Meat

[Ritualist]

I'll tackle this simply:

Do you eat meat? Yarp. I loves it.
If yes, why? Cause it's goooooooood.
If no, why? Not applicable. Please move on.
Would you eat Synthetic Meat? Yes. Believe it or not tofu can be made good. And you don't NEED synthetic meats. Substituting a big fat grilled mushroom for your burger is actually pretty damn tasty.
Do you have a preference in Meat?(as in both in terms of Animal and individual Dish) Nope. Blood blood blood makes the green grass grow.
If you don't eat meat, what do you prefer?I do eat meat but I figured I'd answer as there are alternatives. They aren't as good or varied as simply eating meat, but mushrooms can make a great meat substitute from time to time. Peanuts will get you your protein, etc, etc. There are alternatives.


I will address one hot topic though. NEVER bring up morality when it comes to eating, unless it's cannibalism. Eating animals is something we did for thousands of years as a survival tactic. Does that mean that it's wrong to do it now that we aren't hunter/gatherers? No. Is it immoral to eat meat? No. Because that would imply that evolution, and basic survival are both inherently evil. And if man is inherently evil then that is a necessity, as the inherent evil is the only thing keeping us progressing as a society. There are no moral truths except 1: Only what is good for the growth of humans as a whole, so long as it does not ruin the environment, is the only true good. That is the only morality that matters.
Are far too many animals raised as food in horrifying conditions? YUP. But that doesn't make eating them bad. It makes the producers bad. I will admit it openly, we mass produce too much meat, and it leads to terrible conditions and sub par yields as they over price under quality products.

Eating meat isn't bad. It's how it lives and gets to market that is bad. Having said that, tying a newborn cow to a stake and force feeding it until it's fat enough to eat is fucked up. It takes away personal humanity from a man who would deny even the simplest of lives to something he is going to eat. It's kind of like robots replacing assembly line workers.
It's more efficient, and can mass produce the product faster, but overproduction sacrifices a need. In this way, veal is efficient at creating the tenderness and flavor, and it can be mass produced sacrificing maturity of a product, and even the simplest dignity to the animal. And animals DO have dignity. Any pet owner can tell you that.
If you had to grow up just to be a cog in a machine wouldn't you like the dignity of being acknowledged as a cog?

 

[Arakasi]

lol I was warned for suggesting that someone swallows a penis in a thread about eating meat. I was only discussing the topic!

Yeah, it made it a pain in the ass to quote you again.

l

What I'm trying to say here is that rewarding only those who show pain is a poor idea, it is better to reward action we consider good than action we consider pitiful.

And no, I would not harm another human were it practical and pleasurable. Partially because it goes against the morality I developed, but primarily because of the social contract. Though I cannot say how a version of me without any empathy would act, maybe a version of me without morality would harm a human, I can only say from the point of view of me, me being where I can not understand getting pleasure from harming someone. I might also add an interesting dilemma, you can go to eternal paradise, but you have to flick someone in the arm to go there, but you can't ask permission or forewarn the person. Do you do it?
Oh, and I might also add that there's no reason to be so hostile.

That is not an interesting dilemma. Only a fool would want to live forever. No matter how great paradise may be, it will bore you to insanity after the first billion years, and then you still have eternity left to wait out.

A neurochemical paradise in which your brain is stimulated and kept in a constant state of pleasure would never get old. By necessity, because it's a hypothetical. In hypotheticals you must take the premises as given, and see what you'd do.

l
And a flick on the arm? That doesn't even count as hurting someone. Maybe if it was the most sensitive and kind soul in the world it'd be a factor.

I'm talking about a hard flick, but if you want I could replace that with a pinch. What I'm asking, is what counts and what doesn't? Any line would seem arbitrary unless it's none or all.

l

No, because of the social contract. Complexity does not make something intrinsically more valuable (perhaps to own, but not from some sort of objective moral standpoint). A robot could also say it processes therefore it is, all that argument is a matter of perspective, I perceive therefore there must be something doing the perceiving. Nothing to do with complexity beyond simple perception.

There's that word 'objective' again... yes, impartially speaking the intrinsic value does not go up with complexity. Subjectively however, a shark is more valuable than a mosquito. A random amoeba less useful than a milk cow. An tablet computer is worth more than a pencil and paper. Objectively speaking you can disagree. But you'd look pretty silly taking the pencil and paper when you can sell the tablet to buy many pencils and papers.

Complexity isn't exactly the cause of the value in those situations. In every situation you described X was valuable because X was more useful. Complexity does not impart value.

l
And no, a robot cannot say that it processes and therefore it is, unless you program it to.

We were programmed by evolution. So does not the same apply?

l

I beg to differ. One can still pursue pleasures (beauty, sport, whatever) knowing they are meaningless outside of just pleasure, or knowing that they are simply a mechanism, there's no need to delude oneself.

They are delusions to you only because you have decided that they are delusions. The beauty of sentience is that we can forge meaning where there is only meaninglessness.

Yes, and what I'm saying is that the only meaning that makes any sense (aside from various in-built biases) is the drive for pleasure.

 

[Arakasi]

A neurochemical paradise in which your brain is stimulated and kept in a constant state of pleasure would never get old. By necessity, because it's a hypothetical. In hypotheticals you must take the premises as given, and see what you'd do.

Pleasure is something I look forward to because it is different from not-pleasure. You need cold to experience warmth. I choose a nice, comfortable brain-death still.

I am kind of sick of this argument, because it's not apt. There are pleasures you can get sick of, like too much food or too much sex for example, but you never get sick of the neurochemical signals in the reward center of the brain. It'd be maladaptive (in our current environment) if you could.

I'm talking about a hard flick, but if you want I could replace that with a pinch. What I'm asking, is what counts and what doesn't? Any line would seem arbitrary unless it's none or all.

Hardly arbitrary. Only computers are limited to making hard, binary distinctions like black/white, pain/not-pain, on/off. We are more complex.

We are more complex in that we do gradations, like a dimmer switch. Note that you can get gradations from on/off. Our neurons work by building an electric charge, before turning on/off. It's possible (I think, though I am not too knowledgeable in neurophysiology) for neurons to have to take charges from multiple locations before firing, and things of that nature. The same could be said for computers programmed to do such.

Complexity isn't exactly the cause of the value in those situations. In every situation you described X was valuable because X was more useful. Complexity does not impart value.

How is a shark useful compared to a mosquito exactly? One is simply more complex and that makes it more valuable to me. Hold on, let me channel my inner nihilist, you're going to say that the animal is good for soup aren't you?

Hey man, don't knock it 'till you've tried it.

We were programmed by evolution. So does not the same apply?

Natural selection isn't a conscious process, we are.

...So? How does that relate to this facet of the argument?

Yes, and what I'm saying is that the only meaning that makes any sense (aside from various in-built biases) is the drive for pleasure.

How boring!

As previously mentioned, pleasure activations in the brain necessarily can't be boring. Sure we currently have to use many means to get to it (food, sex, thrills, entertainment, whatever) but having to do more things to get the same thing is rather wasteful. If you could just inject a non-harmful drug and have it for the rest of your life, why not?

 

[Ritualist]

r u serious rite now? Eating human meat is a taboo or a religious taboo. Morality only comes into it if you consider the conditions in which the human meat was acquired. And if you do that, then you must also take morality into account with eating animal meat.

So you're saying it's okay to eat human meat as long as the person wants to be eaten or it is a necessity? Okay? Not gonna argue that. Extenuating circumstances always exist.

No, you're wrong. I don't even have to provide any evidence to refute your claim because those moral truths are personal to you and do not apply to me.

"Nuh-uh, you're wrong and I don't have to support my claim."
Cute, really cute. If you want to debate a claim, please try actually debating it.

It does, because you are purchasing that meat and personally creating a demand for more. Which, as you said, cannot be supported humanely.

That might be true. MIGHT. You do have to take into account that I can't actively control how the meat comes to be. Are there humane farms? Yup. Are there inhumane ones? You bet'cha. But until I see stickers on my meat telling me which ones are which, it's kind of hard for me to truly know who's humane and who's not.
Once again, if you want to debate a point, try debating the point instead of blindly pointing fingers looking for a scapegoat.

I need clothes. I can't afford nice ones. Do the cheap ass affordable clothes I wear come from child labor? Maybe. But it's that or go naked (and I ain't got a problem with that. But the cops do).

 

[Arakasi]

I am kind of sick of this argument, because it's not apt. There are pleasures you can get sick of, like too much food or too much sex for example, but you never get sick of the neurochemical signals in the reward center of the brain. It'd be maladaptive (in our current environment) if you could.

Well, do excuse me for responding to your hypothetical with an answer that you do not consider valid.

You're excused, it's a common mistake.

You want to spend billions of years wallowing about in your own uselessness as you've rendered things like love, friendship and even eating and sleeping meaningless.

They are already meaningless beyond pleasure. It would be better to surpass them, but since that is not currently possible I'll settle.

The question is whether I would, and the answer is no. It's that simple.

I'd like to hear a valid reason. If you don't have one, okay. I'd just like to hear one. I go where the philosophy leads me.

And you also want to gamble that the reward center of your brain, along with the rest of it, is perfectly adapted to life eternal. Which is naive at best.

That is an interesting point, though I didn't mention anything about eternal life (did I?). What if your reward center deteriorated before the rest of the brain (for some reason)? Well then that would be the time to die.

I'm talking about a hard flick, but if you want I could replace that with a pinch. What I'm asking, is what counts and what doesn't? Any line would seem arbitrary unless it's none or all.

We are more complex in that we do gradations, like a dimmer switch. Note that you can get gradations from on/off.

You're either contradicting yourself or answering your own question.

No, both of those quotes were in reference to two different things. One was about the similarity between us and computers in that we both use gradations, and the other was in reference to the morality of harming others.

The line is not absolute because we 'sentient computers' are able to make as many distinctions between gradations as we feel we need to. So of course a pinch does not count, because it's several gradations below what most people would consider life-changing. Where was this even going?

Fair enough, so it's moral to flick someone (well, not moral, but not greatly immoral) because we can make distinctions between what is acceptable and what isn't. Okay, how does this apply to animals? I'd argue that it doesn't.

Hey man, don't knock it 'till you've tried it.

On the contrary, I am quite sure that the dish, as well as you personally, disgust and bore me.

You really do love to border on the ad-hominem don't you? If you want people to take any argument you make seriously I recommend you do not partake in such.

 

[Ritualist]

Then if you take circumstances into account, you must also realize that eating animal meat is neither something the animal desires nor a necessity anymore. Given our current level of evolutionary and technological advancement. Therefore morals factor in where they did not previously do so, and thus we are perfectly valid in calling the act of eating meat today evil to a good degree.

Sorry, dominant species bro. Science says the piggy don't know what's coming and wouldn't know the difference. Evolution says you're wrong. If eating meat is evil, eating a salad is just as evil since plants give us oxygen. I only agreed to EXTENUATING circumstances. A pig can't talk. A cow doesn't know the difference between being fed and being driven to market. Eating them is morally no different than breathing. Unless you believe trees don't want us inhaling their poop.

My point was that your claim to moral truth is not and cannot be up for debate because any dissent would be considered wrong (as in contrary to the truth) by definition. I can however, simply make a claim to the contrary of what you said.

Contrary would be giving your "point" too much credit there. If you'd said what you said just now BEFORE, you might have a point. But you don't try to dunk on Shaq, and you don't try to act like a 12 year old's argument is a valid point.

The economic fact that I stated might be true? Gee.

You cannot minimize your impact on the demand for cheap clothes because they are vital to your survival, but the same cannot be said for meat. And here in Europe at least, we do have stickers that indicate how much living space the animal had and how many drugs and antibiotics it was pumped full of on a daily basis. Still not entirely reliable, but purchasing them communicates a demand.

Actually I can.
Remember them vitamin supplements I mentioned earlier? I can't buy them. I have a 189 USD food budget per month. And you can't buy pills with food stamps. Remember them peanuts I mentioned? Guess what? I'm allergic bro.
You NEED protein to survive. Me, and countless other people in this country are on governmental aid just to eat. And more and more children are born every year with peanut allergies. And your argument is that I am bad for buying non-cruelty free chicken? Well, I can buy 5 pounds of non-cruelty free chicken for 25 bucks. Or I can get 1 pound of cruelty free chicken for 10. Do the math. Inhuame meat means I get to survive. Humane meat currently means I die of a protein deficiency. Cruelty free is NOT an affordable option if I would like to continue to live.

My need for affordable clothes DIRECTLY coincides with my need to eat meat. You missed the keyword. AFFORDABLE. Means I live on a budget. Means countless people in the world live on a budget. So until organic foods and cruelty-free meat products start having competitive prices, no, I can't be blamed for simply needing to survive. Nice try though.

 

[saoirse13]

I LOVE MEAT. All real meat, none of that processed shit for me.
I love all meats but Beef and Lamb are just delightful.
I doo tend to eat quite a lot of steak, usually 2-3 times a week, and well red meat is always in one of my daily meals. Since i started eating steak and red meat (about 4 years ago) I have put on a little weight. Now I'm definately not skinny but I'm not overweight either. I weigh about 120lb (8st8pounds)which is around about ok for my height (5ft 2in)

I do love all meat but steak is my favourite, and it has to be cooked RARE the more blood the better (I'm a vegetarians nightmare dinner date haha). The taste is just exquisite.

This sounds terribe but i really don't understand vegetarians. They are alien to me. Humans are carnivores not herbivores. It's in our DNA to eat meat. Throughout history, not only the human species but all carnivorous animals, and plants hunt and/or kill to eat and survive. Granted slaughter houses are not my idea of hunting, and i don't necessarily agree with it. But think about it, before slaughter houses farmers breed cattle and the like to fatten up and kill for food and warmth, slaughter houses are just on a larger scale. I still don't agree with how some animals are treated. But it's not going to stop me or change my mind about eating meat. Whether its home breed or supermarket bought, I'm still going to enjoy my 10oz bloody rare steak when i get home.

And I'm pretty sure if I was standing somewhere in africa and a hungry lion happened apon me, he wouldn't be having moral dilemma about chowing down on my leg thinking "oh I can't eat that poor defenceless human, I'll wait and find a lettuce leaf"

I'm pretty sure I have probably offended someone, of so sorry but meat is awesome

 

[LadyLightning]

If the mistreated steak is cheaper than the pampered steak, I will buy the mistreated one, because the only consideration that matters to me on the topic of humane vs inhumane farming practice is which one lessens the financial impact on the consumer.