View Single Post
Old 2009-10-23, 09:26   Link #87
Shameless Fangirl
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 28
Originally Posted by Ansalem View Post
If you're not talking about cannibalism, you are ignoring my point that killing animals for consumption is what is morally acceptable. Human construction destroys animal habitats and results in the death of animals. Do you live in outdoors with no structure?
Having a roof over your head can be essential to survival.
And even if that wasn't the case, it can be considered "making life worth living".
Our lifestyle is often harmful to people in poorer countries. Does that mean they shouldn't have rights at all, since we can never do them justice?

Mass production of grain kills animals. Do you only eat food you have grown yourself to ensure no animals were killed in its harvest?
More animals die (and suffer) for meat production for the same reason meat is more expensive.
But yes, I consider growing most of my food myself one day. At the moment, that's hardly possible, though.

The only reason that people are able to find all the protein needed without killing animals is because of the modern facilities and roadways we have to facilitate the gathering and distribution of nuts and other non-meats, which has had great impact on the world and in turn animals. Everywhere in the world does not have sufficient alternative sources of these nutrients to provide a healthy diet if we we back to zero impact living, and people would be forced to eat meat. Quite the conundrum. It is impossible for all the people of the world to live in a way that does not kill animals.
It's also impossible for me to live without harming a single other human being. I will still try not to cause more harm than necessary.

Your argument that naturalness has no place in deciding what is wrong or right is misguided.
"Naturalness" can't be the sole argument, because it would indeed be a pure matter of interpretation.
Unless you can point out a morally relevant difference between a human and an animal possessing a central nervous system, my point stands.

We are undeniably a different kind of being,
There was a time whites would have said that about blacks.
Yes, we are a different species. That doesn't mean we should cause harm to non-human animals where it can be easily avoided.

Well, you're only 19 and many people find the desire to procreate later in life. You won't necessarily, for we have evolved beyond acting solely on instincts.
Ah, I'm asexual, so at least I probably won't feel the desire ro reproduce. xD

However, just as you can understand that it is not necessary for you own being to do a certain action, that it does necessarily make that action wrong, whether it be procreating or eating meat for sustenance.
Not necessarily, no.
But some actions harm others, and others don't.

This is true, but they are all humans, which as I have already stated are not for my consumption. This is a false equivocation.
You might enjoy eating meat. Someone else might enjoy robbing their neighbour. It's about a morally relevant difference between an animal and a human being, not about what you gain from killing them.

I think you're missing the point.
Ah, I don't think so.
"I think of the disturbance in Area 11 as a chess puzzle, set forth by Lelouch." - Clovis la Britannia
Nogitsune is offline   Reply With Quote