Cogito ergo Deus est

spedz:

rkidd:

spedz:

There is no valid moral or ethical argument that can be made for not eating an animal after it has died.

Moral arguments can only be made for how an animal is treated while it is alive, and how it is killed.

Yes there is: what if the act of eating…

The problem with playing the moral relativity card is that it throws the baby out with the bath water. If you really believed that morals were arbitrary and purely subjective then you would never have objected to my post, because you would have understood that it pertained to my moral compass.

Also, I never brought cannibalism into it, but since you did, I think the same argument applies. Once a person is dead, they’re dead, and eating them can’t cause them any harm. Really there are only two main options for any dead animal (including humans): 1. You can burn the corpse, or 2. It gets consumed, either by you or another animal or microorganisms. Both are ‘arguably’ immoral ways to treat an animal/human, but I stand by the position that if you really care about the welfare of a sentient animal, you’ll worry about how it’s treated while it’s alive, not about what happens to it after it’s dead.

Meat Fact

rkidd:

spedz:

There is no valid moral or ethical argument that can be made for not eating an animal after it has died.

Moral arguments can only be made for how an animal is treated while it is alive, and how it is killed.

Yes there is: what if the act of eating contributes to the determining factors of how it is treated while it is alive, and how it is killed? 

The act itself (eating the meat) does not contribute to these factors. Of course I understand that the more meat we buy, the higher the demand, the more cows/pigs/etc are produced, over-crowding, cages, yada yada. But the act of eating the meat does not affect this. All of that is a result of our society, capitalism, and a bunch of other stuff that came into existence long after 'meat-eating' existed. It's what we do to get that meat that contributes e.g. Who killed it? How? How much did we pay for it? Who did we buy it from?

It might seem like nitpicking, but it’s important in regard to the morality of the act itself. Once the meat is on your plate, everything that contributed to whether the meat is ‘moral’ - how the animal was treated, fed, killed and sold - has already happened. Putting it in the bin or in your mouth changes nothing.

Think about it logically: if we can agree that there is at least some morally permissible way for meat to end up in your stomach, then it follows that the act of eating it itself must not be the deciding factor in that morality. Therefore, the stance of ‘never-ever-eat-meat’ is not morally defensible.

As an example, say you’re a vegetarian and you order a salad that comes with a random piece of chicken on it. Refusing to eat that piece of chicken does not save the chicken; it has no effect whatsoever. At best it’s a waste. Eating it or not eating it has no effect on how chickens are being fed, treated, killed or sold.

The point is, it’s a reasonable and morally defensible position to be against the over-production of meat and against the inhumane treatment and slaughter of animals, and following that it’s reasonable to be selective in how much meat you eat and how you acquire it, but the position of ‘never-ever-eat-meat’ just does not logically follow from that.

Meat Fact

awkwardandvegan:

spedz:

There is no valid moral or ethical argument that can be made for not eating an animal after it has died.

Moral arguments can only be made for how an animal is treated while it is alive, and how it is killed.

If I hit your dog in the head with a brick until it dies will it make you feel better if I eat it afterwards?

Wh-…uh…n-no?

Why would you hit my dog in the head with a brick until it dies? Do vegans get off on abusing animals but not eating them? I could have sworn I just said the mistreating and method of killing animals were definitely moral issues.

But I can assure you that if you did do both of those things, the second would be the least of my worries.

What the hell kind of point are you trying to make?

Meat Fact

There is no valid moral or ethical argument that can be made for not eating an animal after it has died.

Moral arguments can only be made for how an animal is treated while it is alive, and how it is killed.

Did you just poop the bed?
6 word story.
Did you-? Is that-? You didn’t-?
6 word story.
Oh God, what is that smell?
6 word story.
Is the Bible infallible?

People make a big fuss about the word ‘infallible’ when describing the Bible, and most Christians’ first instinct is that the Bible, as God’s word, must be ‘infallible’. But what does that mean? Infallible in what sense? Physically? Historically? Mathematically?

As an example, there is a passage in 1 Kings where the value of Pi is given to be exactly 3, which most of us should know is wrong. How can this be, if the Bible really is infallible?

One could present a lot of answers, but the most logical is that the Bible does not aim to be a maths textbook, and hence shouldn’t be treated as an authority on maths.

So why then do so many Christians insist that the Bible is an authority on science? Science as we know it wasn’t developed until over 1000 years after the Bible was written. Really, we should expect the Bible to be as accurate a science textbook as it is a car manual. Yet still people insist that, where we meet contradictions, we should take the Bible’s word over that of scientific evidence.

The truth is that the Bible, if making any claims, can only claim to be spiritually and religiously infallible, because its purpose is primarily to be a spiritual and religious document.

After all, a contradiction with scientific evidence is just a contradiction with another of God’s works - one that has much less room for interpretation.

If 97% of scientists agreed a large meteor, like that which killed the dinosaurs, was going to hit Earth and produce a catastrophic dust cloud that would change the climate, people would appeal to the government to act fast and prevent disaster.

If 97% of scientists agreed on man-made climate change, people would deny it because it rained yesterday.

How do we define gender?

Here’s my problem:

There is a movement on Tumblr and in the real world, that says boys can wear dresses and girls don’t have to wear make-up or do ‘girly’ things if they want.

There is also a movement that states things such as ‘Some girls have penises’ and ‘Some boys have vaginas’.

Most importantly, a bunch of people subscribe to both. That is, they believe simultaneously that, say, you don’t have to dress or act like a woman to be a woman, and you don’t need to have a vagina or breasts to be a women.

My question is, if you believe both*, what is the definition of a woman? If you can’t define a woman by the way she appears, acts or by the genitals she has, what is left?

An answer I would expect is that ‘Identifying as a woman means you’re a woman’. But that can’t work; you can’t have the word ‘woman’ in the definition of ‘woman’. It’s circular reasoning. The same goes for ‘man’. So what is it that people can identify with that lets them know they are in fact a woman?

Seriously, does someone have an answer to this question: does holding those beliefs simultaneously not destroy the definition of woman/man?

*I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with either view, I just think they appear mutually exclusive.