Therefore, we can eat meat. If the stronger are always able to use the weaker however they please simply because they are more powerful, then we are in trouble in my opinion. Thus, it supports one part of my thesis: So, when it comes right down to it, Given a choice to eat soybeans, which have neurotransmitter-LIKE molecules, and "attributes of intelligent behavior" but no brain, VS.
Polar bear or crocodile? Non-human animals are a-moral beings. These buttons have no present function.
Stephen Davis, on this website: And of course, Team Edward or Team Jacob? Non-human animals are moral beings, from the standpoint that they can suffer. It is true that the Old Testament does have laws for meat-eating after this Genesis passage, but then we have an inconsistency to address.
I did concede that plants have sensitivities and internal structures about which humans know little. The other chemical is creatine. I merely said cow and not dog because I personally loathe dog-meat, and so does my religion.
But it is not usually considered morally acceptable to spit in other peoples' faces, other things being equal it especially does not follow just from the fact that I am able to spit.
It kills time, It is not very commonly known, if seen by others, it would make them go "Wow, I can't do that and you can! Also, in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, it says, "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine" Sect.
Third and lastly, this could also imply that if we can ever do without plants and can eat totally synthetic food that will harm neither plants or animals, then we are morally required to eat the synthetic food.
What if I want to get my protein from human flesh? My answer regarding a dog and a cow is basically the same, except that I wanted to replace dog with cow because I do not want to eat dogs for many reasons, but the argument regarding eating either is the same.
Sorry, lettuce, but you've been chopped. Is it immoral to eat these animals as well?
Western nations are largely responsible for the conditions that produce global hunger: That's not to say that lettuce is necessary in that role, but it has become the ubiquitous vegetable topping to just about everything. Is this still the case?
One can pretty easily argue that it's a matter of reducing the most suffering, even if plants do suffer. I know that each person has a different perspective on morals- which is why debating morals is difficult: Just as we are appalled by Indians eating dogs, they might be equally put out by our eating cows.
If there are any points or even one point in the Bible with which one does not agree, one has to be able to justify why that one point should not be accepted but that every other point should. Then there are the amusing arguments with my brother of "which would win in a fight"?
So we should be able to eat meat. Reflect upon this assertion for a moment. For this point, I credit and thank Kelly Turk. Men have buttons on the sleeves of their jackets.
They are different, but reality does surprise us. Good luck with your future debates! Like solving a Rubix Cube, pen spinning, or how to roll a quarter through your fingers.
Protein is necessary, but getting protein from cattle, pigs, chickens and fish let alone dairy products and eggs is not necessary. Humans, however, live on a different plane. For further discussion of this concept, see Jackson One has to look at lettuce to see if it's anything beyond a simplistic garnish, or if we just eat it because we're so used to it.
Moving on, my dog example was not weak at all. First, my argument related to animals is that we should not unnecessarily cause suffering or killing to animals or plants, for that matter.
Therefore, we can eat meat. It also might show that most people think that the Bible is fallible.A valid argument is one where if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. A sound argument is one where if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, and the premises are actually true.
So your claims about false premises and validity aren't correct. Question as asked by the OP: Are religious arguments useless? I would not say pointless because there is a point: to prove the other person tsuki-infini.comr, rarely is anything gained from debating about God since no one will know until death.
Everyone believes they are right when beginning the argument. I prefer discussion to argument, but. Eight Arguments in Favor of Eating Meat and Objections Thereto. Most of the following eight arguments came from a Contemporary Moral Issues class that I taught at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the Fall of I asked the students to give me their best arguments in.
I recently posted an article on the Swiss Bio Farmer Facebook page titled "Bill Gates says you can eat meat and STILL and both the journalist who wrote that article and you celebrate this as an argument for meat consumption by rich people in The discussion regarding grass fed is a huge topic of discussion in Swiss.
The worst arguments against vegetarian and vegan nutrition. by Jakub Marian. Tip: If we didn’t produce meat, we’d have to use much more land to produce all the necessary plants (provided the animal lives a normal life and then it is humanely killed), this question is not so simple (and the argument might actually be valid).
My argument for eating meat (tsuki-infini.comAVegan) When participating in a discussion, try to be as charitable as possible when replying to arguments. If an argument sounds ridiculous to you, consider that you may have misinterpreted what the author was trying to say.
Ask clarifying questions if necessary.Download