Well hello.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Well, what's rhetoric in "murdering"? It is what it is. How else would you call it?
When you choose to see it like it is - and if you're a person of a clear mind and common sense then there is no other way to see this - you will understand, that the need for additional plant material doesn't justify a murder of anyone.

Murder is the killing of a human being.

mur·der
?m?rd?r/Submit
noun
1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
verb
2. kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

So when you say it is possible to murder another species of animal, you are speaking in rhetoric.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, what's rhetoric in "murdering"? It is what it is. How else would you call it?

Welcome, Hubert. Using the word 'murder' in the context of eating meat is nothing but rhetoric, since that's not what the word 'murder' means.

mur·der
noun: murder;?plural noun: murders1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
"the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"

When you choose to see it like it is - and if you're a person of a clear mind and common sense then there is no other way to see this - you will understand, that the need for additional plant material doesn't justify a murder of anyone.

Your intro thread might not be the best place to get into this, it deserves (and has gotten before) its own thread, but when a fundamentalist rolls through here, they typically declare that they are obviously right and if we were less biased and more logical and open minded, we would agree with them. It's kind of a given that if everyone saw things the way you do, they would agree with you, but it's not actually an argument. Calling the omnivores among us murderers and comparing them to religious folk might not even rise to the level of rhetoric, because rhetoric is supposed to be persuasive, and this approach will never convince this audience.

[stromboli]

Your intro thread might not be the best place to get into this, it deserves (and has gotten before) its own thread, but when a fundamentalist rolls through here, they typically declare that they are obviously right and if we were less biased and more logical and open minded, we would agree with them. It's kind of a given that if everyone saw things the way you do, they would agree with you, but it's not actually an argument. Calling the omnivores among us murderers and comparing them to religious folk might not even rise to the level of rhetoric, because rhetoric is supposed to be persuasive, and this approach will never convince this audience.

Good point. I'll take the blame for sidetracking the OP. Bear in mind you are not the first to come here, so this has been discussed previously. You might consider doing your 10 posts by contributing to other threads. the problem is that often people come here with an agenda and immediately start to try to impress us, and end up leaving very quickly. You are an intelligent person, and we hope you'll stick around.

[Hubert Farnham]

Yeah well, if you want to go all huggy bear on sheep, cows and pigs that provide us with meat, milk, hides and whatnot, fine. Your viewpoint is your viewpoint. Bob Barker will certainly approve. We've been "murdering" these animals for millennia, and I don't think any sandal wearing Grecian shepherd ever wept openly when one of his flock became dinner.

"We" do a lot of idiotic things for millenia, like believing in gods, for example.
Same sandal wearing Greek though that Zeus sits on Olympus.

And animals don't "provide" you meat and milk - nothing of it was meant to be on your plate.
Unless, of course, you believe that you've been granted the right to kill animals by Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

I grew up in farm country and herded sheep as a teenager. I also delivered turkeys to a processing plant to be harvested. And shot deer. Dinner on the table. there are any number and manner of criticisms to be leveled at modern farming practices, Kentucky Fried Chicken and so on, but the fact is that meat eaters outnumber vegetarians by a large margin. And I am an atheist. And I've never killed anybody.

You killed. Murdered, actually. Numerous times.
You killed living creatures that wanted to live as much as you do, or your family does.
That's the fact.

BTW, religious people also outnumber atheists - does it make their case stronger? God exists, maybe?

[Hubert Farnham]

Well, what's rhetoric in "murdering"? It is what it is. How else would you call it?
When you choose to see it like it is - and if you're a person of a clear mind and common sense then there is no other way to see this - you will understand, that the need for additional plant material doesn't justify a murder of anyone.

Murder is the killing of a human being.

mur·der
?m?rd?r/Submit
noun
1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
verb
2. kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

So when you say it is possible to murder another species of animal, you are speaking in rhetoric.

Hmmm. Okay.
Let's find another word. Slay? Butcher? Sounds better.

BTW, do you actually understand the meaning behind my use of the word "murdering" in that case?
Do you agree or disagree with it?

[Hubert Farnham]

Your intro thread might not be the best place to get into this, it deserves (and has gotten before) its own thread, but when a fundamentalist rolls through here, they typically declare that they are obviously right and if we were less biased and more logical and open minded, we would agree with them. It's kind of a given that if everyone saw things the way you do, they would agree with you, but it's not actually an argument. Calling the omnivores among us murderers and comparing them to religious folk might not even rise to the level of rhetoric, because rhetoric is supposed to be persuasive, and this approach will never convince this audience.

Actually the fact of a matter is - the argument exists (as you can see in this thread), and there is no problem for me to explain the way I see things and the logical proof of it.
Which I do, eventually.

I already explained the comparison between between religious and meat eaters, and still haven't found (with or without this argument) any flaw in this comparison.

As of the semantics of the use of the word murder, which of course based on the human law - well, I can use another word, but my connotation is - taking someone's life on purpose.

[Plu]

So you suggest that same must be done to humans?

I'm totally in favor of reducing the human population, but I'm practical enough to realise it's easier to do through reduced number of births over actually killing people. Because that tends to go over badly no matter how you slice it.

But why not actually killing? And eating them?
Wouldn't it be more practical? And faster solution?

Well yeah, but you try convincing people of that. Like I said; practical considerations.

And animals don't "provide" you meat and milk - nothing of it was meant to be on your plate.

"Meant to be" is a term used by the religious who believe there is a reason for things. Cows produce lots of milk because we bred them to produce lots of milk so that we can drink it. Any argument that says a cow's milk is not "meant for us" skips over the obvious, namely that cows produce lots of milk because people want to use that milk for themselves. We are the designers of modern cows, and the milk is for us. Otherwise we would not have designed them to produce so much of it.

I can use another word

You should. The one you use now means something completely different, as has been pointed out.

[Hubert Farnham]

Your intro thread might not be the best place to get into this, it deserves (and has gotten before) its own thread, but when a fundamentalist rolls through here, they typically declare that they are obviously right and if we were less biased and more logical and open minded, we would agree with them. It's kind of a given that if everyone saw things the way you do, they would agree with you, but it's not actually an argument. Calling the omnivores among us murderers and comparing them to religious folk might not even rise to the level of rhetoric, because rhetoric is supposed to be persuasive, and this approach will never convince this audience.

Good point. I'll take the blame for sidetracking the OP. Bear in mind you are not the first to come here, so this has been discussed previously. You might consider doing your 10 posts by contributing to other threads. the problem is that often people come here with an agenda and immediately start to try to impress us, and end up leaving very quickly. You are an intelligent person, and we hope you'll stick around.

I don't think I need to impress anybody.
Well, you know what? Maybe I do.

I come here to the forum, which by default should be full of intelligent people, who use logic and know the real value of "beliefs".
And I'd actually be glad to see those people contributing to what I see as the next step of intellectual progress of humanity - and stop contributing to causes of death, pain and suffering though all over the world.
The more, the merrier.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Well, what's rhetoric in "murdering"? It is what it is. How else would you call it?
When you choose to see it like it is - and if you're a person of a clear mind and common sense then there is no other way to see this - you will understand, that the need for additional plant material doesn't justify a murder of anyone.

Murder is the killing of a human being.

mur·der
?m?rd?r/Submit
noun
1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
verb
2. kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

So when you say it is possible to murder another species of animal, you are speaking in rhetoric.

Hmmm. Okay.
Let's find another word. Slay? Butcher? Sounds better.

We can use whatever vocabulary you want. At the end of the day, what you are describing is killing a member of another species for food; which not only isn't a crime, it's as normal a thing to observe in nature as homosexuality. Or did you honestly think humans invented the practice?

BTW, do you actually understand the meaning behind my use of the word "murdering" in that case?
Do you agree or disagree with it?

I understand your rhetoric, but I reject your use of the term. You are equating the killing of another species for food with killing a human being in cold blood; a false equivalency if ever I saw one.

[Plu]

Make an estimation of how many bugs you kill every day as a side-effect of your house existing, the electricity you use to go on the internet, walking around, the packaging you use for your food, and all the other ways in which you affect the world around us.

If it's an honest guess and you're serious about all this, you'll cry yourself to sleep tonight.

[josephpalazzo]

Your intro thread might not be the best place to get into this, it deserves (and has gotten before) its own thread, but when a fundamentalist rolls through here, they typically declare that they are obviously right and if we were less biased and more logical and open minded, we would agree with them. It's kind of a given that if everyone saw things the way you do, they would agree with you, but it's not actually an argument. Calling the omnivores among us murderers and comparing them to religious folk might not even rise to the level of rhetoric, because rhetoric is supposed to be persuasive, and this approach will never convince this audience.

Actually the fact of a matter is - the argument exists (as you can see in this thread), and there is no problem for me to explain the way I see things and the logical proof of it.
Which I do, eventually.

I already explained the comparison between between religious and meat eaters, and still haven't found (with or without this argument) any flaw in this comparison.

As of the semantics of the use of the word murder, which of course based on the human law - well, I can use another word, but my connotation is - taking someone's life on purpose.

You might want to reconsider your position since humans have been eating meat for the last 1.5 million years.

We've-eating-meat-1.5-million-years-discovery-ancient-childs-proves

[Hubert Farnham]

Well yeah, but you try convincing people of that. Like I said; practical considerations.

Well, it definitely could've been much easier back in the Middle Ages.
I'm sure that the Pope and Inquisition could've easily convinced each and every Christian, that people of other religions should be on their plate.

"Meant to be" is a term used by the religious who believe there is a reason for things. Cows produce lots of milk because we bred them to produce lots of milk so that we can drink it. Any argument that says a cow's milk is not "meant for us" skips over the obvious, namely that cows produce lots of milk because people want to use that milk for themselves. We are the designers of modern cows, and the milk is for us. Otherwise we would not have designed them to produce so much of it.

And how exactly does it make things better? Or more justified in the terms of morality? Not religious morality.
It's like saying that the couple has the right to eat their own child - they made him all by themselves!


And the meaning of the word is not completely different.
Different in the meaning of law.
I was lawyered, not proven wrong :)

[Hubert Farnham]

At the end of the day, what you are describing is killing a member of another species for food; which not only isn't a crime, it's as normal a thing to observe in nature as homosexuality. Or did you honestly think humans invented the practice?

There are a lot of things in nature that humanity doesn't accept, like, for example, copulating with every female you like without exactly asking her permission.
You know, we are animals with intellect, we can also choose what we do and what we don't.

Why not start using our intellect for a good purpose and reduce the pain, suffering and death?
That's a main goal for society, after all - otherwise we could've still stayed in the jungle.

You are equating the killing of another species for food with killing a human being in cold blood; a false equivalency if ever I saw one.

I didn't know that "for food" and "in cold blood" have opposite meanings.

[aitm]

ah yes, I see this is going swimmingly well....

 

[Plu]

Well, it definitely could've been much easier back in the Middle Ages.

It wasn't neccesary in the middle ages, there weren't as many people back then.

And how exactly does it make things better?

Just pointing out that your whole argument makes no sense, any way you look at it. There is no non-religious context of "meant to be" where the milk of the cow is not made for us. Either "meant to be" refers to intended by design, in which case the milk is ours because we designed the cow to provide us with milk, or it is used in a religious context, and you don't have one of those because you're an atheist. Unless you can explain a third way in which you can us "meant to be" that actually helps your argument.

And the meaning of the word is not completely different.

Yes it is. Murder is only ever used properly to refer to the unlawful killing of other people; all the other situations are people who disagree with something and try to make it sound more dreadful by using language that invokes horrible feelings because of what it actually means.

It's like refering to a chicken-nugget production line as a "holocaust factory"; just using language to make people think of horrible things in the hopes that they'll consider the other thing horrible by association. But that kind of thing doesn't work on rational people, who respect you more if you just drop the loaded language.