Cognitive Dissonance

[buttercup]

Sure. And in some cases dying naturally is more painful than dying unnaturally, right?

In some cases, but in most cases being killed is not a nice or pretty thing.

But why do you bring that up anyway?

I don't know where you're going with this, but if you're implying that killing someone without pain makes it OK, I would have to disagree.

It's not merely about the pain. It's about stealing the most important thing to someone - their very life - when it is completely unnecessary. That in and of itself makes it inhumane. The word 'humane' means characterized by compassion, and sympathy. Taking what is most important to someone - their only life - when you don't have to, is not compassionate or sympathetic.

 

[ding]

In some cases, but in most cases being killed is not a nice or pretty thing.

But why do you bring that up anyway?

I don't know where you're going with this, but if you're implying that killing someone without pain makes it OK, I would have to disagree.

It's not merely about the pain. It's about stealing the most important thing to someone - their very life - when it is completely unnecessary. That in and of itself makes it inhumane. The word 'humane' means characterized by compassion, and sympathy. Taking what is most important to someone - their only life - when you don't have to, is not compassionate or sympathetic.

I bring it up to see the full picture. I assume that many of the animals that are grown to be food would not otherwise exist if not being grown for food. I imagine - that most - live a good life except for that last day.

 

[sparky]

All this needs to be factored into the equation to determine what is and what is not ethical.

Then you can look me up when you want the opinion of one who's looked 'dinner' in the eye FF........... ~S~

 

[ding]

Then you can look me up when you want the opinion of one who's looked 'dinner' in the eye FF........... ~S~

I start with the belief that killing is wrong for any reason because it is the highest possible standard; the most stringent standard; the most restrictive standard. I believe it is important to never lower this standard because that's how normalization of deviance occurs; gradually, by increments. By definition any exception to that standard - that man can rationalize as being morally just - would be a lesser standard because it would be less stringent or less restrictive. I then move to the position that we don't always meet standards. I avoid the messy moral arguments by conceding the moral high ground. I admit that killing is wrong. I admit that even though I acknowledge the wrongness I'm still going to do it. I grew up eating animal protein. It's quite natural for me. My body operates better on it. Every one of my senses craves it. I'm not going to diminish the loss of life and the feelings that others have because I eat meat. They have a right to feel sad or angry. The way I see it is they serve a purpose to keep the food industry (and us meat eaters) honest and I thank them for that. Lastly by admitting that killing is wrong and accepting it as our standard, it tends to support treating the animals well during their entire life cycle.

Please do share your opinion as one who has looked 'dinner' in the eye.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then you can look me up when you want the opinion of one who's looked 'dinner' in the eye FF........... ~S~

Actually I am way too soft hearted to look my dinner in the eye however silly that might seem. I've never hunted as I just can't kill something for the fun of it or to see if I can. And earlier in this thread I confessed that I gave up fishing because I first felt sorry for the live bait and then the fish. But nevertheless I am an omnivore, not a vegetarian or vegan.

I take comfort in an old friend years ago who was a cattle rancher who kept a large herd of mother cows and raised their calves to sell. I asked him one time if he butchered his own beef and could we purchase some grass fed beef and he said no. He just couldn't watch those calves come into the world and watch them grow and play and then butcher one of them. So he let others do that and he purchased his beef all wrapped and ready for the freezer.

And the dichotomy goes on.

 

[Foxfyre]

I start with the belief that killing is wrong for any reason because it is the highest possible standard; the most stringent standard; the most restrictive standard. I believe it is important to never lower this standard because that's how normalization of deviance occurs; gradually, by increments. By definition any exception to that standard - that man can rationalize as being morally just - would be a lesser standard because it would be less stringent or less restrictive. I then move to the position that we don't always meet standards. I avoid the messy moral arguments by conceding the moral high ground. I admit that killing is wrong. I admit that even though I acknowledge the wrongness I'm still going to do it. I grew up eating animal protein. It's quite natural for me. My body operates better on it. Every one of my senses craves it. I'm not going to diminish the loss of life and the feelings that others have because I eat meat. They have a right to feel sad or angry. The way I see it is they serve a purpose to keep the food industry (and us meat eaters) honest and I thank them for that. Lastly by admitting that killing is wrong and accepting it as our standard, it tends to support treating the animals well during their entire life cycle.

Please do share your opinion as one who has looked 'dinner' in the eye.

As I said in an earlier post, each of us must choose his/her own moral code. sparky is absolutely honest because those of us who are omnivorous, if we are at all intellectually honest, understand that somebody has to kill the animal protein we consume. And I for one am grateful for those who are able to do that and hope with all my heart they do it as humanely and compassionately as possible.

I do not think killing for all reasons to be wrong. If I or another innocent human is threatened with serious injury or death by an animal or another human and there is no other choice, I shoot to kill. And though I will hate doing it, I am pretty sure my conscience will not be bothered. If it means I and/or my loved ones will not starve, I can hunt and fish for food with a clear conscience. And I think killing a creature who is suffering and unable to recover to be the moral and humane choice.

And I respect that your personal code is different and I will not presume to judge you as right or wrong for having it.

 

[sparky]

Actually I am way too soft hearted to look my dinner in the eye however silly that might seem

not silly at all FF

and i am no one to 'pick' on you personally ,so plz dont think i am, as being soft hearted is something of a premium in a world on fire with it's hate right now

for the record, i hunt, but it's a one shot one kill deal, i'm not one to follow a blood trail and/or administer coup de grace

empathy is a beeatch at times.....probably why i haven't fired a shot in quite a while....

I've never hunted as I just can't kill something for the fun of it or to see if I can.

they're simply not hunters then , not sure what to call them

Myself, i don't like the idea of harming nature at all, because i live right in the middle of it all.

H*ll, i've almost run my truck off the road multiple times avoiding deer

But given a clear shot, i'd be taggin' that same deer out

To dispatch any creature is not sport to me, it is serious business meant to facilitate survival . Trust me in that ive been in on quite a lot of this , even seen some make the 'sign of the cross' before the dirty deed is done

One has to admit it a far cry from standing in market lines with all the GMO (blindfold and cigarette?) baloney these day....

I'm a man, i consider it my duty to provide. And if i sound like some redneck, guilty as charged , i try and look life in the eye best i can

~S~

 

[sparky]

Sparky is absolutely honest because those of us who are omnivorous, if we are at all intellectually honest, understand that somebody has to kill the animal protein we consume

high praise FF

thx

~S~

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I imagine - that most - live a good life except for that last day

There's your imagination, then there's the reality.

You've been shown the reality many times. You choose to ignore the uncomfortable facts and dwell in your own comfortable imagination

 

[Carl in Michigan]

As I said in an earlier post, each of us must choose his/her own moral code. sparky is absolutely honest because those of us who are omnivorous, if we are at all intellectually honest, understand that somebody has to kill the animal protein we consume. And I for one am grateful for those who are able to do that and hope with all my heart they do it as humanely and compassionately as possible.

I do not think killing for all reasons to be wrong. If I or another innocent human is threatened with serious injury or death by an animal or another human and there is no other choice, I shoot to kill. And though I will hate doing it, I am pretty sure my conscience will not be bothered. If it means I and/or my loved ones will not starve, I can hunt and fish for food with a clear conscience. And I think killing a creature who is suffering and unable to recover to be the moral and humane choice.

And I respect that your personal code is different and I will not presume to judge you as right or wrong for having it.

And somebody has to kill the babies we choose to abort.

Here's my problem with professing Christians.

Most of you will admit God never intended Man to eat "meat" (the corpse of an animal they INTENTIONALLY killed (Gen 1:29

Most of you professing Christians will admit that God will NOT TOLERATE the killing of his animals in the Kingdom of God on earth.

Most of you professing Christians will say God grudgingly TOLERATED this evil aspect of Man during this EVIL Age.

Yet as someone who CLAIMS to follow God IN THIS EVIL AGE, you professing "Christians" openly side with the world and really aren't interested in picking up your cross and following God.

Do you pray, "YOUR will be done on earth as it is in heaven" then take the innocent life of another creature who belongs to God?

 

[ding]

There's your imagination, then there's the reality.

You've been shown the reality many times. You choose to ignore the uncomfortable facts and dwell in your own comfortable imagination

I don't believe you are being objective. Please do walk me through their typical day in captivity and contrast that to living in the wild.

 

[sparky]

And somebody has to kill the babies we choose to abort.

~S~

 

[Foxfyre]

And somebody has to kill the babies we choose to abort.

Here's my problem with professing Christians.

Most of you will admit God never intended Man to eat "meat" (the corpse of an animal they INTENTIONALLY killed (Gen 1:29

Most of you professing Christians will admit that God will NOT TOLERATE the killing of his animals in the Kingdom of God on earth.

Most of you professing Christians will say God grudgingly TOLERATED this evil aspect of Man during this EVIL Age.

Yet as someone who CLAIMS to follow God IN THIS EVIL AGE, you professing "Christians" openly side with the world and really aren't interested in picking up your cross and following God.

Do you pray, "YOUR will be done on earth as it is in heaven" then take the innocent life of another creature who belongs to God?

Sorry my friend but I won't get into a theological debate with someone who presumes to tell me what I or most Christians profess, admit, tolerate, or how we relate to God. Thanks for understanding and do have a wonderful evening.

 

[BackAgain]

Cognitive Dissonance like.....
there are no riots
there is no voter fraud

And those mostly peaceful riots and arsons.

 

[buttercup]

I bring it up to see the full picture. I assume that many of the animals that are grown to be food would not otherwise exist if not being grown for food. I imagine - that most - live a good life except for that last day.

You seem sincere, so I don't want to give you a hard time for a sincere lack of knowledge on this topic.

But here's the reality. No, they absolutely do not "live a good life except for that last day"... in fact nothing could be further from the truth, in factory farms. They live a life of abuse, neglect, misery, cruelty and very unnatural, filthy, disgusting conditions.

There are so many specific things I could bring up, I honestly wouldn't even know where to begin.

So for now, I'll just share a few videos I made over the last several years. (I have a website and YouTube channel on the topic of veganism from a biblical perspective.) The first one below is just a compilation video of some factory farm clips. You probably have to be logged in to google to see these, since I'm pretty sure they have an age restriction on them. The second one asks the question, "How does God feel about the modern-day animal industries?" .... and the third one is on 1 Cor 16:14, doing all things in love.

For the third one, if you want to skip ahead to the more pertinent part, just skip ahead to the timestamp 1:35.

 

[Blues Man]

My point is that nature in itself is cruel. It doesn't help the painfully sick, the painfully injured, those starving from the ravages of old age or other reasons. It doesn't stop various creatures from killing other creatures in the most cruel, savage, brutal ways. That is a certain fact of life as much as the wonders and beauty and marvels and intelligence and cooperation that we also find in nature as well.

The creatures who treat others cruelly are only doing what comes naturally to them, how nature designed and programmed them. They are unaware of any other choice. But humankind who also kills for food can treat the animals it kills humanely until the time comes, and can make sure they do not suffer in the killing. That some humans do not make that choice does not negate the fact that many humans do.

Humans also can choose to humanely put a suffering creature out of its misery which rarely if ever happens in nature. And that in my opinion is a humane and ethical act whether or not the creature wants to die.

And it was not part of your comments, but my other observation is that almost all those who choose veganism as the ethical choice regarding animals also support abortion on demand and most put no restrictions on what point of pregnancy the abortion occurs.

I simply can find no rationale for that kind of reasoning other than cognitive dissonance.

You are not being objective in your observations of nature. And there are countless examples of animals assisting other animals in the wild.

Dolphins have been known to help keep people from drowning
Many different animals have a symbiotic relationship with other species.

And animals have no ability to euthanize other animals so again comparing animals to humans in that sense is useless. You are again judging animals by human standards.

Is nature cruel? | Dr. Michael Laitman

Nature is a perfect integral system that functions according to laws of interconnection and interdependence, and there is no shred of cruelty in nature. However, it appears to many that nature is cruel. Why? It is because, as is written…Read more ›

www.michaellaitman.com

Nature is simply indifferent to such things. Indifference is not cruelty.


And can you post a link that supports your claim that almost all vegans support abortion on demand with no restrictions?

 

[Blues Man]

Again I think your reasoning is strained and indefensible. But I will agree to disagree.

Again I notice you refuse to discuss what fetal rights of personhood entails

 

[Blues Man]

Sorry my friend but I won't get into a theological debate with someone who presumes to tell me what I or most Christians profess, admit, tolerate, or how we relate to God. Thanks for understanding and do have a wonderful evening.

Yet you just made the statement that almost all vegans support abortion with no restrictions.

Isn't that presuming to tell vegans what they profess admit or tolerate?

 

[ding]

You seem sincere, so I don't want to give you a hard time for a sincere lack of knowledge on this topic.

But here's the reality. No, they absolutely do not "live a good life except for that last day"... in fact nothing could be further from the truth, in factory farms. They live a life of abuse, neglect, misery, cruelty and very unnatural, filthy, disgusting conditions.

There are so many specific things I could bring up, I honestly wouldn't even know where to begin.

So for now, I'll just share a few videos I made over the last several years. (I have a website and YouTube channel on the topic of veganism from a biblical perspective.) The first one below is just a compilation video of some factory farm clips. You probably have to be logged in to google to see these, since I'm pretty sure they have an age restriction on them. The second one asks the question, "How does God feel about the modern-day animal industries?" .... and the third one is on 1 Cor 16:14, doing all things in love.

For the third one, if you want to skip ahead to the more pertinent part, just skip ahead to the timestamp 1:35.

I think there is probably a distribution and that your belief doesn't represent the full spectrum.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are not being objective in your observations of nature. And there are countless examples of animals assisting other animals in the wild.

Dolphins have been known to help keep people from drowning
Many different animals have a symbiotic relationship with other species.

And animals have no ability to euthanize other animals so again comparing animals to humans in that sense is useless. You are again judging animals by human standards.

Is nature cruel? | Dr. Michael Laitman

Nature is a perfect integral system that functions according to laws of interconnection and interdependence, and there is no shred of cruelty in nature. However, it appears to many that nature is cruel. Why? It is because, as is written…Read more ›

www.michaellaitman.com

Nature is simply indifferent to such things. Indifference is not cruelty.


And can you post a link that supports your claim that almost all vegans support abortion on demand with no restrictions?

I stand by my posts and we'll just have to agree to disagree.