5 ms·

Everyone knows animals think and feel, but that's no reason not to deny our need to eat animals. I think animal cruelty is bad because it shows disregard and th

Everyone knows animals think and feel, but that's no reason not to deny our need to eat animals. I think animal cruelty is bad because it shows disregard and they have a propensity to do the same to people. But I think it's ridiculous to have an equivalent level of empathy for people and animals. Your over-concern with animals and enlightenment as a teenager is only made possible by the advanced state of our civilization.

chc 14y ago
> But I think it's ridiculous to have an equivalent level of empathy for people and animals. "An equivalent level of empathy"? Do you really think that a person whose empathy for human beings stops at "I shouldn't kill and eat them" would be considered highly ethical? You might not agree with vegetarians' ideology, but I don't think they are exactly setting a very high bar.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  If we are accepting that animals and humans are generally treated differently (i.e., without equivalent levels of empathy), why should it be surprising that for some people that difference works out such that eating animals is okay?
  - raphman 14y ago
    We are treating humans differently, too. I love my children more than someone I meet on the streets. Generally, our society considers it still ethically ok to have different amounts of empathy for different people and treat them differently. However, there are some things that are absolutely not ok for humans to do: kill someone, eat them, etc. To me, treating animals differently than humans in general does not logically imply that killing them is ok.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      > We are treating humans differently, too. Absolutely. Anyone who suggests that vegetarians treat animals an humans the same is just being inflammatory. That clearly is not the case. > To me, treating animals differently than humans in general does not logically imply that killing them is ok. Of course, you are absolutely correct. Similarly, having empathy for animals / treating animals ethically does not logically imply that killing them is not okay. For some people it means exactly that, and for others it does not.
inoop 14y ago
> Your over-concern with animals and enlightenment as a teenager is only made possible by the advanced state of our civilization. I think that's exactly the point of many vegetarians are making. In modern times, there is no longer any need to eat meat because cheap, healthy alternatives exist. Hence, eating meat is now a choice, and no longer a necessity.
- justin66 14y ago
  > Hence, eating meat is now a choice, and no longer a necessity. It was never, ever a necessity. If it were the Hindus would have died out, back when their vegetarianism was a dictate rather than a still very common preference. I wonder if you think it was necessary because of nutrition (nonsense) or because of some subtler point about agriculture?
  - inoop 14y ago
    I never argued that eating meat was ever a necessity.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
justin66 14y ago
> deny our need to eat animals. That we "need to eat animals" is not a supportable position, speaking nutritionally or economically. > Your over-concern with animals and enlightenment as a teenager is only made possible by the advanced state of our civilization. I'm sure you have some rational reason for stating that, but given the large number of people in both the dirt-poor, subsistence-farming developing world and the much wealthier world don't eat meat - and given that this has been the case a long time - whatever correlation you think you've identified doesn't exist.

chc 14y ago

> But I think it's ridiculous to have an equivalent level of empathy for people and animals. "An equivalent level of empathy"? Do you really think that a person whose empathy for human beings stops at "I shouldn't kill and eat them" would be considered highly ethical? You might not agree with vegetarians' ideology, but I don't think they are exactly setting a very high bar.

jlgreco 14y ago
If we are accepting that animals and humans are generally treated differently (i.e., without equivalent levels of empathy), why should it be surprising that for some people that difference works out such that eating animals is okay?
- raphman 14y ago
  We are treating humans differently, too. I love my children more than someone I meet on the streets. Generally, our society considers it still ethically ok to have different amounts of empathy for different people and treat them differently. However, there are some things that are absolutely not ok for humans to do: kill someone, eat them, etc. To me, treating animals differently than humans in general does not logically imply that killing them is ok.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > We are treating humans differently, too. Absolutely. Anyone who suggests that vegetarians treat animals an humans the same is just being inflammatory. That clearly is not the case. > To me, treating animals differently than humans in general does not logically imply that killing them is ok. Of course, you are absolutely correct. Similarly, having empathy for animals / treating animals ethically does not logically imply that killing them is not okay. For some people it means exactly that, and for others it does not.

inoop 14y ago

> Your over-concern with animals and enlightenment as a teenager is only made possible by the advanced state of our civilization. I think that's exactly the point of many vegetarians are making. In modern times, there is no longer any need to eat meat because cheap, healthy alternatives exist. Hence, eating meat is now a choice, and no longer a necessity.

justin66 14y ago
> Hence, eating meat is now a choice, and no longer a necessity. It was never, ever a necessity. If it were the Hindus would have died out, back when their vegetarianism was a dictate rather than a still very common preference. I wonder if you think it was necessary because of nutrition (nonsense) or because of some subtler point about agriculture?
- inoop 14y ago
  I never argued that eating meat was ever a necessity.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

justin66 14y ago

> deny our need to eat animals. That we "need to eat animals" is not a supportable position, speaking nutritionally or economically. > Your over-concern with animals and enlightenment as a teenager is only made possible by the advanced state of our civilization. I'm sure you have some rational reason for stating that, but given the large number of people in both the dirt-poor, subsistence-farming developing world and the much wealthier world don't eat meat - and given that this has been the case a long time - whatever correlation you think you've identified doesn't exist.