Quote:
Yes, I consider causing financial damage to producers evil. I dont think their kids should starve or go poor because this guy wants to get his self-rightious jollies off
.

Ok, let's get over this point, I do not approve or think it's right to damage any other people property and this is not what I want to discuss. You are right about this point.


Quote:
You are technically correct, but neither yourself nor CrazyGuy have MADE A CASE for why it IS immoral. You are just making some assumption that it is.


If you have time and when you have time and thinks that is interesting to know about those crazy people that are vegans I will put a link for the immoral raised question.


Quote:
Our faculty of reason,intellect, and our opposable thumbs ARE our natural tools. This guy has utterly failed in his analysis of our natural tools, thats my point. Not having the same digestive tract as a coyote does NOT mean we dont eat meat.


This is another point that I do not see a point on this and I agree with you to some degree, we can eat meat and vegetable and period. The fact that he tries to argument that is because some people think that is our nature to eat meat and milk and to some people to not eat milk or meat is like an aberration and you will die, like you said about the detriment of your children because you would not give them cow milk or pig meat, when You can actualy raise kids healther give them vegetable milk and fruits.


Quote:
Morality springs from logic, and his attempt to separate logic and reason from morality is why I find him so utterly repulsive and evil. You ought to read Descartes before you buy this guys crap. And Kant and Hume and etc http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/
Trying to separate morality from reason never goes anywhere good. This guy is arguing that morality is based on emotion. Emotion is not a basis for morality, and trying to use it as such is in fact something a base animal would do. Its a dark side of human nature, not the enlightened side.


Why did you the white guys from USA had free your slaves or declared all humans to have basic rights? Enlight-me about moral/reason/emotion about the subject if you can in a few words. I really didnt understand the point and all is back to moral question.

Quote:
Usually? You and he are confusing proper production of meat, with the state of our current industry. Some aspects of our current meat industry are inarguably imperfect and less than optimally healthy. However, that says nothing about the concept of eating meat in of itself. Some facts for you:
On my moms side of the family, which comes from a rural area which in fact has raised its own meat for hundreds of years- the average lifespan ( yes average) is about 95 years. My grandparents generation of people in the area and extended family live/lived to be between 87 and 102 years old. And they eat/ate home raised milk products and pork and beef EVERY SINGLE DAY.
They also didnt eat it as a luxury. This guys arguments about the inherent health benefits and economics of meat as blanket statements are utter bullshit, and completely unfounded assertions. I can guarantee that from personal experience.



I know how is a farm I spend many vacation days on a farm when I were a kid, the cousin of my dad had a farm. I can say for sure that there is a combination of factor, but all male familiars here were dead before 65 years old from heart deseases, they didnt eat almost any vegetables at all, they all eat milk and meat daily and didnt exercice enough, and let the others do the job and had employes to do all farm work. I guess your grandparents really worked there, different from big land owners of farms here in Brazil.

And yes meat is a luxury for 70% of world population in cities where most people of the world lives, unlike your grandparents. To feed 300 million americans that way and for the price that you pay today you cannot imagine have old way farms, and the true is most of productives farms are factories. Not the old way that you grandparents did the thing, it's unreal to think that you can feed 300 hundred million americans with conventional farming. Again I do not think this is the real point, lets go back to the moral question that you raised.

Quote:
I have not been irrational in the slightest, rather the PETA side has yet to concoct one single sound argument. Yet the PETA people will harm other humans and be general nuisances despite not having any sound arguments. The core of PETA belief is based on emotion.

I do not know how PETA operate, but you spent any time about the question raised vegans are pretty reasonable. I'm going to put a link about a plamphet and when you have time please read the short text.


Quote:
See, this is a different issue. Perhaps what is happening in Brazil is coloring your perception. Maybe what is happening in Brazil is not good. I dont know, I dont live in Brazil or follow it too closely. Perhaps the people who are growing meat in Brazil are in fact locally detrimental. If so, by all means oppose them and what they are doing. But do it on the basis of the harm they are actually doing.... no need to use emotion as faux basis for logic. You will get a lot further with that.


You have to think global, the soybean produced here do not go for the consume in Brazil, it goes to be exported to feed cattle in another countries, the government to not interferes about if you are going to export your product to another country as the same I think to USA. So the world needs more grains to feed the raise the production of meat,milk and eggs. What brings more pressure on our resources, and to the point of producing meat is more resource intensive that producing the some amount of grains that would feed people directly, one of the argument of vegans. It's cheaper to feed people with vegetables than with meat.


Quote:
Like I said, lets keep the global warning crap to a different thread. But on the meat topic, it is not inherently necessary to raise grain to eat meat. In fact some farmers naturally graze animals. You are talking about the individual techniques for raising meat, which is DIFFERENT than poor ranching tactics being INHERENT in eating of meat.
This is yet another example of why people who discard logic and argue on the basis of emotion are so frustrating.
Anyone with a simple grounding in logic inherently understands that just because one method or type of cattle ranching may arguably be overall detrimental, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY create a case that ALL MEAT detrimental.
People raised and lived off of animals for thousands of years because when done properly, they in fact add quite a bit of economic efficiency. Pigs for example are one of the best examples of natural recycling.


What is the logic that is being discarded, saying that is more efficient to feed people with grains that to feed people with meat that uses grains, USA is the world first producer of soybean followed by Brazil, and almost all of it is used to feed cattle.


Quote:
You have yet to produce a single argument based on rationality or reason, and dare to accuse me of seeing only what I want to see? That sir, takes a lot of chutzpah.

You have not even tried to argue why, logically, using animals is immoral. When that is pointed out, you avoid addressing it and swerve off into some unfounded assumptions about the health of eating animal products. Then in the same breath accuse me of seeing only what I want to see.

I honestly hope you decide to allow yourself to engage is some reflection, and see what is wrong with that.



There is nothing wrong, it's all reasonable, I will not right myself a wall of text, but if you have time to read an article from a professor maybe I can explan about morals that you ask me:

The abolitionist aproach

Animal Ethics: "I tremble for my species when I reflect that god is just." Thomas Jefferson.
[Linked Image from the-kgb.com]