Get Acquainted with What You Eat

[trust]

oil doesn't directly cause the death of animals, maybe processes used to drill it or something can when there are accidents. What you're talking about is fossils, and they've been dead for a long time.

And you can't discriminate someone from employment based on their diet, you're digging to far deep into this looking for loopholes. So what if someone at x company ate a hamburger, it's the vegan who doesn't want to. It's their body let them do it as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. (My Libertarianism shines.)

[CrAz3D]

eggs dont cause death of chickens, especially organic chickens

[Rule]

First of all, that's completely unnecessary and those people are really sick mentally, and obviously so is your family

Seems to be a not particularly logical argument....

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

It is only your opinion that it is wrong to eat a pet.

What a stupid and frustrating way to argue.  It's only my opinion in the same way that it's only my opinion that we should define a field axiom such that addition is commutative viz. a+b=b+a.

[MyndFyre]

And you can't discriminate someone from employment based on their diet

You most certainly can, if the company is not a public corporation.

Can you elaborate on what you mean? 

Most certainly.

It's illogical that I think it is unnecessary in North America for the poorest of the poor to feel the need to eat their dogs? 

Yes.  Grotesque as we may see it, if people are desperate enough to sell their bodies for abuse sexually, or their children, why would we stop for dogs?

Or it is illogical that I think people who do so unnecessarily are mentally sick? 

It is an opinion, but to make such an assertion as the basis for an argument or in the context of an argument is illogical.  For starters, it introduces an ad hominem attack - you aren't attacking the notion of eating dogs in and of itself as much as the people who do so.

Or it is illogical that those who sympathise with unnecessary and disturbing actions are likely to be sick themselves? 

Not if the foundation of your argument -- that the actions are unnecessary and disturbing -- is sound.  But I don't believe you've shown it to be so.

[Rule]

It's illogical that I think it is unnecessary in North America for the poorest of the poor to feel the need to eat their dogs? 

Yes.  Grotesque as we may see it, if people are desperate enough to sell their bodies for abuse sexually, or their children, why would we stop for dogs?

There are quite a few problems with your analogy.  Most importantly, it is completely off-topic because my argument in the above quote is that even the poorest people in the US have sources they can go to for free food, and so eating a dog is unnecessary.  I don't think this would be hard to prove.

Secondly, there is an important distinction between self-harm and harm to others.

Thirdly, you are assuming as a premise that it is acceptable for people to sell their bodies for sexual abuse.  I have not expressed any opinion on this either way.

Or it is illogical that I think people who do so unnecessarily are mentally sick? 

It is an opinion, but to make such an assertion as the basis for an argument or in the context of an argument is illogical.  For starters, it introduces an ad hominem attack - you aren't attacking the notion of eating dogs in and of itself as much as the people who do so.

It would be an ad hominem fallacy if I were to write, "person A ate their dog, and person A is mentally sick, so what person A did must be wrong." (I feel sick almost writing about this...)

Also, I am attacking both the people who partake in something like that, and the action itself.  This is not illogical.

Or it is illogical that those who sympathise with unnecessary and disturbing actions are likely to be sick themselves? 

Not if the foundation of your argument -- that the actions are unnecessary and disturbing -- is sound.  But I don't believe you've shown it to be so.

First, it should be obvious to most people that the actions are unnecessary - we have food banks, etc.   And you really need further motivation for the disturbing part?  That is what bothers me so much.

[iago]

Needless death of animals...?  So if they were out in the wild and starving they WOULD hunt/fish?
By supporting companies that hire people that likely eat animals, aren't they enabling animal ingestion?
Also, oil is a product from organics, likely including animals...strict veganism, it seems, would oppose oil consumption.

Yeah, because there aren't any plants in the wild. And places were there aren't any plants, there typically aren't any animals.

The problem is that vegans lose the ability to digest animal proteins. Eating anything with milk, eggs, or meat in it will make them physically ill. So they likely wouldn't be able to in that case, either.

They aren't stupid, they know they can't change others. It's the same way that he is friends with me, even though I eat meat. Perhaps he's enabling me, but really he's just being realistic.

Oil consumption is an interesting problem, though. But I think an animal being dead for millions of years is sufficiently removed to be ok. Don't forget, however, that vegans are usually the same people who are environmentalists, so they don't drive unless they have to and have efficienter cars.

[Rule]

Needless death of animals...?  So if they were out in the wild and starving they WOULD hunt/fish?
By supporting companies that hire people that likely eat animals, aren't they enabling animal ingestion?
Also, oil is a product from organics, likely including animals...strict veganism, it seems, would oppose oil consumption.

Yeah, because there aren't any plants in the wild. And places were there aren't any plants, there typically aren't any animals.

The problem is that vegans lose the ability to digest animal proteins. Eating anything with milk, eggs, or meat in it will make them physically ill. So they likely wouldn't be able to in that case, either.

They aren't stupid, they know they can't change others. It's the same way that he is friends with me, even though I eat meat. Perhaps he's enabling me, but really he's just being realistic.

Oil consumption is an interesting problem, though. But I think an animal being dead for millions of years is sufficiently removed to be ok. Don't forget, however, that vegans are usually the same people who are environmentalists, so they don't drive unless they have to and have efficienter cars.

Using oil is not supporting cruelty to animals in any way. 

[CrAz3D]

Needless death of animals...?  So if they were out in the wild and starving they WOULD hunt/fish?
By supporting companies that hire people that likely eat animals, aren't they enabling animal ingestion?
Also, oil is a product from organics, likely including animals...strict veganism, it seems, would oppose oil consumption.

Yeah, because there aren't any plants in the wild. And places were there aren't any plants, there typically aren't any animals.

The problem is that vegans lose the ability to digest animal proteins. Eating anything with milk, eggs, or meat in it will make them physically ill. So they likely wouldn't be able to in that case, either.

They aren't stupid, they know they can't change others. It's the same way that he is friends with me, even though I eat meat. Perhaps he's enabling me, but really he's just being realistic.

Oil consumption is an interesting problem, though. But I think an animal being dead for millions of years is sufficiently removed to be ok. Don't forget, however, that vegans are usually the same people who are environmentalists, so they don't drive unless they have to and have efficienter cars.

what about at sea or in the winter (when vegetation is usually sparce and all you can find are rabbits or something odd)?



Rule, eating an egg is not support cruelty towards animals either

[Rule]

Rule, eating an egg is not support cruelty towards animals either

Yeah, I agree, although most vegans probably don't.

[Rule]

Yeah, because there aren't any plants in the wild. And places were there aren't any plants, there typically aren't any animals.

There aren't any plants in the wild? 

[iago]

Eating an egg is the same as drinking milk, to put it simply it supports the notion of animals as slaves. Animals weren't born to feed us.

Although I'm starting to like milk and eggs less, as I think about it. Both are kinda gross. Milk is a substance made inside a female cow to support her babies. That doesn't sound too appetizing. And eggs are like that gross stuff that spills out of a woman who's having a baby. Again, not especially appetizing.

There are other gross foods I've recently learned about, too. You know that red colouring you find in a lot of foods? Some kinds are made from Cochineal, a kind of insect. There's also blue colouring made from snails and red from beetles (that one is banned in many countries, not including the US and Canada). Another kind of colour is made from tar.

These kinds of colours are used in all kinds of non-organic food, including many different fruits and vegetables. Some of them are known to have side effects such as photosensitivity and mood alterations. For example, oranges and salmon you buy at the grocery store may be coloured.

My point there, before I started rambling, is that vegans have to be educated in this kind of stuff, which isn't easy. I bet you don't even realize how many different chemicals and such you consume. I sure don't.

[iago]

Yeah, because there aren't any plants in the wild. And places were there aren't any plants, there typically aren't any animals.

There aren't any plants in the wild? 

I mixed sarcasm with non-sarcasm. My English skills are obviously too advanced for you ordinary peons.

[Rule]

Yeah, because there aren't any plants in the wild. And places were there aren't any plants, there typically aren't any animals.

There aren't any plants in the wild? 

I mixed sarcasm with non-sarcasm. My English skills are obviously too advanced for you ordinary peons.

Ok.  I had thought this, but I just had to check!

[iago]

Ok.  I had thought this, but I just had to check!

And did you notice how I referenced back to Craz3d's statement about Bush being an advanced English speaker? Genious!

[Super_X]

Secondly, the Bible says we have no right to condemn someone for not eating or for eating whatever they please. And regardless what we do we're doing it for the Lord. (Romans 14)

Yes, its cool to eat your pet, just not people.  We have rights, I guess.

Hmm...

Technically I suppose it's ok biblically to eat your pet, and my aunt knows people who were really poor and like ate their dogs or something. For Christmas my aunt/uncle/grandparents bought all of the gifts for "Santa" to give to the kids and stuff. This was a long time ago when I was still in elementary school I think, but it's pretty sad. Also eating your pet isn't as taboo in foreign countries. (For example, a Mongolian guy I know told me that when he lived in Mongolia it was regular practice, especially for poorer people, to eat dog) However, people...being the image of the Lord, are off limits to eat. It's just not allowed.

First of all, that's completely unnecessary and those people are really sick mentally, and obviously so is your family if they sympathize with that.  Secondly, shouldn't we try to be talking logically about this? I assume some non-Christian, or non-religious people think it's ok to eat animals but not humans.

There are very few animals that eat their own kind in nature, humans are one of the few. It's seldom eaten, and when it is, it's usually to show dominance.
A main reason for animals, and people, to not eat their own kind is because of diseases that exist from eating your own kind. Mad Cow disease is one, and there's one for every species in nature, they are just not common because most species don't eat their own grey mater.

On the point about Veg*s forcing their point of view down people's throats: I know many vegitarians, and a few vegans, and the only way I found out that was from hanging out with them, and noticing what they eat. I realize that it can change for every one, but, I just don't hang out with zealots of any point of view.