Zoo's good or bad?

[Nikon_Nick]

I don't think its really a case of being able to 'choose' what we think is right or wrong, but we do 'choose' how we feel about right and wrong. Its just like how someone may choose to be offended by something that someone has said, or something that they have seen etc. Ultimately, as has already been discussed (at length) in this thread, is that different people have different sets of morals. It doesn't make one persons set of morals superior to someone elses set of morals though. People are wired differently.

 

[htid]

Ah OK I misunderstood what you were asking.

Lets turn this round the other way.
Most people would agree that rape is wrong, a very very small minority, would think that abusing a woman ( or man for that matter) is morally and criminally wrong.
These types of morals as I said are instilled in us from a very young age, by our parents.

That small amount of people from abusive backgrounds, *may* see this type of abuse as OK or *normal* behaviour.
And may well go on to abuse a partner, or stranger.

I wouldn't have thought that any right minded person could suddenly think that rape is OK, as its against the law, its against Christian beliefs ( religious or not). and morally abhorrent.

I would however suggest that someone from the fictional background, where rape or abuse is part of the daily norm, could come to realise that its wrong and change their behaviour.
We as an advanced species ( most of us at least) have the ability to make informed choices and even change our beliefs.

Sure but it's kind of irrelevant if we would want to because the question is still can we? If I remember rightly, this stemmed from me saying I have no control over the fact that I think killing animals is morally wrong. I can't just change my mind and think "OK, now I believe killing animals is alright". It doesn't work like that, at least not for me.

 

[htid]

I don't think its really a case of being able to 'choose' what we think is right or wrong, but we do 'choose' how we feel about right and wrong. Its just like how someone may choose to be offended by something that someone has said, or something that they have seen etc. Ultimately, as has already been discussed (at length) in this thread, is that different people have different sets of morals. It doesn't make one persons set of morals superior to someone elses set of morals though. People are wired differently.

But don't you feel morally superior to a murderer or rapist? Don't you feel that the set of morals you hold which tells you this is wrong are a better set of morals than the ones that a rapist has, which allows the rapist to rape?

 

[big soft moose]

And so can I. I'm not questioning that, but I find it hard to believe that somebody who has been brought up to think it is wrong consiously or subconsiously can (without any external influence and any time passing) decide "right now I'm going to decide rape is not wrong" and actually believe it. Many years of conditioning if you will have brought us to what we now believe, it's not as simple as flipping a switch to change.

Ive lost the thread of why we are discussing this. If the paralell is with regard to eating meat surely the same applies that people brought up and conditioned over years to think that killing animals is okay arent going to suddenly say "no , meat is murder , i must be a vegan" - but doesnt that go counter to your argument, as earlier you seemed to be saying that it was a concious choice we could all make ?

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Chris, you are talking about two very extreme situations here. You are trying to compare the rape and murder of a human, to the average man in the street (me) enjoying the occasional steak.

 

[GreenNinja67]

Peoples morals can change for the better as this is what is called learning.

It's far more difficult for someone's morals to slip from is socially acceptable to unacceptable./

I think this is where the confusion lies and why the subject has gone on for so long.

I think we're flogging a dead horse.

Oops

 

[big soft moose]

But don't you feel morally superior to a murderer or rapist? Don't you feel that the set of morals you hold which tells you this is wrong are a better set of morals than the ones that a rapist has, which allows the rapist to rape?

the point is that everyone thinks that their morals are superior .. I can't see a situation in which i'd deliberately choose to blow up women and children, but the people who do are convinced of the rightness of their cause and would say that they have the moral fortitude to do whats right and that I/we are the weak ones.

you can apply that to every situation , which is why discussing morals at the end of the day is a waste of time

 

[simon ess]

If you want to compare morals, you will need to define morality.

You will also need to define the difference between morality, immorality and amorality.

If you can do that you'll probably win a Nobel prize.

 

[Cobra]

I have no control over the fact that I think killing animals is morally wrong.

That's fine, this is a moral judgement that you have made that is personal to you, no one is trying to force a bacon ( Hmmmm Bacon ) sarnie
down your throat, or in anyway convert you from the lifestyle choice you have made.
Some of us don't understand it, granted, but as above we would have no desire to force a big mac down your throat, or as to go and commit some crime, be that sexual or otherwise.

I can't just change my mind and think "OK, now I believe killing animals is alright".

As above, that's fine no one is asking you to go catch your own dinner with a ferret an purse nets.
( however tasty Rabbit stew is )

 

[htid]

I agree we are never going to get anywhere discussing morals. This all goes back to me saying I feel morally superior to others because my morals to me are erm..more moral, than other people's. @big soft moose you already agreed with me on that point, that this is my personal opinion. The question is should I WANT to force my morals onto others. The point is that given the chance I'm sure many would WANT to force their morals on to others to create a better society as they saw it (ie without child slavery etc. etc.)

 

[big soft moose]

As above, that's fine no one is asking you to go catch your own dinner with a ferret an purse nets.
( however tasty Rabbit stew is )

Indeed - its is much more prefferable to use a rifle and lamp

End of the day we all accept that chris and other vegans have no control over thinking that eating flesh is morrally wrong - which begs the question of why they think we have any control over thinking it isnt ?

 

[simon ess]

I'm sure many would WANT to force their morals on to others to create a better society as they saw it

I, like many before, would fight to prevent others forcing their morals onto you.

 

[Cobra]

Indeed - its is much more prefferable to use a rifle and lamp

Ferreting is more fun, and Chris'll be happy as it gives the rabbit an even chance

which begs the question of why they think we have any control over thinking it isnt ?

True enough, as meat eating is the norm, they are the ones that have made a choice against the society norm.

 

[big soft moose]

The question is should I WANT to force my morals onto others. The point is that given the chance I'm sure many would WANT to force their morals on to others to create a better society as they saw it (ie without child slavery etc. etc.)

But what gives you the moral right to force your morals onto others ? as chris said above we don't intend to force you to go out and kill a rabit and devour its flesh, so what gives you the right to think that you can force us to become vegans ... in fact most people who want to force (rather than persuade) others to take on their moral view point are extremists and arent viewed as having superior morals by society at large or indeed by history

 

[htid]

I, like many before, would fight to prevent others forcing their morals onto you.

Erm but society's morals are forced upon us all whether we like it or not! The morals we all have are born from what a few people in power at some point in history have decided is right and wrong. That's why here adultry or homosexuality are legal and in other places it's punishable by death. You may not notice it because it's what you've always known, but everything is forced upon you from your parents and society.

I morally object to the wars in various places but the government use my tax money to fight these wars. So their morals are forced upon me.

 

[viv1969]

We can move on if you wish but I'm not happy about you thinking I avoided the question. I gave you a valid answer below the main statement. It would depend on the situation, what else do you want me to say?

The situation is simple:
In the future your child develops a disease which will kill it.
There are treatments available which have been developed through non animal tested means which may provide a cure, however the treatment is long, aggressive and painful.
There is a treatment, developed after you became vegan, using animal testing, which can guarantee your child a cure through a series of simple pain free infusions.
Would you, because of your own beliefs, deny your child the guaranteed cure because of beliefs which YOU hold, but that, if given the opportunity to live, your child might not share?

 

[simon ess]

If you morally object to wars being funded by your tax money, then it is your moral duty to protest.

I fear you are misunderstanding the nature of morality.

Attitudes to adultery and homosexuality are not issues of morality, they are issues of cultural norms.

In this society the overwhelming cultural norm is to eat meat. You have chosen a different norm.

This shows that you have the choice. It is not forced upon you.

 

[Cobra]

I morally object to the wars in various places but the government use my tax money to fight these wars. So their morals are forced upon me.

But that's a different issue, we elect a government to act in our best interests, as there is no way to poll the populace each time some decision or other has to be made.
Whether or not we personally agree with what is decided is a different matter, the only way to "get what you want" is to vote in a government that agrees with your ideals.

 

[big soft moose]

I morally object to the wars in various places but the government use my tax money to fight these wars. So their morals are forced upon me.

well no they aren't - you are free to take and espouse the view that the wars are wrong, unlike say if you lived in Nazi germany or Stalinist Russia where you wouldnt have been free to say the party were wrong without going to the camps. At the end of the day Morals are something we keep inside so I can't force you , even at pain of death, to take on mine any more than you can force me to take on yours

With the slave trade for example after it was banned here Britain used the royal navy to enforce the ban (although that was as much about global power in reality) but they couldnt force the slavers to believe what they werwe doing was wrong only kill or imprison them for doing it.

Same with the current war on terror - we might believe that the actions of IS etc are morrally repugnant, but we arent able to force them to believe that too

End of the day even if you were able to come to power with your extreme vegan movement , you might be able to force people not to eat meat (although enforcing that ban would be nearly impossible) but you wouldnt be able to force them to beluieve that you were right,

 

[htid]

But what gives you the moral right to force your morals onto others ? as chris said above we don't intend to force you to go out and kill a rabit and devour its flesh, so what gives you the right to think that you can force us to become vegans ... in fact most people who want to force (rather than persuade) others to take on their moral view point are extremists and arent viewed as having superior morals by society at large or indeed by history

Let me just say that at no point have I said you or anybody should immediately become vegan or even become vegan in your entire life. I accept that you never will and respect your decision to an extent. But how could I not want to force something onto people if I think it is inherently wrong? I always go back to the analogy of slavery as it works quite well. Imagine you were in 1800s USA talking to someone who is a agrees with slavery and uses slaves. You take the position of me, the slaver takes the position you're taking with me now. Wouldn't you want to stop slavery even if it means removing the right of the slavers from having slaves? If you believe in something strongly enough and believe that what you believe is the correct way, you're going to want others to follow that way of life.

 

[htid]

well no they aren't - you are free to take and espouse the view that the wars are wrong, unlike say if you lived in Nazi germany or Stalinist Russia where you wouldnt have been free to say the party were wrong without going to the camps. At the end of the day Morals are something we keep inside so I can't force you , even at pain of death, to take on mine any more than you can force me to take on yours

With the slave trade for example after it was banned here Britain used the royal navy to enforce the ban (although that was as much about global power in reality) but they couldnt force the slavers to believe what they werwe doing was wrong only kill or imprison them for doing it.

Same with the current war on terror - we might believe that the actions of IS etc are morrally repugnant, but we arent able to force them to believe that too

But if you could force them, wouldn't you?

 

[htid]

But that's a different issue, we elect a government to act in our best interests, as there is no way to poll the populace each time some decision or other has to be made.
Whether or not we personally agree with what is decided is a different matter, the only way to "get what you want" is to vote in a government that agrees with your ideals.

I've never voted for any government that does the things I'm talking about so that's forcing their morals upon me in a way. I understand we live in a democracy and some will get what they want and others won't. But still at the end of the day the government in power does things against my morals with my money, essentially forcing theirs upon me.

 

[big soft moose]

If you believe in something strongly enough and believe that what you believe is the correct way, you're going to want others to follow that way of life.

that essentially what IS say, so by that logic they were right to carry out the attacks and what we call atrocities

 

[simon ess]

But how could I not want to force something onto people

It would be fruitless, counter productive and, dare I say it, immoral.

You are free to choose to use every means at your disposal to persuade and convince.

If you, and people with your views, gained power and tried to force your views onto me, I would be first to man the barricades.

 

[htid]

The situation is simple:
In the future your child develops a disease which will kill it.
There are treatments available which have been developed through non animal tested means which may provide a cure, however the treatment is long, aggressive and painful.
There is a treatment, developed after you became vegan, using animal testing, which can guarantee your child a cure through a series of simple pain free infusions.
Would you, because of your own beliefs, deny your child the guaranteed cure because of beliefs which YOU hold, but that, if given the opportunity to live, your child might not share?

I have no desire to ever have children because as a vegan I think it's a terrible thing for me to do. I therefore can't answer that because I have no idea what sort of bond a parent and child would have.

Having said that, what you're saying still relies on the tests having already been carried out. If they have already been done then what can I do? What would be the point in avoiding them? The question has to be would I want tests to occur in future to save the child. The answer is no.

 

[simon ess]

I have no desire to ever have children because as a vegan I think it's a terrible thing for me to do.

I'm not even going to attempt to comprehend that Chris, so I shall bow out and wish you well.

 

[htid]

Well we're back to not getting anywhere.

We have to agree to disagree again because I stand by what I've said and you all stand by what you've said. Lucky for you I don't and never will have any power eh?

On the flip side, I see with my own eyes that veganism is growing and celebrities are endorsing it so it will only get bigger. We will all be dead before we know the outcome so it's all rather irrelevant.

 

[htid]

I'm not even going to attempt to comprehend that Chris, so I shall bow out and wish you well.

Well it's simple. As a vegan I don't want to harm animals. If I had a child I couldn't guarantee it would be vegan so I would indirectly be causing animals to die. That's not very vegan of me IMO. I've never wanted kids anyway so it's a non issue.

 

[Cobra]

But still at the end of the day the government in power does things against my morals with my money, essentially forcing theirs upon me.

But its the same for circa half the population.

The question has to be would I want tests to occur in future to save the child. The answer is no.

That sounds like Jehovah's witness comment re blood transfusions TBH, they are happy to let a child die, for want of a transfusion.
To me thats morally wrong, and coming close to murder by proxy.

And the second point, you'd call a halt to research because you don't agree with it?
The fact that its a multi billion pound industry, that employs God knows how many people produced a hell of a lot of revenue in taxe and last but not least,
saves countless lives.

 

[big soft moose]

Well it's simple. As a vegan I don't want to harm animals. If I had a child I couldn't guarantee it would be vegan so I would indirectly be causing animals to die..

thats pretty fuzzy logic really, as previously discussed if you drive a car, live in house, wear clothes (even synthetic ones), or use any form of electronics or consumer goods then you are indirectly causing animals to die

 

[Nikon_Nick]

If I had a child I couldn't guarantee it would be vegan so I would indirectly be causing animals to die.

...but surely you would be able to force your morals on the child

 

[Cobra]

...but surely you would be able to force your morals on the child

But what happens if said child rebels ? As children have a want to.
You can't drown it or put it back.

So I can see why Chris is taking the soft option on that.

 

[big soft moose]

...but surely you would be able to force your morals on the child

until they became a teenager and rebelled ,

in fact the surest way to ensure you child isnt a vegan (or a christian or whatever) is to try to force them to follow your beliefs , in fact thats true of pretty much anyone the more you force rather than persuade the more likely they are to push bck

 

[big soft moose]

But what happens if said child rebels ? As children have a want to.
You can't drown it or put it back.
.

If you are folowing the ISIS model of moral certainty you throw it off a car park and post a video of you doing so on you tube (or you could just thrash it senseless to teach it not to think for itself as was alledgedly common in many morally certain homes )

 

[htid]

But its the same for circa half the population.


That sounds like Jehovah's witness comment re blood transfusions TBH, they are happy to let a child die, for want of a transfusion.
To me thats morally wrong, and coming close to murder by proxy.

And the second point, you'd call a halt to research because you don't agree with it?
The fact that its a multi billion pound industry, that employs God knows how many people produced a hell of a lot of revenue in taxe and last but not least,
saves countless lives.

Well as I say I don't want kids so it will never be an issue.

I know you of all people won't agree with me and it's pointless debating this because I haven't got the knowledge you have, but I believe if the money, technology and brainpower put into animal research was put into alternatives, we'd be a lot better off. This kind of thing is hard to discuss because generally all studies will say be funded by somebody with SOME sort of agenda. I can find you lots of information showing animal models are useless and you'll find me lots showing animal tests are the only way. I don't want to close the industry down, far from it. I just think we should use alternatives.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

We definitiely need a 'tongue in cheek' smilie on here. My post wasn't serious...




...oooh wait

 

[htid]

thats pretty fuzzy logic really, as previously discussed if you drive a car, live in house, wear clothes (even synthetic ones), or use any form of electronics or consumer goods then you are indirectly causing animals to die

I don't drive a car and never plan to But I understand what you're saying. As has been discussed, we're all hypocrites. I try and cause as little harm as possible and one of the ways of doing this is to not have kids. Driving a car for 60 years or having a house or buying clothes for my entire life pale in comparison to the amount of animal harm I could cause through all my future generations if I decided to have kids.

 

[Cobra]

I can find you lots of information showing animal models are useless

I agree in some instances the way the things have moved on since my time, advances have been made, and its not always viable or cost effective to use animals.
Some "Chemical testing" has been around for quite a few years now.

I just think we should use alternatives.

As above some alternatives are now in place. But it can't all replace a "live response"

But I can say with much smugness "Stuff" I was working on in the early 70's through to early 80's has been on the market saving lives, at the very least, making lives more comfortable
for sometime now.
Yes I am very proud of "stuff" that I was involved in, and the lives saved / quality of life improved.

 

[viv1969]

I have no desire to ever have children because as a vegan I think it's a terrible thing for me to do. I therefore can't answer that because I have no idea what sort of bond a parent and child would have.

Having said that, what you're saying still relies on the tests having already been carried out. If they have already been done then what can I do? What would be the point in avoiding them? The question has to be would I want tests to occur in future to save the child. The answer is no.

What part are you not comprehending about before and after?

There is a treatment, developed after you became vegan, using animal testing, which can guarantee your child a cure through a series of simple pain free infusions.

But no matter.

More interestingly.....vegans don't breed?

 

[Cobra]

My post wasn't serious...

Nor was my response to you, but I think that most people got the fact that it was a light hearted exchange

I try and cause as little harm as possible

And that's an admirable stance to take, no one can fault you for that