- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I've always wondered why people have a problem with that. It doesn't seem like you are a good person if the only reason you don't sin is because it is illegal. Shouldn't all of the people who believe that something is a sin want it to be legal? After all, the people who would commit sin would then be known. If the only reason you don't sin is because of legal penalty, then you are not very religious. I quite sure the point of several religions is free will. You must be able to sin and get away with it to truly measure the character of someone.
A myth is a story concerning early history that explains a natural or social phenomenon. A mythology is a collection of those myths. Since the bible contains several stories consisting of how the world came to be, reasons why people consider things right and wrong, and similar situations, it is by definition a central text of the Christian mythology. There is no real debate possible here. This is simply a definition.
No, I just misread the jargon you were talking about in your first comment, but now I'm not confused this time; get it, however, now I realize that I don't care. Energy has nothing to do with the deaths of animals.
Alright, considering you don't think this relates to your argument is proof of your misunderstanding. The amount of energy (i.e. food) needed depends on the level of a particular food chain. If I eat 1000 calories of plants, I require the equivalent of (obviously) 1000 calories of plants. If I eat 1000 calories of meat, I require the equivalent of 10,000 calories of plants. If we assume that more plant production leads to more animal deaths (which is what you assume), then we must assume that a vegetarian diet will lead to less animal deaths by harvesting machinery.
I'll break it down for you one last time using deductive logic:
1. If you have more crop production, you have more animal deaths as a result of crop harvesting. This is the premise that I believe we both agree on. I also assume that the inverse is true: less crops leads to less animal deaths as a result of crop harvesting.
2. Vegetarian diets require less crops than omnivorous diets. This is true as long as the second law of thermodynamics holds true.
3. Vegetarian diets cause less deaths as a result of crop harvesting.
Vegetarian diets decrease the amount of crop production, decreasing the amount of small animal deaths that you mention in your previous posts, and decrease the amount of those purposeless deaths that you mention you hate so much in your final paragraphs.
An omnivorous diet causes the death of small animals due to agricultural machinery.
A vegetarian diet causes less death of small animals due to agricultural machinery.
Sure, a vegetarian diet will kill some animals as well, but as no individual aspect of animal killing increases and all associated killing decreases, it would be considered a positive aspect of vegetarianism, not hypocrisy.
I fail to see how that is more humane. If we don't eat them, they will die. I'm quite sure if we eat them they die.
How about we just slaughter all of the animals that we have bred for meat as we would normally do, and eat that meat until it runs out? No more animal suffering for new animals that we would otherwise eat, and we switch to a more animal friendly diet.
My point is that it's still hypocritical to be a vegetarian only for the purpose of saving animals.
And I believe that the evidence I've provided counters that point.
Just because a few people have made mere estimates of the numbers of dead animals doesn't mean that there still haven't been around that many animals that died. Saying that is like saying that the 6 million Jews that died in the Holocaust was just an estimate. That doesn't make it any less true that it happened.
I'll concede the majority of this point. I wasn't saying that small animals do not die in large numbers, I'm just saying that the one number offered by one man, Steven Davis, may not be entirely accurate. There is little supporting evidence on this matter, which is not analogous to the Holocaust, which had numerous accounts from numerous people with numerous records taken into account. Just saying that the number you provided is not entirely reliable as it has only been offered as a possible estimate with little backing.
Your second point doesn't matter. The acquisition of land still goes towards the agriculture of plants that vegetarians eat. Therefore, the deaths of the animals during acquisition of land are still on the hands of plant eaters.
I believe you misunderstand. The acquisition of land is a one time event and will not compound into multiple years. If the amount of land used remains stagnant (demand does not increase) so the amount of deaths will decrease. If the demand for meat does not increase, the amount of animal deaths will still stay the same. More animals will die while eating animals.
Perhaps not all animals are pampered for slaughter. Most, on the other hand, are not abused. The fact that some are has nothing to do with meat eaters, it has to do with the idiot employees and companies that harm the animals. Plant eaters, on the other hand, are responsible for the deaths of little animals due to the fact that farmers and their giant machinery cannot prevent themselves from the killing the animals. The meat companies can prevent animal suffering in their industry, which makes it their fault. The farmers can't, meaning the demand for the crops is responsible.
Now you are talking more about what should be as oppose to what actually is. Farmers could be more careful about causing animal deaths and meat employees could be more humane. The point is moot. If we talk about what could be in terms of food production, it doesn't matter, as both issues could be solved for either way.
Your last point is irrelevant as well. Animals eat crops that we grow with our energy, yes, but if the whole country was vegetarian, then we would be using as much energy feeding people crops as we are using it now to feed animals. Duh.
Apparently you do not understand the basics of energy transfer, even though I clearly pointed them out for you in my argument above. The amount of crops needed to support a vegetarian lifestyle is about ten times less than a fully carnivorous lifestyle. Obviously an omnivorous lifestyle would fall in between, but a omnivorous lifestyle requires more death of animals due to normal crop farming than a vegetarian lifestyle would.
Stop drinking the red Coo-laid of PETA and eat some animals you hypocrite. Unless you're only doing it for your own health. In which case, good for you, it's a great choice for your health. But if you're trying to 'save the animals', well, stop. You're not helping anything except your ego.
I feel as if you are simply name-calling now and have no real substantive arguments. All you really wish to do is deflect my points and link me to an organization whose affiliation I have not expressed. I am simply reading into this under the principle of least harm: less harm comes to animals overall from a vegetarian diet. If you like animals of any kind, the vegetarian diet is for you.
I believe that the points you make are slightly misguided.
First, your idea that millions of little animals die every year during crop harvests is slightly skewed. First, it is not a definite number and is simply some guy's estimate:
"Davis admits he doesn't really know how many animals are lost each year to agriculture, but he suspects it runs in the millions. Not many farmers do a before-and-after survey, so the best data are really just estimates."
Second, that number, as mentioned in the above quote refers to agriculture as a whole, not simply harvesting. This includes the one time acquisition of land for farming purposes. Further, since most kills are a result of land acquisition for farming (few animals would be around after their habitat has been shifted), it is only a one time deal instead of a continuous slaughtering of animals for human consumption.
Third, your idea that animals are pampered for meat harvesting is clearly missing some inside looks into the meat farms across many industrialized nations.
The above link shows an example of a pig farm in the United States. I would hardly call something like that pampering animals. The killing portion is often considered painless, but the possess prior to is hardly to be considered a good life.
Other point to look at
Guess what! Animals that humans harvest for food need to eat crops as well. Further, due to the loss of energy of trophic levels, animals will need ten times more farmed crops than a human will need to produce the same amount of energy (I'm not sure about exact numbers, but the amount of crops consumed will definately be larger if we eat meat instead of not).
I really enjoyed reading your argument and found that it was rather well informed. However, I feel as if you are making a rather faulty assumption that is only a possibility when it comes to giving children allowances.
You appear to link allowance and "non-essentials." This link is not necessary. It appears that if parents provide allowance as compensation for chores (i.e. the child's "job") and this allowance covers "essentials" (bus money, lunch money, etc.) then it bypasses the major force of your argument. Further, it teaches children valuable lessens in finance management. Sure, the child can use the money to purchase some non-essential thing, but then he or she would need to walk 3-miles to school instead of taking the bus.
Children tend to learn best by simply messing up, feeling the consequences, and eventually learning the proper decision. Obviously, it is good to discus the proper decisions with children, but if they choose to disobey that guidance, they will understand the consequences. If children never see or feel the real consequences of mismanagement of money, they will never grow to fully understand it. If they are the rare breed that is good with money from the start, then good for them. If not, then they will learn through their consequences, good and bad.
Just to clarify and add to that point, I'll respond based on the above idea:
It'll give kids the idea that they don't normally have to help out around the house
In the above provided scenario, children do need to help around the house. Sure, they don't need to help, but the alternative is not exactly positive for them.
If they didn't have to work for the money, they wouldn't understand its true value.
Not much to say, considering they do work for the money in their own way through chores.
Kids have no financial responsibilities, so every penny they get is money that they can spend on whatever they like
I'd disagree with the no portion of that statement. Properly delegated like the example above, children can be given financial responsibilities (such as dealing with transportation to and from school, lunch at school, etc.). They are not big, but they can be given some financial responsibilities that will teach them the value of money. Since they have financial responsibilities, they need to spend it on necessary things.
While your joint decision making idea does hold some ground, it does not provide a child with even simulated responsibility. While speaking with children about the importance of financial responsibility is a good thing, providing them with experiences is also relevant.
Meh, I'll be a pedant, but it is really important to me!
Marriage is a religious institution (or social if that works for you)
Alright, I've been criticized much for caring a great deal about language, but this is a big one that slightly annoys me. Religious have often claimed ownership over religion, and even if this is incorrect, the government is needlessly entangled itself with this either religious or societal institution. This creates an annoying and hotly debated issue. If this can be avoided, it should be.
Alternative: Broad title of "civil unions" for all legal partnerships
I never understood the coveted nature of marriage, but many people feel that it is necessary to protect it as a government practice. I disagree. It should be destroyed and dismantled in place of domestic partnerships (or whatever you wish to call them). Marriage has too much baggage associated with it, and should be dismantled as a government institution. Having both a societal and governmental institution by the same name (e.g.marriage) creates too many annoyances and should be rejected in terms of "civil unions" or whatever term is deemed appropriate.
You sort of brought up a couple of important points:
First: Should Obama’s Nobel Prize be taken away?
Absolutely not. I doubt anyone has ever had their Nobel Prize taken away. This is not because the committee is so great at delegating awards, it is simply because there is most likely no process for retracting awards. Obama is not the first undeserving person to receive (or be nominated for) a Nobel Peace Prize. Generally, I do not think someone should be awarded while being involved in two wars, but to retract a Nobel Prize is a bit off. Granted, he should never have gotten it in the first place.
Second: Obama is bombing the hell out of bombing the hell out of innocent civilians in Libya.
Erm, where did you here that? First of all, this is not just Obama involved in this air campaign: it is much of the international community. Second, civilian casualties are unfortunately part of the principle of double-effect. Many people believe that Libya massacring their own people should be stopped, and unfortunately, it will involve some civilian casualties, but no one is currently bombing the hell out of anyone, especially civilians.