMO people.

Look, all they are doing is changing the sequence of amino acids on a small section of the organism. All organisms that have DNA have amino acids in their genes.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Huh you have a bee in your bonnet.

You must be one of those anti GMO people.

Look, all they are doing is changing the sequence of amino acids on a small section of the organism. All organisms that have DNA have amino acids in their genes.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows DNA is made of amino acids. Do you think you're talking to small children? It's pathetic to present well know information as if it's a revelation. Do you think that makes you look smart or informed? You look desperate to pretend you know something about the subject.

Yours is an idiotic false equivalence fed to morons.
 
Last edited:
Why is it somehow nobler to slaughter plants than animals? Does a cabbage, a carrot, or a cornstalk not have the right to live, too? Who is to say there is no cruelty in ripping a potato plant from its cozy nest in the earth, or in using huge steel blades to behead wheat plants by the millions?
 
ecofarm said:
Everyone knows DNA is made of amino acids. Do you think you're talking to small children?
Click to expand...
It's hard to tell. You are very compative about it.

It's pathetic to present well know information as if it's a revelation. Do you think that makes you look smart or informed? You look desperate to pretend you know something about the subject.
Click to expand...
I don't care how you think i look.

People don't seem to be informed. These genetic alterations don't effect humans.

Yours is an idiotic false equivalence fed to morons.
Click to expand...
GMO hysteria seems to be largely based on ignorance.
 
matchlight said:
Why is it somehow nobler to slaughter plants than animals? Does a cabbage, a carrot, or a cornstalk not have the right to live, too? Who is to say there is no cruelty in ripping a potato plant from its cozy nest in the earth, or in using huge steel blades to behead wheat plants by the millions?
Click to expand...

The vegan morality argument is not a very good one. The explanation is simple it's not immoral to me to kill animals to eat their flesh. I simply don't share vegan morality.

80 Cal or chicken or a pig or their eggs because I can morals never come into the equation. It's simply dominance.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm a vegan, about 20 years. No meat, no animal byproducts (milk, eggs...) and no leather.

And you're a Poe.
Click to expand...

What would happen if everyone became a vegan? Wouldn't farmers have to kill or release all the animals? How would either of those results be good? In the former case it would make the entire movements victory pointless, and in the later it would destroy ecosystems and result in death.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The vegan morality argument is not a very good one. The explanation is simple it's not immoral to me to kill animals to eat their flesh. I simply don't share vegan morality.

80 Cal or chicken or a pig or their eggs because I can morals never come into the equation. It's simply dominance.
Click to expand...

I eat beef, pork, chicken, fish, and so on like most people, but I don't consider it dominance to kill them for that purpose. I have no desire to lord it over animals just for the sake of doing it.
 
matchlight said:
I eat beef, pork, chicken, fish, and so on like most people, but I don't consider it dominance to kill them for that purpose. I have no desire to lord it over animals just for the sake of doing it.
Click to expand...

That response is a little bizzare. I don't think that a chicken could understand something being lorded over it, so I don't know why you'd misinterpret that out of what I said. What I was saying is that we picked these animals to cultivate because we were faster stronger and smarter than they are. And we eat them because we can we don't eat polar bears because they're dangerous difficult to cultivate and impossible to raise in captivity to the extent we raise chickens.

We eat animals because we can that's the most simple biological understanding of this. Frogs eat flies because they can catch them and they're nutritious for the Frog. Same exact reason we eat the animals we eat.
 
Last edited:
Slingshot Bob said:
Gotta love the anti hunting types who stand around the meat case in the grocer badmouthing hunting.
Click to expand...

That was always strange to me. Yeah I get it when vegans do it, but someone that buys porkchops complaining about it? The pig i shoot in the wild is dangerous, and destructive. And It'll be eaten.
 
CLAX1911 said:
That was always strange to me. Yeah I get it when vegans do it, but someone that buys porkchops complaining about it? The pig i shoot in the wild is dangerous, and destructive. And It'll be eaten.
Click to expand...

Yep, and a feral nuisance, only ever killed one big game animal and it was a sow from about 80 ft with a 44 cap n ball revolver.

Would rather eat wild pork any dat, not pump full of hormones and antibiotics
 
Slingshot Bob said:
Yep, and a feral nuisance, only ever killed one big game animal and it was a sow from about 80 ft with a 44 cap n ball revolver.

Would rather eat wild pork any dat, not pump full of hormones and antibiotics
Click to expand...

Well I found that I can hunt for basically free if I find someone who has a bunch of pigs on their property if I shoot five or six they let me take a deer not a problem with me.
 
Henrin said:
What would happen if everyone became a vegan? Wouldn't farmers have to kill or release all the animals? How would either of those results be good? In the former case it would make the entire movements victory pointless, and in the later it would destroy ecosystems and result in death.
Click to expand...

Desert would become grasslands, grasslands would become shrub and shrub would become forest. The rainforests would be restored. The Earth would cool. Biodiversity would greatly increase. Water consumption would become sustainable, aquifer depletion would slow to a crawl. Water pollution, both fresh and coastal, would plummet. Pesticide and herbicide use would be greatly reduced (more than half) as a result of food production regarding trophic levels. Antibiotic use would be 10-20% of current use. No more mad cow, angry pig or bird flu. Residual hormone consumption would stop. Industrial animal cruelty would become a thing of the past; thus, desensitization would abate resulting in a more aware and considerate population.

There are many other benefits, but that covers the basics.

Pretending animal use would disappear instantaneously, or that crazy things would be done as a result, is a strawman.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
These genetic alterations don't effect humans.
Click to expand...

Direct human impact, as a result of consumption, is debatable and still largely unknown. For example, antibiotic resistance (a gene splice in every GMO as a mechanism of production) genes could be transferred to pathogens in the gut.

There are also social problems (see: Chemical Treadmill). These directly affect humans.

The sure and obvious problems are ecological. That's my concern. Ecological problems indirectly affect humans.

Personal, social and ecologic risks and impacts must all be considered.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
The vegan morality argument is not a very good one. The explanation is simple it's not immoral to me to kill animals to eat their flesh. I simply don't share vegan morality.

80 Cal or chicken or a pig or their eggs because I can morals never come into the equation. It's simply dominance.
Click to expand...

Perhaps morality should extend beyond personal concerns. There are social and ecologic considerations. But, hey, if your morality ends at your nose, that's your shortcoming.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well I found that I can hunt for basically free if I find someone who has a bunch of pigs on their property if I shoot five or six they let me take a deer not a problem with me.
Click to expand...

I shot mine on the flood plain of the peace river here, the high water mark is public domain, I hope to get another one this year, of course I have be to out in the woods with a loaded pistol first.

I rarely shoot it, black powder is a PITA to clean and if you don't clean it, it will rust in days, the bluing does not seem to stop it.


Need to shoot about 2 or 3 a year.
 
ecofarm said:
Direct human impact, as a result of consumption, is debatable and still largely unknown.
Click to expand...
It isn't debatable if it's unknown. Its only open as a tool for fear mongering.

For example, antibiotic resistance (a gene splice in every GMO as a mechanism of production) genes could be transferred to pathogens in the gut.
Click to expand...
Show an instance where this has occured.

There are also social problems (see: Chemical Treadmill). These directly affect humans.
Click to expand...
Or not. If you want to make claims you have to present support. I'm not googling your argument. That's your burden.

The sure and obvious problems are ecological. That's my concern. Ecological problems indirectly affect humans.
Click to expand...
What sure and obvious problems? Before you start trying to evade your burden of proof if it's obvious it should be very easy to support.

Personal, social and ecologic risks and impacts must all be considered.
Click to expand...
Social and ecological risks and impact should be considered should they exist. Personal ones are irrelevant.
 
ecofarm said:
Perhaps morality should extend beyond personal concerns. There are social and ecologic considerations. But, hey, if your morality ends at your nose, that's your shortcoming.
Click to expand...

Morality has to do with social interactions if it ended at your nose you'd be a sociopath so even your equivocations are terrible.

Look if you think it's immoral to kill animals to eat them that's your business. Muslims think it's immoral to blaspheme the prophet. I don't share their morality and I don't share yours.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Morality has to do with social interactions if it ended at your nose you'd be a sociopath so even your equivocations are terrible.
Click to expand...

Suffering is suffering.

Look if you think it's immoral to kill animals to eat them that's your business. Muslims think it's immoral to blaspheme the prophet. I don't share their morality and I don't share yours.
Click to expand...

My morality is based on science, ecology. The science of sociology is also a legitimate avenue. As is personal health, biology/chemistry.

Even as a purely emotional, empathic or sympathetic, foundation, the basis is legitimate intellectually. It's not myth. It's not a belief like in a deity. It's a belief like in scientific law.

Your ignorant false equivalence knows no bounds. Apparently, anything you don't understand is contrasted with nonsense.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Suffering is suffering.



My morality is based on science, ecology. The science of sociology is also a legitimate avenue. As is personal health, biology/chemistry.

Even as a purely emotional, empathic or sympathetic, foundation, the basis is legitimate intellectually. It's not myth. It's not a belief like in a deity. It's a belief like in scientific law.
Click to expand...
My morality is based on the ammount of suffering pain or harm caused to other humans. Animals are food.

Your ignorant false equivalence knows no bounds. Apparently, anything you don't understand is contrasted with nonsense.
Click to expand...

Veganism isn't that hard to understand you don't want to eat animals so don't I don't care. The morality argument doesn't work. Regardless of whether you base your morality on mythical texts whatever that word salad you said you base your morality on it's still subjective.

I've come across vegans that like to think they're morally Superior to everyone because they've managed to justify their morality. That is no different than a Christian who thinks they're Superior or a Muslim who thinks they're Superior or anybody who thinks they're subjective morality is somehow more Superior.

So blather on about false equivalence it's an accurate one. It is religion without a deity.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
My morality is based on the ammount of suffering pain or harm caused to other humans. Animals are food.



Veganism isn't that hard to understand you don't want to eat animals so don't I don't care. The morality argument doesn't work. Regardless of whether you base your morality on mythical texts whatever that word salad you said you base your morality on it's still subjective.

I've come across vegans that like to think they're morally Superior to everyone because they've managed to justify their morality. That is no different than a Christian who thinks they're Superior or a Muslim who thinks they're Superior or anybody who thinks they're subjective morality is somehow more Superior.

Sew leather on about false equivalence it's an accurate one. It is religion without a deity.
Click to expand...

So tl;dr.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Your morality subjective I don't subscribe to it. It isn't better it isn't worse it's just yours. I don't care how you justify it
Click to expand...

Scientific morality, ecologic, anthropologic, sociologic, bio, chem and otherwise, is not metaphysical morality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom