Debate Mansion

   

Non Vegetarians Animal Activists - Moral? (Page 4)

Post Reply New Post

Page 4 of 15

raunaq

IF-Sizzlerz

raunaq

Joined: 10 October 2006

Posts: 12011

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 9:08pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by ani11

Are we supposed to be sympathetic towards the animals that eat other animals like a cat eating up a cute bunny... Embarrassed


oh am not sure about bunny but rabbits multiply hugely Wink

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Non Vegetarians Animal Activists - Moral? (Page 4)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 03 April 2007 at 9:08pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by souro

Sareg 1: someone fighting for women's rights,you have to be a woman for that? or men do go and do a gender change?

Souro 1:The question is whether it's moral to be a non-vegetarian and yet advocate love for animals. No one is asking them to live like the animals do. If they ill treat women in their personal life then how can they be allowed to fight for women's rights.

Sareg 2: It is not a question of morals, it is a question of can you have both the feelings, having a passion for something and able to live your life the way you want to

souro 2: If their passion and their way of life contradicts each other then doesn't that become hipocrisy.

sareg 3: It would be hypocritic if the every human did any harm to any other living being, if that the defination all humans are hypoctices, if that the case no human is allowed to be a animal activistWink

Souro 3: A non-vegetarian doesn't harm an animal??Confused

Sareg 4: did I say that, you said thatLOL

Souro 4: Yes we all do say something don't we. So, it'll be much appreciated if you say your's clearly. You said that the animal activist would be an hypocrite if s/he ever did any harm to another living being and yet you think non-vegetarian animal activists are not hypocrites. So, what are you trying to say, non-vegetarians don't harm animals or is it you didn't say that but I'm saying it for you again.

sareg 5: What I said was all humans in this matter are hypocrites, There is no such pre-requirement that you have to be vegetarian or so, anyone who feels like joining the cause, can join, whatever they eat(which incidentally is part of their living) is irrelative to this cause

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

Sareg 1: We are not talking about being hypocrites, we are talking about serving the cause in whichever is the best way the person feels suitable 

Souro 1: So, if a person feels that by supporting animal activists he's serving the cause but doesn't want to cause inconvenience to his personal lifestyle by turning vegetarian then it's acceptable.Confused If a person wants to support anti-fur campaigners to serve a purpose but doesn't want to stop using fur in his/her life, should that be acceptable too.

Sareg 2: not personal lifestyle maintain his/her livelihood, fur is a luxory

Souro 2: And how is being a non-vegetarian related to one's livelihood.

Sareg 3: what does a human live by and for? food, shelter and clothing, you earn eventually to get thatWink

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

Sareg 1: when you sympathize about orphan children and want to do something about them, do you go and adopt one? if you cant, you donate money for the charity

Souro 1: It's not about whether it should be mandatory for every animal activist to keep a pet. If someone exploits orphaned children to serve their purpose then should they be allowed to be an activist for the orphaned.

Sareg 2: You are missing the point, Animal activists feel for the animal, the way a person would feel for the orphans.

Souro 2: But if their feelings suddenly get lost at their dinner table then what's the point.

Sareg 3: If that is the case, why only food, and if that the case, no human will be allowed to be animal activitist, you do what you can for the cause

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

Sareg 1: Do all pujari's have to be sin-free before preaching?

Souro 1: If we've knowledge about some sins committed by the pujari which are in total contradiction to his preachings then would we take him seriously. If someone is preaching about loving animals and yet have no qualms about culling them and putting them on their dinner plate then ain't they contradicting themselves.

sareg 2: The whole original post of the thread is based upon  practice/be(veg) what you preach, so if that the case, is the pujari sin free? and the examples all of them become valid.

souro 2: The pujari tries to practice as he preaches at LOLleastLOL conciously. If some of his actions are in contradiction to his preachings or if he commits some sin then as I said no one will take him seriously.

sareg 3: Dancing around the logic arent we, or you want to giveLOL

Souro 3: Can you be more clear as to what was so funny about the word 'least'.

sareg 4: yep you are on the side which says all or nothing, I am on the side which says, you can be both, and you are negating your all or nothing by using "at least"

souro 4: I negated nothing, read the next word and you'll find 'conciously' the opposite of which is 'unconciously' or 'without concious knowledge'.

sareg 4: Whether you killed an animal yourself and eat it or someone else killed it for you and you eat it b'cos it was already dead is similar logic, consiously, in the end the animal was killed and someone eat it, similarly a sin was commited whether consciously or unconsiously, it is still a sin, that is the absolute fact

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

sareg 1: when you do a noble cause, you do what you can

Souro 1: What I have understood so far from your argument is, it's fair to join and support a group fighting against certain practices even if they follow similar practices in their personal life just because s/he's trying to serve a purpose.

sareg 1: As long as they need it to be alive, food is a neccesary item, dont we think so?

sareg 1 :Let us make it simple Humans did not get to the top of the food chain by being nice to living beings, now some developed a conscience they stopped eating some living beings, some started caring for what happens to other living beings

Why does it have to be if you care for other living beings, dont harm them or eat them

souro 1: Because noone can preach what they don't practice. Or are you talking about something like selective type of caring, I care for some and I eat some.

sareg 2: There is no-one in the civilized world who can claim they have not harmed any living being consciously or unconsiously, by that defination noone is qualified, now that, that criteria is eliminated, you see who joins into the cause, whoever joins in, is working for the cause, as simple as that

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

sareg 1: Note: I am using the term living beingsWink 

I recolored, black and blue, and numbered, if u want to reply, please follow that, so it is easier to follow



Edited by sareg - 03 April 2007 at 9:10pm

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13895

Posted: 04 April 2007 at 6:48am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

Sareg 1: someone fighting for women's rights,you have to be a woman for that? or men do go and do a gender change?

Souro 1:The question is whether it's moral to be a non-vegetarian and yet advocate love for animals. No one is asking them to live like the animals do. If they ill treat women in their personal life then how can they be allowed to fight for women's rights.

Sareg 2: It is not a question of morals, it is a question of can you have both the feelings, having a passion for something and able to live your life the way you want to

souro 2: If their passion and their way of life contradicts each other then doesn't that become hipocrisy.

sareg 3: It would be hypocritic if the every human did any harm to any other living being, if that the defination all humans are hypoctices, if that the case no human is allowed to be a animal activistWink

Souro 3: A non-vegetarian doesn't harm an animal??Confused

Sareg 4: did I say that, you said thatLOL

Souro 4: Yes we all do say something don't we. So, it'll be much appreciated if you say your's clearly. You said that the animal activist would be an hypocrite if s/he ever did any harm to another living being and yet you think non-vegetarian animal activists are not hypocrites. So, what are you trying to say, non-vegetarians don't harm animals or is it you didn't say that but I'm saying it for you again.

sareg 5: What I said was all humans in this matter are hypocrites, There is no such pre-requirement that you have to be vegetarian or so, anyone who feels like joining the cause, can join, whatever they eat(which incidentally is part of their living) is irrelative to this cause

Souro 5: Of course there is. When animal activists who are non-vegetarian protest against seal hunters, whale hunters, oriental people eating live fish they should then understand that all these are also a part of living for those people. 

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

Sareg 1: We are not talking about being hypocrites, we are talking about serving the cause in whichever is the best way the person feels suitable 

Souro 1: So, if a person feels that by supporting animal activists he's serving the cause but doesn't want to cause inconvenience to his personal lifestyle by turning vegetarian then it's acceptable.Confused If a person wants to support anti-fur campaigners to serve a purpose but doesn't want to stop using fur in his/her life, should that be acceptable too.

Sareg 2: not personal lifestyle maintain his/her livelihood, fur is a luxory

Souro 2: And how is being a non-vegetarian related to one's livelihood.

Sareg 3: what does a human live by and for? food, shelter and clothing, you earn eventually to get thatWink

Souro 3: If this's what you meant then you shouldn't have used the word 'livelihood'. Yes, we earn for food, shelter and clothing but they are not our livelihood.

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

Sareg 1: when you sympathize about orphan children and want to do something about them, do you go and adopt one? if you cant, you donate money for the charity

Souro 1: It's not about whether it should be mandatory for every animal activist to keep a pet. If someone exploits orphaned children to serve their purpose then should they be allowed to be an activist for the orphaned.

Sareg 2: You are missing the point, Animal activists feel for the animal, the way a person would feel for the orphans.

Souro 2: But if their feelings suddenly get lost at their dinner table then what's the point.

Sareg 3: If that is the case, why only food, and if that the case, no human will be allowed to be animal activitist, you do what you can for the cause

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

Sareg 1: Do all pujari's have to be sin-free before preaching?

Souro 1: If we've knowledge about some sins committed by the pujari which are in total contradiction to his preachings then would we take him seriously. If someone is preaching about loving animals and yet have no qualms about culling them and putting them on their dinner plate then ain't they contradicting themselves.

sareg 2: The whole original post of the thread is based upon  practice/be(veg) what you preach, so if that the case, is the pujari sin free? and the examples all of them become valid.

souro 2: The pujari tries to practice as he preaches at LOLleastLOL conciously. If some of his actions are in contradiction to his preachings or if he commits some sin then as I said no one will take him seriously.

sareg 3: Dancing around the logic arent we, or you want to giveLOL

Souro 3: Can you be more clear as to what was so funny about the word 'least'.

sareg 4: yep you are on the side which says all or nothing, I am on the side which says, you can be both, and you are negating your all or nothing by using "at least"

souro 4: I negated nothing, read the next word and you'll find 'conciously' the opposite of which is 'unconciously' or 'without concious knowledge'.

sareg 4: Whether you killed an animal yourself and eat it or someone else killed it for you and you eat it b'cos it was already dead is similar logic, consiously, in the end the animal was killed and someone eat it, similarly a sin was commited whether consciously or unconsiously, it is still a sin, that is the absolute fact

Souro 4: There's a difference between a sin committed consciouly and unconsciously. In the example you gave the person is conscious of what he's eating in both the cases. However when we walk we might step on an ant which we don't realise, that's an unconscious act and most of the times unavoidable and this is what I meant in the first place.

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

sareg 1: when you do a noble cause, you do what you can

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- 

Souro 1: What I have understood so far from your argument is, it's fair to join and support a group fighting against certain practices even if they follow similar practices in their personal life just because s/he's trying to serve a purpose.

sareg 1: As long as they need it to be alive, food is a neccesary item, dont we think so?

------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------

sareg 1 :Let us make it simple Humans did not get to the top of the food chain by being nice to living beings, now some developed a conscience they stopped eating some living beings, some started caring for what happens to other living beings

Why does it have to be if you care for other living beings, dont harm them or eat them

souro 1: Because noone can preach what they don't practice. Or are you talking about something like selective type of caring, I care for some and I eat some.

sareg 2: There is no-one in the civilized world who can claim they have not harmed any living being consciously or unconsiously, by that defination noone is qualified, now that, that criteria is eliminated, you see who joins into the cause, whoever joins in, is working for the cause, as simple as that

Souro 2: Let us limit ourselves to harm done to the major species of the animal kingdom and not include all living being which also includes the plant kingdom because when we talk about eating non-vegetarian meals that's what we understand. And yes there are many people who'll not harm them. I repeat inadvertent killings like stepping on an insect or tearing in half an earthworm while ploughing is not what I'm talking about.

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

sareg 1: Note: I am using the term living beingsWink 

I recolored, black and blue, and numbered, if u want to reply, please follow that, so it is easier to follow

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 04 April 2007 at 8:28am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

Sareg 1: someone fighting for women's rights,you have to be a woman for that? or men do go and do a gender change?

Souro 1:The question is whether it's moral to be a non-vegetarian and yet advocate love for animals. No one is asking them to live like the animals do. If they ill treat women in their personal life then how can they be allowed to fight for women's rights.

Sareg 2: It is not a question of morals, it is a question of can you have both the feelings, having a passion for something and able to live your life the way you want to

souro 2: If their passion and their way of life contradicts each other then doesn't that become hipocrisy.

sareg 3: It would be hypocritic if the every human did any harm to any other living being, if that the defination all humans are hypoctices, if that the case no human is allowed to be a animal activistWink

Souro 3: A non-vegetarian doesn't harm an animal??Confused

Sareg 4: did I say that, you said thatLOL

Souro 4: Yes we all do say something don't we. So, it'll be much appreciated if you say your's clearly. You said that the animal activist would be an hypocrite if s/he ever did any harm to another living being and yet you think non-vegetarian animal activists are not hypocrites. So, what are you trying to say, non-vegetarians don't harm animals or is it you didn't say that but I'm saying it for you again.

sareg 5: What I said was all humans in this matter are hypocrites, There is no such pre-requirement that you have to be vegetarian or so, anyone who feels like joining the cause, can join, whatever they eat(which incidentally is part of their living) is irrelative to this cause

Souro 5: Of course there is. When animal activists who are non-vegetarian protest against seal hunters, whale hunters, oriental people eating live fish they should then understand that all these are also a part of living for those people. 

sareg 6:I know it is a difficult thing to understand a defination of human diet changes from place to place, for some a regular diet, means veg, for some a regular meal includes non-veg, And food is one thing is a basic amenity of life.

To make it simple for you to understand  the term vegetarian/vegan is very subjective upon where you are from and who you are, and the cause of animal rights is not. This is basically a moral imposed by people whose defination is X on people who are universal, again we are at a point of one group of people deciding what the morals should be for everyone and morals are personal beleifs

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

Sareg 1: We are not talking about being hypocrites, we are talking about serving the cause in whichever is the best way the person feels suitable 

Souro 1: So, if a person feels that by supporting animal activists he's serving the cause but doesn't want to cause inconvenience to his personal lifestyle by turning vegetarian then it's acceptable.Confused If a person wants to support anti-fur campaigners to serve a purpose but doesn't want to stop using fur in his/her life, should that be acceptable too.

Sareg 2: not personal lifestyle maintain his/her livelihood, fur is a luxory

Souro 2: And how is being a non-vegetarian related to one's livelihood.

Sareg 3: what does a human live by and for? food, shelter and clothing, you earn eventually to get thatWink

Souro 3: If this's what you meant then you shouldn't have used the word 'livelihood'. Yes, we earn for food, shelter and clothing but they are not our livelihood.

souro4: What do you earn your livelihood for?

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

Sareg 1: when you sympathize about orphan children and want to do something about them, do you go and adopt one? if you cant, you donate money for the charity

Souro 1: It's not about whether it should be mandatory for every animal activist to keep a pet. If someone exploits orphaned children to serve their purpose then should they be allowed to be an activist for the orphaned.

Sareg 2: You are missing the point, Animal activists feel for the animal, the way a person would feel for the orphans.

Souro 2: But if their feelings suddenly get lost at their dinner table then what's the point.

Sareg 3: If that is the case, why only food, and if that the case, no human will be allowed to be animal activitist, you do what you can for the cause

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

Sareg 1: Do all pujari's have to be sin-free before preaching?

Souro 1: If we've knowledge about some sins committed by the pujari which are in total contradiction to his preachings then would we take him seriously. If someone is preaching about loving animals and yet have no qualms about culling them and putting them on their dinner plate then ain't they contradicting themselves.

sareg 2: The whole original post of the thread is based upon  practice/be(veg) what you preach, so if that the case, is the pujari sin free? and the examples all of them become valid.

souro 2: The pujari tries to practice as he preaches at LOLleastLOL conciously. If some of his actions are in contradiction to his preachings or if he commits some sin then as I said no one will take him seriously.

sareg 3: Dancing around the logic arent we, or you want to giveLOL

Souro 3: Can you be more clear as to what was so funny about the word 'least'.

sareg 4: yep you are on the side which says all or nothing, I am on the side which says, you can be both, and you are negating your all or nothing by using "at least"

souro 4: I negated nothing, read the next word and you'll find 'conciously' the opposite of which is 'unconciously' or 'without concious knowledge'.

sareg 4: Whether you killed an animal yourself and eat it or someone else killed it for you and you eat it b'cos it was already dead is similar logic, consiously, in the end the animal was killed and someone eat it, similarly a sin was commited whether consciously or unconsiously, it is still a sin, that is the absolute fact

Souro 4: There's a difference between a sin committed consciouly and unconsciously. In the example you gave the person is conscious of what he's eating in both the cases. However when we walk we might step on an ant which we don't realise, that's an unconscious act and most of the times unavoidable and this is what I meant in the first place.

sareg 5: What is the difference is the sin not committedLOL? Say there is a vegan or a strict non-vegetarian who drives around in a Hummer H2, is a chain smoker, smokes around kids and animals is that acceptable?

There is no such thing as unconsious sin, that is "sticking your head in sand in broad daylight and saying hey it is dark in here"

A sin is a sin is sin as simple as that, In legal terms if you violate a law(unknowingly or unknowingly) you get a jail sentenceLOL

------------------------------------------------------------ ------------

sareg 1: when you do a noble cause, you do what you can

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------- 

Souro 1: What I have understood so far from your argument is, it's fair to join and support a group fighting against certain practices even if they follow similar practices in their personal life just because s/he's trying to serve a purpose.

sareg 1: As long as they need it to be alive, food is a neccesary item, dont we think so?

------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------

sareg 1 :Let us make it simple Humans did not get to the top of the food chain by being nice to living beings, now some developed a conscience they stopped eating some living beings, some started caring for what happens to other living beings

Why does it have to be if you care for other living beings, dont harm them or eat them

souro 1: Because noone can preach what they don't practice. Or are you talking about something like selective type of caring, I care for some and I eat some.

sareg 2: There is no-one in the civilized world who can claim they have not harmed any living being consciously or unconsiously, by that defination noone is qualified, now that, that criteria is eliminated, you see who joins into the cause, whoever joins in, is working for the cause, as simple as that

Souro 2: Let us limit ourselves to harm done to the major species of the animal kingdom and not include all living being which also includes the plant kingdom because when we talk about eating non-vegetarian meals that's what we understand. And yes there are many people who'll not harm them. I repeat inadvertent killings like stepping on an insect or tearing in half an earthworm while ploughing is not what I'm talking about.

sareg 3: Just so that it fits the defination of morals of a selected few? Dont the vegans/ vegetarians who you talk about go about driving vehicles? do they not use paper? do they not cause an impact on the ecosystem, which in turn harm other animals. Or that is ok? LOL

 That is the epitome of hypocrisy, oh what we do is ok but you do more, so you are not acceptable, a Hypocrite is a hypocrite

The criteria for joining a cause and championing a cause should be you are willing to do what you can to support the cause, not what X group of people feel should be a criteria

------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

sareg 1: Note: I am using the term living beingsWink 

I recolored, black and blue, and numbered, if u want to reply, please follow that, so it is easier to follow

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 04 April 2007 at 8:31am | IP Logged

Originally posted by ani11

Are we supposed to be sympathetic towards the animals that eat other animals like a cat eating up a cute bunny... Embarrassed

We are vegetarian, we feed our dog Moti only chappatiLOL, if he goes and licks a bone on the road, we disown motiWink, why do you think there are so many stray dogsLOL

oh yeah I almost forgot my cat Sonu, she only drinks milk(our and neighbours home), if she eats a rat, we beat the crap out of herLOL(unconsiously b'cos we are so mad at her)



Edited by sareg - 04 April 2007 at 8:37am

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13895

Posted: 04 April 2007 at 9:08am | IP Logged
Originally posted by sareg

sareg 3: Just so that it fits the defination of morals of a selected few? Dont the vegans/ vegetarians who you talk about go about driving vehicles? do they not use paper? do they not cause an impact on the ecosystem, which in turn harm other animals. Or that is ok? LOL

 That is the epitome of hypocrisy, oh what we do is ok but you do more, so you are not acceptable, a Hypocrite is a hypocrite

The criteria for joining a cause and championing a cause should be you are willing to do what you can to support the cause, not what X group of people feel should be a criteria

I liked this part of your argument and totally agree with it. But I still don't agree with non-vegetarians joining animal activists. The vegetarians and vegans are always after our case anyway so why provide them with more ammo, leave the animal loving part for the vegetarians/vegans. After all they always feel superior and more evolved so, let them prove it and do their job. LOL I don't support indiscriminate poaching and pushing a species to the verge of extinction but when animals are used for a purpose like feeding or medicinal experiments and are done so in a controlled manner then what's the problem. If non-vegetarians protest only illegal poaching which has serious repercussions on the ecological balance then it's ok but to point fingers at other's food habit however disgusting it may be for him reeks of hipocrisy. Similarly accusing others for whom hunting (not poaching) is the only way of earning and food is unacceptable. Many people use animals for their livelihood and have to use a stick to control them, it's not that they do it for fun but out of necessity, so why should animal activists have a problem. Scientists use animals to conduct the preliminary stages of their experiments and trials, so what's wrong. Would animal activists prefer it would be them on whom the trials are conducted or would they be happy even if there were no drugs to cure some ailments. And if these animal activists are non-vegetarians then their right to protest becomes even more dubious.



Edited by souro - 04 April 2007 at 9:15am

Aanandaa

IF-Sizzlerz

Aanandaa

Joined: 07 April 2005

Posts: 13876

Posted: 05 April 2007 at 12:50am | IP Logged
There could be pages of arguments going back and forth, however its just plain and simple to understand that 'Non-Vegetarians have no moral right to preach about not hurting animals'PERIOD!

...M...

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 20 October 2006

Posts: 21657

Posted: 05 April 2007 at 1:02am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
In wake of SKS: censorship/moral responsibility? --arti-- 9 699 12 August 2009 at 6:04pm
By angelic_devil
Animal Captivity - Sad ?

2 3

raj5000 21 1197 30 December 2007 at 12:42pm
By ~globetrotter~
Fashion or Animal cruelty Swar_Raj 9 856 05 October 2007 at 8:50am
By Swar_Raj
Soldiers killing is moral?

2

raj5000 15 794 02 October 2007 at 10:28pm
By sareg
Moral Inspector of TV? realitybites 8 550 07 February 2007 at 12:13pm
By realitybites

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.