VeggieBoards banner
41 - 55 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
@ElaineV<br><br>
Firstly, thank you for the time you have put into all of your your responses.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">but it might be wise to contemplate about how your intentions are nearly irrelevant when the effect is the same. People were told untruths and consequently they feel manipulated.</div>
</div>
<br>
I did not see the rule that said all posts had to be about real life scenarios. I not see how it is my fault for how other people feel when it was not my intent to make them feel that way.<br><br>
I get it that you guys probably have people posting far-fetched scenarios to attempt to disprove/derail your beliefs. I also get it that this wastes your time that could be better served helping someone. The thing is I am not doing it for the same reason, yet I feel I am receiving treatment as if I was. Try to keep an open mind.<br><br>
Thank you for researching those links. I read through quite a few, however they are coming from very different angles to mine, and therefore the discussion does not relate directly to my question.<br><br>
I have found a different forum that discusses such issues on a more philosophical level and instead of wasting peoples time on this forum I will post such issues elsewhere.<br><br>
Its a shame that such a small thing (asking a question in the wrong way) has led to such a deflection from the original question that it can no longer be comfortably discussed. It is very similar to when I post a vegan orientated topic on a non-vegan board.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>cornernote</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3039848"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I did not see the rule that said all posts had to be about real life scenarios. I not see how it is my fault for how other people feel when it was not my intent to make them feel that way.</div>
</div>
<br>
You could have simply started the thread with the word "hypothetically." You did not need to make it about real life. You just needed to be honest.<br><br>
Does there need to be a rule saying that it's a good idea to use the words "please" and "thank you" to help you get what you want? And if someone points out that maybe part of the reason you didn't succeed in getting what you wanted was because you were rude, does it make sense to respond that "there's no rule that says I have to say please and thank you" ?<br><br>
Anyway, I'm glad you found a messageboard or other place to discuss your philosophical issues with veganism. It sounds like it's a much better fit for your questions and your discussion style.<br><br>
EDIT TO ADD:<br>
Here's the answer to your question: eating animals is far worse than driving a car because <b>the animals who become food for humans often literally suffer to death</b>. Deaths caused by autos simply aren't comparable in any significant way to the deaths caused by animal agriculture because the deaths caused by autos aren't as intentional, preventable, and most importantly, painful.<br>
Read more on that: <a href="http://www.vegansoapbox.com/your-food-choices-matter/" target="_blank">http://www.vegansoapbox.com/your-food-choices-matter/</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter · #43 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">You could have simply started the thread with the word "hypothetically." You did not need to make it about real life. You just needed to be honest.</div>
</div>
<br>
I COULD have, but I did not know it was a requirement to discuss a non-real scenario. I already said I was sorry (for not knowing, and for the outcome), but it cannot be let go. You seem very fixated on this idea that I could have got better answer by adding a word to my question. However even after we have agreed this to be true there has been no better answer, only further discussion to "assist me" to ask questions in a better way.<br><br>
The community closely examined:<br>
1) how i asked the question<br>
2) why i asked the question<br>
3) which forum i asked the question in<br>
4) how real the question was to real life<br><br>
But very little effort was put in (by most, not all) in addressing the question.<br><br>
Thank you everyone for showing me the errors of my way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Here's the answer to your question: eating animals is far worse than driving a car because the animals who become food for humans often literally suffer to death. Deaths caused by autos simply aren't comparable in any significant way to the deaths caused by animal agriculture because the deaths caused by autos aren't as intentional, preventable, and most importantly, painful.</div>
</div>
<br>
I think there is misunderstanding in the ways in which animals die by our cars.<br><br>
Animals who are exploited for oil to drive cars often literally suffer to death.<br>
Animals who are hit by cars often literally suffer to death.<br>
Animals who are exploited for oil to drive cars are often killed in ways that are just as intentional, preventable, and most importantly, painful.<br><br>
Also, there is no unit of measure for any of these things so comparing if cars or meat causes more harm in ways that is preventable or painful is not productive.<br><br>
I agree with where you are coming from, but I disagree with the logic you used to get there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
Another reason I disagree with the logic is as follows...<br><br>
If a report (scientific/logical/rational/etc) was produced that showed how many animals are harmed or killed on average per persons use for:<br>
1) oil<br>
2) food<br><br>
If oil was a higher number would we include it in the "non-vegan" list of things? I still think we wouldn't. But I cannot understand the logical/rational reason that oil is a vegan product, but cruelty free cosmetics, honey, wool, silk, and flesh,, although not directly morally wrong (feel free to dispute the moral wrongness of any of these), are considered non-vegan.<br><br>
Don't get me wrong. I am a vegan.<br><br>
Honey is not vegan. Wool and silk are not vegan. Cruelty cosmetics are not vegan. Cruelty oil is not vegan. Cars powered by cruelty oil are not vegan!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,595 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>cornernote</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3039879"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I think there is misunderstanding in the ways in which animals die by our cars.<br><br>
Animals who are exploited for oil to drive cars often literally suffer to death.<br>
Animals who are hit by cars often literally suffer to death.<br>
Animals who are exploited for oil to drive cars are often killed in ways that are just as intentional, preventable, and most importantly, painful.<br><br>
Also, there is no unit of measure for any of these things so comparing if cars or meat causes more harm in ways that is preventable or painful is not productive.<br><br>
I agree with where you are coming from, but I disagree with the logic you used to get there.</div>
</div>
<br>
What do you mean by 'animals exploited for oil'? Are we talking habitat loss; death in machinery; animals being killed and some part of them being used to <i>produce</i> oil; 'pest' animals killed by oil companies in or around their facilities; animal slave labor; animal testing in oil refining? In what way are they <i>exploited</i>, specifically?<br><br>
Also, When ElaineV said that animals "suffer to death" I tool it to mean from birth until slaughter their life is a constant and unending torture that stops only when they eventually die due to their conditions or are killed for food. An animal being hit by a car is involved in an <i>accident</i>, and while it could be painful (horribly, horribly painful - I'm not trying to lessen that) and fatal, it is not a lifetime of suffering until early death. Saying that someone in an accident "suffers to death" in the same way that animals involved in factory farm agriculture do is... nonsensical. Their suffering comes from the accident that causes their death, it's not a life so full of suffering that eventually it kills them.<br><br>
I'm not arguing in favor of cars, btw, cars can just suck it, but I disagree with your reasoning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
@kazyeeqen<br><br>
Thank you for your point of view.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Are we talking habitat loss</div>
</div>
<br>
Yes, all of the above reasons.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">When ElaineV said that animals "suffer to death" I tool it to mean from birth until slaughter their life is a constant and unending torture that stops only when they eventually die due to their conditions or are killed for food.</div>
</div>
<br>
Ok, I see. The fact that they were "born by our hand to die by our hand". I think I am understanding that that is the key in the usage of the word exploit.<br><br>
I will ponder some more. Thanks again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,595 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>cornernote</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3039947"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Ok, I see. The fact that they were "born by our hand to die by our hand". I think I am understanding that that is the key in the usage of the word exploit.<br><br>
I will ponder some more. Thanks again.</div>
</div>
<br>
Hmmm... I wouldn't say that about the word exploit. Exploitation is using someone/something for the benefit of the user. So animals killed to produce something would be exploitation (though I don't know that that happens in oil production), but accidental deaths due to machinery is not exploitation, because they are not using the animals. Animal testing is exploitation (I don't know if that happens in oil production), but habitat loss is not (though I would say the user is exploiting the land).<br><br>
Exploitation isn't always horrifying suffering like factory farming either. People could exploit their kids for profit by getting them into show business or something (just an example, they could also be getting their kids into show business because they care about them and their future or because the kid really wants to and the parents are being supportive) In this situation the exploited kid could be just as happy as the non-exploited kid, but they are still being exploited. Exploitation is a matter of <i>use</i>.<br><br>
Extermination is really ****ing bad, but it's not exploitation. Slave labor is exploitation (I don't think animal slave labor happens in oil production either).<br><br>
So, while I really don't know all the processes that are involved in the production and refinement of oil, I don't think animals are actually <i>exploited</i>.<br><br>
That's not to say they aren't harmed. Just just like in agriculture, animals are harmed and killed in the production of grains, fruits and vegetables, but they are <i>exploited</i> in the production of eggs, meat and dairy products. We may be saddened by the harm, but what vegans actually avoid is the exploitation.<br><br>
But still, I'm not saying that it's 'okay' to drive, I don't think it is (but I'm not gonna push that on anybody, cars and driving are inextricably linked to our way of life, despite all our apparent choices often it seems we have very few), but I think it's a separate issue from veganism.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,131 Posts
I don't care about the environment. I care about animals, so meat is worse. Just because one doesn't drive a car, it doesn't mean it is ethical for he or she to eat meat.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,960 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>cornernote</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3039888"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Another reason I disagree with the logic is as follows...<br><br>
If a report (scientific/logical/rational/etc) was produced that showed how many animals are harmed or killed on average per persons use for:<br>
1) oil<br>
2) food<br><br><br>
If oil was a higher number would we include it in the "non-vegan" list of things? I still think we wouldn't. But I cannot understand the logical/rational reason that oil is a vegan product, but cruelty free cosmetics, honey, wool, silk, and flesh,, although not directly morally wrong (feel free to dispute the moral wrongness of any of these), are considered non-vegan.<br><br>
Don't get me wrong. I am a vegan.<br><br>
Honey is not vegan. Wool and silk are not vegan. Cruelty cosmetics are not vegan. Cruelty oil is not vegan. Cars powered by cruelty oil are not vegan!</div>
</div>
<br>
I can understand the history of humans eating animals as a necessity. That was before machinery, mass housing, and transportation. The fact that we have automated so much of our daily lives with the help of things like oil, have so drastically infriged on animal lives to the point of extinction, and loss of habitat that being vegan should be required.<br>
Maybe you can do without a car, but do you grow all your own food, maintain a well and septic system, cook and heat with sustainable wood, and certainly not purchase anything not locally made? I know you don't, because you are here.<br>
Vegans bring to light the idea that animals have their own lives, that they should have as much right to their lives as we have ours. By focusing on the horror of breeding, caging, killing, and unthinkable uses, people can transfer that empathy into other aspects of their lives.<br>
I certainly wouldn't begin AR with giving up my car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,026 Posts
Cornernote: would you agree that there's a substantial and reasonable difference between murder and manslaughter?<br>
If so, you've found some of the same essential differences between eating animals and driving cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 ·
Hi ElaineV,<br><br>
Yes I would agree.<br><br>
This is a learning process for me. Talking though scenarios helps me to learn. Sometimes one view will not convey the message to me in a way that I understand. It's great when others attempt to explain the same thing in other ways. I love to engage in intellectual discussion, not only to put my opinions out there, but to get the opinions of others.<br><br>
I know that neither meat nor cars is "right" or "good". It just helps me to make everyday decisions when I understand my own values and morals at a deeper level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>disney.jessica</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3040164"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I don't care about the environment. I care about animals, so meat is worse. Just because one doesn't drive a car, it doesn't mean it is ethical for he or she to eat meat.</div>
</div>
<br>
What? No environment= no animals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">would you agree that there's a substantial and reasonable difference between murder and manslaughter?</div>
</div>
<br>
Yes, but thats not always a clear indicator of which is worse.<br><br>
A) If I kill an animal (because its in my way, or in the way of something I am trying to achieve) = manslaughter?<br>
B) If I kill an animal, and then use something it made = murder?<br>
C) If I birth an animal and then end its life = murder?<br>
D) If I birth an animal and then end its life, and use something it made = murder?<br><br>
To me, A sounds even worse than B. At least with B you are less wasteful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,157 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>cornernote</strong> <a href="/forum/post/3041037"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Yes, but thats not always a clear indicator of which is worse.<br><br>
A) If I kill an animal (because its in my way, or in the way of something I am trying to achieve) = manslaughter?<br>
B) If I kill an animal, and then use something it made = murder?</div>
</div>
<br>
No, the distinction is that manslaughter is not an intentional killing. Some utilitarians may argue that murder isn't worse than manslaughter, but such a view would be well outside the human norm. Intentions are typically considered pretty important.
 
41 - 55 of 55 Posts
Top