Philosophy: Should we eat meat? [Archive]

fatcat

Dec3-03, 06:52 PM

Ergo any BEHAVIOURAL pre-disposition is automatically a philosophy now? What a convenient way of being able to qualify, justify and defend the validity of absolutely any possible thought or deed. What a brilliant way to make any insignificant, inconsidered, outrageous, idiotic, naive guff legitimate. And what a great way to feel as though discussing issues equal in merit to those that have tormented the minds of mankind for untold centuries. There is precious little for mankind, insecure and egocentric as it is, to grasp onto if un-prepared to accept that we are the same as every other grubby inconsequential species on this planet, eat, produce, die, and once we're gone the world carries on, but auto-justification of anything by calling it philosophy does not make it philosophy. Charity, that high and noble human attribute, is in this case nothing more than man having an ability to choose freely due to such a surfeit of comfort, ease and foodstuffs, 'No, I shall not eat you', forgetting that the suffix of this sentence should be 'I shall leave you for whatsoever decides it SHALL eat you'. There are far more species eaten with clean and clear consciences on this planet than we eat, and we didn't eat many of the species we've killed off. As the man says, we prop up the populations we eat - if anything, we are more likely not to give a damn about the ones we don't.
Said rest of the planet carries on its way, eating whatsoever it happens to eat, survival of the fittest et al, chewing down trees, tunneling, climbing, swimming, hunting, and defecating recklessly with little or no regard for either ecology or other species other than any immediately predatory threats, accepting that life is exactly as it sees it and doing as it sees fit in accordance with its requirements. Philosophy? 'Out of my way, there's something over there I want to eat'. As there are creatures out there regarded as intelligent, if one of our four-legged cousins makes a behavioural decision, whatsoever the basis, does this standpoint infer that such decisions are now issues of philosophy? Good god, my dog? Descartes must be ecstatic.

All-embracing simplification, bringing all thought, action, standpoint and decision onto the same nice, flat, level, playing field, all life = philosophy. I am, therefore I am a philosopher? A useful supposition if, perchance, you really want to be 'a philosopher'. If all behaviour or possible action is taken as philosophy, philosophy is no longer. Just as all un-necessary creation is similarly defined by some as art, throwing open the gates to allow the title to be adopted by whatever it is bestowed upon, if all choices and actions are philosophy the nomenclature becomes so worthless that surely a new term needs to be created that replaces the one that once defined the operating field of a philosopher? Art has Art and Fine Art. Is such a delineation now needed in the face of 'I am, ergo I philosophise'? The definition theories of why the world is etc? What is life? Why is life? Etc? 'I choose not to eat the pie, ergo I am a philosopher'? How very simple.
Is life so issueless, have all the questions been asked?

If food is philosophy, who knows - DO Smarties hold the answer...?

Good call on the bloods. There's nothing like fact, is there?

David Mayes

Dec4-03, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Rader
It is a scientific confirmed fact that when the blood in the human body has a Ph of 7.4 the blood is in a equilibrium state. Body balance, in terms of acid=alkaline, is pH 7.4 for blood in arteries. Acid=alkaline equivalence is a pH of 7.00. Thus, a healthy body means pH that is slightly alkaline. This means there are more buffering mineral receptors for electons than acid forming electron donors. The human body gets sick when the acid alkaline is out of balance. There is a way to keep it in balance. Your diet.
You are what you eat.
Most fruits and vegetables are alkaline, meats, milk, fish and cereals are acid. By use of a diet of 70=30 thats is fruits and vegetable=to meat, milk, fish and cereals, you can maintain a balanced pH in your system. On a scale of 0 to 14.7, 0=acid and 14.7=alkaline, Coca Cola is 2.0, coffee is 4.0, beer is 2.5, meat 3.0.

[8)]

Excellent post Sir.
I believe that science supports fruit as the best food group, it best matches our anatomy and physiology.

What I'm curious about is if we accept that fruit is the best{but not exclusive food group}, does the concept of food combining make sense?

In essence it says eat fruit on an empty stomach so as it can be quickly digested, and don't dump fruit on top of other foods as the stomach will have to secrete both acid and alkaline to digest differing chemical natures, thus neutralizing the stomach juices and forcing increasing amounts of secreted digestive juices which cost the body energy from it's limited daily energy budget and also prolonging the time taken to digest the stomach contents allowing for putrefaction of the protein and fermentation of any carbohydrates.

Rader

Dec4-03, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by David Mayes
Excellent post Sir.
I believe that science supports fruit as the best food group, it best matches our anatomy and physiology.

Fruit and vegetables 70 perecent but also cereals, milk, meat and fish 30 perecent

What I'm curious about is if we accept that fruit is the best{but not exclusive food group}, does the concept of food combining make sense?

Experiment, your body will tell you the answer. Nature will automatically give you the answer, to what is best, listen to your body and be aware of it.

In essence it says eat fruit on an empty stomach so as it can be quickly digested, and don't dump fruit on top of other foods as the stomach will have to secrete both acid and alkaline to digest differing chemical natures, thus neutralizing the stomach juices and forcing increasing amounts of secreted digestive juices which cost the body energy from it's limited daily energy budget and also prolonging the time taken to digest the stomach contents allowing for putrefaction of the protein and fermentation of any carbohydrates.

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

[8)] Good health to all.

David Mayes

Dec4-03, 09:00 PM

Fruit and vegetables 70 perecent but also cereals, milk, meat and fish 30 perecent
Experiment, your body will tell you the answer. Nature will automatically give you the answer, to what is best, listen to your body and be aware of it.

Good point and I agree that experiment will determine the "optimal" dietary needs of each individual.
I don't think we need any milk except our mothers milk, cow milk is for cows, human milk for humans....humans less likley to accept the conditions cows accept as farm animals.

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

I think this is incorrect,....the digestive juices are mainly water, but if you add more later, then you further dilute the acid/alkaline digestive juices, if the stomach contents are alkaline, the the body will secrete acid to help break down the food stuff, but if you add water, then the PH of the acid in the digestive juices will lose potency as basic chemistry confirms.

And by listening to one's body, you'll discover fruit is removed from the stomach inside of 30 mins, so if you eat it afterwards, you'll be dumping it on top of a mix match of food stuffs and digestive juices...inhibiting fruits natural passage to the intesines.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

I'm think that the undisputed{not absolute} dietary laws of humans can be determined by experiment, the goal is maximum metabolic efficiency leading to maximum health.

Rader

Dec5-03, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by David Mayes
Good point and I agree that experiment will determine the "optimal" dietary needs of each individual.
I don't think we need any milk except our mothers milk, cow milk is for cows, human milk for humans....humans less likley to accept the conditions cows accept as farm animals.

We have been talking in generalities about water in take and how much fruits and vegetable to meat milk fish and cereals. Cow milk causes antigens that is flem in most humans when they drink it. Although the major cause is the milk itself, the chemcials and antibiotics are a cause also. Read eat right for your diet by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo.

I think this is incorrect,....the digestive juices are mainly water, but if you add more later, then you further dilute the acid/alkaline digestive juices, if the stomach contents are alkaline, the the body will secrete acid to help break down the food stuff, but if you add water, then the PH of the acid in the digestive juices will lose potency as basic chemistry confirms.

By not having enough water in your system upon during and after digestion the body has to get it from somewhere. It then takes it from the large and small intestine and this water is putrified. The body rots slowly. You do not drink large amounts of water while eating but before and after. Observe yourself when you eat your next main meal.

And by listening to one's body, you'll discover fruit is removed from the stomach inside of 30 mins, so if you eat it afterwards, you'll be dumping it on top of a mix match of food stuffs and digestive juices...inhibiting fruits natural passage to the intesines.

Fruits can be eaten alone and they would have the most benifical value.

I'm think that the undisputed{not absolute} dietary laws of humans can be determined by experiment, the goal is maximum metabolic efficiency leading to maximum health.

This is true, but the same experimental data will not hold for all, as there are many factors what is the right diet. The body is the best tester.
There is the blood type to consider what is best to eat and the combinations of foods also, for the individual.

The Mediterranean diet is renowned as the best in the world and fruit instead of carbohydrate sweets is most often used. I have used it for 25 years.
[8)]

Galatea

Dec31-03, 05:18 PM

Meat is, in most cases, unecessary. I voted no.

Monique

Jan1-04, 01:31 PM

Let's look at that from a different view: would the earth be able to support our current population all going vegetarian?

I guess it might even be better, since less energy is wasted by skipping the middle man, right?

Dissident Dan

Jan1-04, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Esperanto
No one is safe. I turned vegetarian for a few weeks and during that time I was turning purple. look at this from http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/soydoerge.htm I am outraged and I'm going to take it out on the farm animals. Anyways, I don't know how anyone can possibly know if vegetarians are healthy. I was pretty sick eating those toxic pellet raisins and soy products all those weeks. from http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art14546.asp

If you read the article, it says:
"These findings have led Dr. Doerge to conclude that additional factors appear necessary for soy to cause overt thyroid toxicity. These factors include:

iodine deficiency
consumption of other soy components
other goitrogens in the diet
other physiological problems in synthesizing thyroid hormones. "

Many people have eaten lots of soy for many years without problems. Asians eat it all the time.

Some people do have allergies to soy, but I think that they are in the minority by far, and you do not necessarily need to consume soy to be a vegetarian.

If you want to compare the toxicity of soy to meat, meat is way more toxic, with all the free radicals, and the growth hormones and antibiotics that people feed the animals, and the fact that animal flesh decomposes more quickly than plant food, meaning that it rots in your intestines, which can lead to cancer.

Dissident Dan

Jan1-04, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Interesting study showing that eating beef results in less killing of animals than eating vegan.

http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm

This study uses flawed logic and comes from an non-credible source that loads itself with keywords. It is a web page about getting rid of "pest" animals, so obiviously it is slanted:
"Wildlife Damage Control information on the control of raccoons, squirrels, skunks and other wildlife causing property damage"

Firstly it assumes numbers regarding how many animals per amount of land are killed each year.

Secondly, it assumes that the same amount of food will be produced from land whether used for grazing or growing plant food, which is not at all true. Firstly, as Monique mentioned, there is an efficiency problem (a huge one) with the introduction of the "middle man". By using animals that grow and repair and stop growing and continue to repair, you are wasting food. Secondly, much less food is going to be grown in the form of grass than in wheat, corn, etc.

Thirdly, it assumes that ruminant food actually comes from grazing animals. The fact is that most comes from intensive confinement farms that require grown crops to be fed to the animals. The intensive confinement has its own effects on wildlife, as well.

Dissident Dan

Jan1-04, 05:12 PM

We should not eat meat. It is not necessary for survival or proper health. Animals raised for food, at least in the USA, live in horrible conditions--crowded, confined, not cared for, abused, made to grow in ways that their bodies can't handle, etc. (check out www.factoryfarming.org).

There are environmental problems: fecal lagoons spills, contamination of water supply, overuse of antibiotics leading to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

It's really a very simple issue. It's just a matter of overcoming one's prejudices and/or greed.

Kerrie

Jan1-04, 08:31 PM

i think the reality of this situation is that humans will continue to eat meat regardless of the treatment of the animals...if the treatment of the animals was greatly improved would it then be okay? what do you think the starving person in a third world country would do? eat, or care more for the treatment of the animal? although i can see a sense of compassion towards the treatment of the animals, in a sense, it's taking for granted a source of life giving energy that a great portion of the world's population does not have...

instead of arguing about "should we eat meat?", we should be arguing, should stupid people continue to breed?

Dissident Dan

Jan1-04, 09:23 PM

Well, people in third world countries are in different conditions than we are in. That has no bearing on us.

"Should we eat meat?" is a perfectly valid extremely important question.

Galatea

Jan3-04, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think the reality of this situation is that humans will continue to eat meat regardless of the treatment of the animals...if the treatment of the animals was greatly improved would it then be okay? what do you think the starving person in a third world country would do? eat, or care more for the treatment of the animal? although i can see a sense of compassion towards the treatment of the animals, in a sense, it's taking for granted a source of life giving energy that a great portion of the world's population does not have...

instead of arguing about "should we eat meat?", we should be arguing, should stupid people continue to breed?

Not all humans will continue to eat meat. Someone converts to vegetarianism every day, I'm sure (if not more.) In the end, arguing about anything is probably pretty pointless on a discussion board since, very rarely, does it change anyone's mind.

Many vegetarians view meat eating (and animal killing) as entirely unnecessary and, in fact, quite gluttonous. It is inflicting pain for no reason since there are suitable alternatives already out there. At the very least, people who choose to consume meat should get it in the least cruel way possible.

Kerrie

Jan3-04, 08:43 PM

Gal, I can agree with your point, however, people will stop eating meat more for health reasons (such as the recent mad cow discovery in Washington State) then for the treatment of animals...

Robert Zaleski

Jan5-04, 08:30 PM

I'm for eating Vegans. There docile and dim-witted, so they'll be easy to capture and butcher. Just think of it, all your vitamins, minerals and proteins in one tasty morsel.

Kerrie

Jan5-04, 08:47 PM

One cow, hundreds of uses (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1073135194312870.xml)

face it...in some form or another, we utilize the cow in our daily consumer products...this link will be accessible for just a few weeks...

Dissident Dan

Jan6-04, 12:41 AM

Are you trying to say that we are stuck on cows and can't do without?

The materials made with cow by-products, except maybe a few, like Jello, can and have been made without them. Sugar can be made without bones. Glue can be made without cows, etc. It's not like we will go without our consumer and industrial products if cows are no longer eaten. They will just get the materials in different ways. The link says that most of these uses weren't around until the latter half of the 20th century. These uses just evolved to do something with all the waste.
--------------------------

Robert, why are you so hostile towards vegans?

Kerrie

Jan6-04, 09:20 AM

dan, yes, i am trying to say that the average consumer uses products made from cows, thus there will always be a demand for animals (cows in this instance) to be slaughtered...trying to convince a mass of people will take a huge effort in education and knowledge...this newspaper article took a step in that effort, as it was on the front page of The Sunday Oregonian-Oregon's biggest newspaper...because Oregon is affected by the potential threat of mad cow disease, this article is huge in our local news...the point i was trying to drive however is people will not stop eating meat for the animal's well being, but more likely for their own...

Dissident Dan

Jan7-04, 05:19 PM

The question that I was trying to address was: "Should we eat meat?", not "Will people stop eating meat?".

Kerrie

Jan7-04, 06:15 PM

the question is unrealistic...the question could be rephrased to say:

should we cut back on how much meat we consume? i think that is much more possible for the masses of people to attain, especially if the health of these people is at stake...through education and awareness of the treatment of animals prior to being slaughtered, this could happen...

Dissident Dan

Jan9-04, 11:35 PM

The question is perfectly realistic? Its assumptions that there is meat, people eat meat, and there may be a "should" are all perfectly valid. What you consider unrealistic is people following reason if the answer should turn out to be "no".

But that should in no way hinder the discussion. The question is not one of what people will do, but what people should do.
Anyway, trying to end the argument in this way would be a great disservice to knowledge and one's own discussing abilities.
What if, when people asked, "Should people own slaves?", all discussion of the subject was ended by saying that people giving up their slaves is not going to happen?

Kerrie

Jan9-04, 11:57 PM

i would temporarily stop for health reasons (especially since the mad cow disease in washington was found 3 hours from where i live), but i have low iron in my blood making me at risk for anemia...my doctor recommended me to eat more red meat at one point to improve my iron...no, i don't need red meat on a daily basis, once a week or a couple times a month is adequate...

my answer to this question is, yes, people should eat meat especially if it helps people who are the same condition i am, but in moderation...

as for the conditions that the animals are raised in, yes, i can imagine how horrid it is...perhaps if these farms were to raise them humanely (which would mean grains that are more costly) and incorporate the costs of doing this, meat would be more of a delicay rather then a daily food source...

selfAdjoint

Jan10-04, 10:28 AM

Detailed research on the mad cow/CJD outbreaks in Britain suggest that the risk of contracting CJD by eating beef is very low, even if, as in Britain, there are a lot of infected cattle. Indeed the epidemiology is so random it's difficult to sustain the statistical connection betweeen CJD and mad cow at all.

Kerrie

Jan10-04, 11:30 AM

yes, i have read that too, however, because of the ugliness of the actual disease, a lot of people won't even take the chance of eating meat...also, it's the ground meat that has a higer chance of containing it then the muscle cuts..

Rader

Jan10-04, 01:04 PM

pace

Jan10-04, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
The question is: should we cut back on how much meat we consume?

I think most people understand by today what animals really is, maybe mostly thanks to Darwin's evolution principle?

I find this topic question rather dated, and that we need to move on: I think most people today know deep inside 'animals are like us', or something similiar. The question is: How should we cut back on how much meat we consume. How can we make things better. One thing we could do is to offer more 'tasty vegan food'. I find in norwegian stores today there's way too little of those quick-food packets.
We know we can't go from A to B in an instant, but we can always try, we can always take one step at a time.

Imagine one day we can successfully make meat chemicly, and we'll think back 'on these terrible times when we ate out brothers' :)

Kerrie

Jan10-04, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by pace
Imagine one day we can successfully make meat chemicly[/B]

we already have that, it's found at McDonalds...

Dissident Dan

Jan11-04, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
we already have that, it's found at McDonalds...

Jokes aside...

http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO9931222&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat

Process and patent
In 2001, dermatologist Wiete Westerhof from the University of Amsterdam and businessmen Willem van Eelen and Willem van Kooten announced that they had filed for a worldwide patent on a process to produce in vitro meat (patent number WO9931222). A matrix of collagen is seeded with muscle cells, which are then bathed in a nutritious solution and induced to divide.

NASA's efforts:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993208
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992066

Galatea

Jan11-04, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by pace
I think most people understand by today what animals really is, maybe mostly thanks to Darwin's evolution principle?

I wish..

I find this topic question rather dated, and that we need to move on: I think most people today know deep inside 'animals are like us', or something similiar. The question is: How should we cut back on how much meat we consume. How can we make things better. One thing we could do is to offer more 'tasty vegan food'. I find in norwegian stores today there's way too little of those quick-food packets.
We know we can't go from A to B in an instant, but we can always try, we can always take one step at a time.

This much is true. I've always been curious what vegan food availability is like in other countries. Here in the US, depending on where you live, there are quite a few yummy vegan convenience foods for sale. Where I live (in Jacksonville, FL), most of the major grocery chains carry a wide selection of vegan/vegetarian food stuffs and there is also a very nice health food store which has every product you could dream of. Convenience foods include: microwaveable meals, mac'n'(fake)cheese, lots of fake cheese in general (some of which are rather bleh), meat analogues in the form of burgers/hot dogs/sausages/riblets/turkey/cold cuts, vegan sour cream, cream cheese, ice cream. All kinds of stuff that's actually really good. Then there are all of the normal foods that even a lot of non-vegans eat (hummus, vegetables, you get the idea.) But without more vegans/vegetarians, there is not much of a market for these kinds of foods and it's difficult to promote the research/testing involved to make better products..

Galatea

Jan11-04, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
i would temporarily stop for health reasons (especially since the mad cow disease in washington was found 3 hours from where i live), but i have low iron in my blood making me at risk for anemia...my doctor recommended me to eat more red meat at one point to improve my iron...no, i don't need red meat on a daily basis, once a week or a couple times a month is adequate...

I definitely understand where you're coming from with this. Most menstruating women have to worry about their iron intake quite a bit; I have no idea how close I am to anemia but when it's almost time for my period, I sometimes have what I call "iron crashes". I've actually gotten a good handle on this as I've learned what foods are high in iron (blackstrap molasses, bok choy, spinach, cream of wheat, raisins, peanuts, almonds, broccoli..) If you make them staples in your diet, there isn't too much to worry about. Either way, I don't know how low your iron levels have gotten. Eating red meat is a quick and easy way to boost your levels but it's not the only way to keep them up. Even if you weren't eating meat, I'm fairly sure eggs have a bit of iron in them though I'd have to look into it. For more vegan iron info, here is a link:
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/iron.htm

MudBuddha

Jan13-04, 07:00 AM

I think an issue that has been only lightly touched on thus far is the lack of difference between animals and humans. That is to say, animals are not sufficiently different and therefore discrimination is not justified. For example you could say that any reason you have for discriminating against an animal could equally be said about a mentally retarded human. Hence if we were to discriminate against animals we would raise a severe double standard.

Yes, meat is an easier meal, but does that justify the torture animals are put through to prepare it? Society at large has become so distant from the origins of their food that non-human animals are still animals like us. As for the often-posed question "Will people stop eating meat" in my opinion it is a resounding no. The market makes lots of money and too much is at stake in a businessmans world.

As for the person who originally posted, discrimination between an endangered species and a chicken is arbitrary. In fact, I would say that the chicken is more worthy of saving on the basis that it quite possibly endures more than the endangered species ever would.

Dissident Dan

Jan14-04, 06:57 PM

Really, it's a very simple issue; it just takes overcoming your prejudices (everyone has prejudices) and desires. It's really very obvious, when you think about it from a "blank slate" perspective that other species of animals have feelings just like we humans do. If there is any basis at all for ethics, it is the existence of feelings.

Then, it just comes down to taking the old cop-out or not. Many people say, "But I like my steak!", or, "I don't know how you do it." The truth is that most of it is just in how you approach it mentally. If you are contantly anticipating and thinking that it will be hard, then you will probably falter in your will-power and give up. However, if you don't have such a "half empty" perspective, it is much easier. Anyway, if you try it, it's not that important whether you falter momentarily, as long as you keep trying.

Considering the gravity of the situation, saying that it's yummy is no excuse. Some self-restraint is required. What I find incredibly ironic about this all is that conservatives or right-wingers are the ones that tend to act like they have the moral high-ground and emphasive personal responsibility, yet most of them don't have the gumption to exercise any restraint when it comes to this highly serious situation. Anyone who takes "personal responsibility" as a political mantra is shown to be a hypocrite of the gravest sort if not even attempting to become vegetarian.

Kerrie

Jan14-04, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Really, it's a very simple issue; it just takes overcoming your prejudices (everyone has prejudices) and desires. It's really very obvious, when you think about it from a "blank slate" perspective that other species of animals have feelings just like we humans do. If there is any basis at all for ethics, it is the existence of feelings.

Then, it just comes down to taking the old cop-out or not. Many people say, "But I like my steak!", or, "I don't know how you do it." The truth is that most of it is just in how you approach it mentally. If you are contantly anticipating and thinking that it will be hard, then you will probably falter in your will-power and give up. However, if you don't have such a "half empty" perspective, it is much easier. Anyway, if you try it, it's not that important whether you falter momentarily, as long as you keep trying.

Considering the gravity of the situation, saying that it's yummy is no excuse. Some self-restraint is required. What I find incredibly ironic about this all is that conservatives or right-wingers are the ones that tend to act like they have the moral high-ground and emphasive personal responsibility, yet most of them don't have the gumption to exercise any restraint when it comes to this highly serious situation. Anyone who takes "personal responsibility" as a political mantra is shown to be a hypocrite of the gravest sort if not even attempting to become vegetarian.

dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

Dissident Dan

Jan14-04, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

Sure, the cheetah eats animals, and a raper rapes women. If you can use what a cheetah does to justify your actions, then by the same mechanism, I can use a raper's actions to justify mine. Obviously, this is absurd. One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

I am not making any startling or arrogant claim. It is rather obvious that we have the mental ability to consider others' feelings. I say that we should use it and use it consistently.

Contrary to popular belief, Darwin did not propose a prescription for how to live, he merely gave a description for what has happened. I didn't realize when he became a god, either. Just because something has been happening a certain way doesn't mean that it's o.k. to continue it. If you're going to use survival of the fittest as a justification, then you can never claim that anything is wrong. Slavery is not wrong. Eugenics is not wrong. Genocide is not wrong. Nothing is wrong. Is that really what you believe?

Kerrie

Jan14-04, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Sure, the cheetah eats animals, and a raper rapes women. If you can use what a cheetah does to justify your actions, then by the same mechanism, I can use a raper's actions to justify mine. Obviously, this is absurd. One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

I am not making any startling or arrogant claim. It is rather obvious that we have the mental ability to consider others' feelings. I say that we should use it and use it consistently.

Contrary to popular belief, Darwin did not propose a prescription for how to live, he merely gave a description for what has happened. I didn't realize when he became a god, either. Just because something has been happening a certain way doesn't mean that it's o.k. to continue it. If you're going to use survival of the fittest as a justification, then you can never claim that anything is wrong. Slavery is not wrong. Eugenics is not wrong. Genocide is not wrong. Nothing is wrong. Is that really what you believe?

are you saying it's instinctual to rape someone as much as it is instinctual for the cheetah to feast on a rabbit? yes, darwin gave a REALISTIC description of what has happened because of our biology, that doesn't make him a god, quite the opposite really...as for the examples-slavery, eugenics, genocide...these don't have to do with human survival, but more human enhancement...i could never cut my own growing children down to just vegetables as they need meat (mostly chicken and fish is what i feed them) to grow healthy and strong...do you have kids that you are concerned for their proper nutrition?

how many third world country citizens are vegetarians by choice? do you think if they had the opportunity of eating what most americans have taken for granted, would they deny it because of sensitivity to animals? what about all the roadkill on the road? is it cruel to keep animals in the zoo? i am not trying to make this a joke, but i feel these are realistic questions that should be addressed just as equally as the one in this thread...

Dissident Dan

Jan15-04, 04:11 PM

Yes, I would say that rape is pretty darn instinctual. We've just had thousands of years of society to meme it out of us. (Even though "instinctual" or not is irrelevant)

Meat is not necessary for proper health. In fact, being vegetarian is healthier, unless you limit yourself to french fries or something silly like that. There is a lot of literature available regarding this. I invite you to check it out. Meat is definitely not necessary for survival...even uttering so is incredibly preposterous (stating such a thing is only possible by being blinded by prejudice), as everyone knows that vegetarians exist and live to old ages. So, it is no better eugenics, slavery, etc. Hell, eugenics could possibly be necessary for longtime survival of the species (which would mean that the "survival of the fittest" argument would justify, although I must once again mention that s.o.t.f. is mearly a description of what has happened, and should not be taken as a prescription for what should happen.)

Propositions:
1) It is possible to live a long, healthy life as a vegetarian.
2) Not being a vegetarian causes beings to suffer
3) Beings suffering is not good
4) One should not do a thing that causes a bad (not good) thing

Therefore:
One should not be not a vegetarian
One should be a vegetarian

pace

Jan16-04, 01:26 AM

The Oppertunities.

'Poor' people in africa don't have much choice not eating meat, but we have. We can always choose something else. Actually a lot of vegan food is cheaper. Pancakes and porrige are both cheap and tasty meals, always liked them since a child, as so many others. (Galatea, it almost seems as usa has better vegan oppertunities than here in norway, I think there are a lot of raw material here, but I see scarcely little of the vegan-meat, and especially quick-food-vegan-packages(do you have well of this too in usa?) here :/. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong shops, got to check more into that, I've mostly just been looking in the two biggest foodchains)
I think the child issue have a lot to say. You learn in psychology how much the first years have to say powering your persona. When you learn how much that taaasty good ol hamburger taste from day one, you have a much harder time as a grownup trying not to eat meat. So if you're having a child, and agree in me in these issue, you should try not giving meat to your kid imo.

DDan, isn't that chemically produced meat(at least I'm not talking about that traditional funny tasting vegan(fake)-meat, but pure organical made meat in laboratories) still in question? I mean, isn't it well known that we're still not sure if it's healthy or not? That we don't know the chance of getting cancer or other biological diseases from it ?
I mean isn't it still in it's testing period? Or perhaps gene-infused food -liberal country as USA, some states already permit these things?

The Evolution.

Just because we see cheetahs eat meat, doesn't make it a natural right: The Evolution says animals are like us, 'We see all of one species eat meat, therefore us humans have no choice but do the same' doesn't have any credibility to it, in fact it's a logical absurd proposition since Cheetas are like us(prooved by evolution), they might as well be as much into this system as us: necessarily eating food to survive, and also be socially inflicted as young by eating meat. Many of us know how much power the social can have.
There is no line in experience, and how far does it have to go before we see it? Do we have to see ONE cheetah hesitating eating some meat before we understand it's not about race? No.
We also have this wonderful thing called science that has made us much more organized, giving us more oppertunities, making it all easier.

Just do it.

I think we all do some contribution in this. Almost all of us eat a little less meat from one day day or another, maybe some of us even if we don't think about it. Even if we don't eat meat one day, we choose to 'not eat so much of it'. I personally find girls better at this issue, than boys. Us boys have the bad habbit of thinking it's a 'Either this, or that' question, 'Either you're good, or you got no choice anyway and can go all the bad way' 'Vegan, or no vegan' etc. So I'm not saying we meat-eaters are simply evil for eating meat: I think most of us do something now and then, a step here and there. And that it's cool! The issue is that just some of us are much better at it than some others. And some blessed ones have managed stop eating it.

The Psychology.

Another thing I came by the other day was that, I was thinking one day I'd decided maybe becoming a vegan; then I thought the traditional thought 'But I'll NEVER eat meat again :('. But then I'm thinking: The feeling 'Never' really isn't an argument. It would be an argument if I lived forever, but I aint. So when I'm saying 'Never' it's also 'I never ate any meat from 9 to 11 today'. Shall I say: 'OH NO! Gotto not eat meat never'. What I'm saying is that you can use the macro argument in micro-time. That the 'never' argument isn't an argument. So that next time that this thought pops up in our head, we can try thinking 'well, you aint eating any meat right now either[if you aint;)], so stop thinking these ridiculous thoughts'. hehe, dunno how much it could help, but it's a psyschology issue. This also plays a part when you try not eating meat. Finding a counter-argument is in the long run always helpful.

So let's STOP FOOLING OURSELF, let us always try, we know we can try, start by doing a little here and there. And let's make ourself conscience too, and others, as most of us how much power the social can have. And let's see where it's going. If we didn't make becoming a vegan, hey, at least we ate a little less of our brethern. Congrats, we still made the world a little better place to live in! Trying is also the death of boredom, The bored are the moralless and non-trying, in my experience :)

Dissident Dan

Jan16-04, 04:37 PM

Pace's post brought an interesting contrast to mind.

Some people like to justify eating meat by invoking the memory of natural selection. They use a Darwinian justification. The funny thing is that if the knowledge that we have gained from Darwin should shed any light pertaining to the matter, it should be how similar each of us really is to members of other species. The similarities are so great (the differences so small) that they really are of no importance in this issue, so if we should extend compassion to other humans through self-restraint (exercising responsibility), we should do the same to our non-human co-inhabitants, as well.

Yet, the greatest difference is in our intelligence. Let us use it in order to make ourselves more humane than they.

Kerrie

Jan16-04, 10:09 PM

Native Africans don't get the choice to eat meat, realistically, but do you think they would take the opportunity if it was extended to them? What about fish? What about the plants? How do we know that they don't experience pain in being harvested? How do we know that we are more intelligent then animals when they can survive in the wild on their own, but a majority of humans can't? I think your claim of humans are more intelligent then humans is slightly arrogant, because we are defining intelligence in the human perspective...

How about the Native Americans who have hunted buffalo, wild turkeys, and even whales off the coast of Washington? Do we change their protected way of life too? I think to stop eating meat should be a personal choice...at the same time, I think all people who choose to buy meat should be severely educated of what they are putting into their bodies as far as how the livestock they are eating is raised...perhaps that might change their ways of thinking to a degree I see this question as a personal choice though, not something mandated by law (within our lifetime), and I don't see it too much different then controversey of abortion-another personal choice that affects another...

pace

Jan17-04, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie

What about the plants? How do we know that they don't experience pain in being harvested?

I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Fish I count as animals, in the stricly analytical way.
About grain: We don't know, but we have scarcely little evidence suggesting so. If we get somewhere, maybe even making our own grain in a somehow grain-merciful way. But in essence, we are biological living creatures, and need to eat biological living things. But saying that because we eat biological living things, there is no hope but eating and killing whatever; is no argument.
It's like saying that because we kill, it doesn't matter in what amount we kill. Because it does, we can always try our best, and we know that. But we aint perfect beings. We can't tell ourself that because we aint perfect, there is no hope at doing better, that the world can just go to hell because we ain perfect already. Even tho we sometimes fool ourself with that. It's an hopeless and stupid argument, it'll get us right down the drain.
But being aware for all life is a good thing nevertheless imo(and if that's what you meant). I think we should be good towards all life, and strictly sense I dislike when we mess too much with mother nature. But we can only take one step at a time. So let's prioritate the animals.

Originally posted by Kerrie

How do we know that we are more intelligent then animals when they can survive in the wild on their own, but a majority of humans can't?

The tradition that we speak, and animals don't, is an old argument used to proove we are intelligent creates, dating at least back to Descartes. Now in recent studies, and that we see monkeys speaking, it's kinda dated. Humans obviously have more IQ and language skills than other animals, but there are lots of more intelligent factors as you well put out.

Originally posted by Kerrie

I think all people who choose to buy meat should be severely educated of what they are putting into their bodies as far as how the livestock they are eating is raised...perhaps that might change their ways of thinking to a degree I see this question as a personal choice though, not something mandated by law (within our lifetime), and I don't see it too much different then controversey of abortion-another personal choice that affects another...

I think the animal case is more important than the abortion case, since the abortion case is more obvious. The debate that only is left in the abortion case, is when it's humanly to abort the baby.

I completely agree with you on the human-distant-to-animals argument.
We've always been close to the ones we've been hunting, and payed tribute. Now we're living in a society like never before, where we've grown distant. We need to get knowledged again. We've become alienated, it's maybe the major question in this issue.

Again, think it's a political choice. I can eat less meat, and I can pay tribute, an extra point to the politicians that take the animal case the right direction.

Dissident Dan

Jan17-04, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
Native Africans don't get the choice to eat meat, realistically, but do you think they would take the opportunity if it was extended to them?
[...]
How about the Native Americans who have hunted buffalo, wild turkeys, and even whales off the coast of Washington? Do we change their protected way of life too?

I believe that I, as well as others, have already stated that all this is irrelevant. You cannot justify your own actions, in your own conditions, based upon someone else's actions in their conditions.

What about fish? What about the plants? How do we know that they don't experience pain in being harvested?

Fish are animals, too, and should have their feelings respected.
Plants do not have nervous systems, and, as such, do not have feelings.
Also, even if plants did have feelings, it would cause the killing of fewer plants to eat them directly, than to feed them to animals and eat the animals, as well as not killing animals.

I think that anyone who poses this argument has not really thought this through, or would have come to the same conclusion. It is an argument that one comes to when one wants to defend one's position at any cost, so searches for any argument that seems viable. However, the effort extended at criticizing the opposition's argument is not existent in checking the validity of one's own argument.

I think to stop eating meat should be a personal choice...

You're right. It should also be a personal choice of whether I want to raise humans for consumption. We should not get in the way of others getting in others' ways.

Kerrie

Jan18-04, 12:18 PM

I believe that I, as well as others, have already stated that all this is irrelevant. You cannot justify your own actions, in your own conditions, based upon someone else's actions in their conditions.

you didn't address my question, clever way to avoid it while attempting to "put me in my place"...

Also, even if plants did have feelings, it would cause the killing of fewer plants to eat them directly, than to feed them to animals and eat the animals, as well as not killing animals.

so do we eat artificial food that may cause disease and sickness for humans down the road? i don't question the natural balance of nature, it seems that all the plants and the natural order of the food chain is to the benefit of all of life on earth...

You're right. It should also be a personal choice of whether I want to raise humans for consumption. We should not get in the way of others getting in others' ways.

currently we legalize abortion, instead of fetuses getting eaten, they are merely discarded as biological waste...animals and plants however are consumed for human survival...i don't want to hijack this thread, but if you believe abortion should be a woman's choice, then so should eating meat, otherwise i see that slightly hypocritical...

there are many laws that protect wild animals...animals that are raised for food are just that...i will comment on how disgusting a meat packing plant is, and perhap we can move to a more humane way of raising meat for a limited food consumption instead of the mass meat market...

the catalyst to the whole mass meat market by the way is human overpopulation...my recommondation is to not reproduce so you don't have to worry about proper nutrition for a growing child or to add to the overpopulation problem, encourage those who do eat meat to investigate on their own the treatment of animals raised for food, and to support local farming...i work directly with american farmers in my job, and it is sad to see them lose their farms because the general population buys their produce that is grown in other countries...

Dissident Dan

Jan18-04, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
you didn't address my question, clever way to avoid it while attempting to "put me in my place"...

I was not trying to slip out of anything. What I was doing was not falling into the trap of acting like the question was relevant. Like I said, it doesn't matter what anyone else does (especially when they're in a completely different situation!).

[/quote]
so do we eat artificial food that may cause disease and sickness for humans down the road?
[/quote]

Who said anything about making people sick? I've already addressed the health myths about being vegan/vegetarian many times. Vegetarians are usually healthier than omnivores!
Food from industrial animal agriculture makes people sick....disease, antibiotics, synthetic growth hormones, milk puss, etc.

i don't question the natural balance of nature, it seems that all the plants and the natural order of the food chain is to the benefit of all of life on earth...

There is nothing "natural" about the way animal food is produced. It does not benefit anyone. There is no "food chain" with animals filling their niches. It's just one species (homo sapiens) creating animals for their consumption. If nature is your concern, animal agriculture only disrupts the natural environment.

currently we legalize abortion, instead of fetuses getting eaten, they are merely discarded as biological waste...animals and plants however are consumed for human survival...i don't want to hijack this thread, but if you believe abortion should be a woman's choice, then so should eating meat, otherwise i see that slightly hypocritical...

Firstly, you assume things about me which you do not know. Secondly, this is a red herring. We are not talking about abortion. We are not talking about me. We are talking about meat and how it gets on one's plate.

As I've already stated numerous times, a child does not need to eat meat, nor even animal products. Milk, for one, is the most unhealth, unnatural (you said that you value nature) thing to feed a child. No other species eats another animal's milk (unless fed such by humans), let alone milk filled with bovine growth hormone or the puss of udder infections.

[quote]
and to support local farming...i work directly with american farmers in my job, and it is sad to see them lose their farms because the general population buys their produce that is grown in other countries...

I agree with you that we should support local farming, but I think that that is getting of the topic.

the_truth

Jan18-04, 05:22 PM

Morality and abstract philosophy go together like bread and butter, the answer to this question is, whatever is good for you is good and hopefully, if like me, you agree with liberty, all you must do is merely not buy animal food products, otherwise it is not immoral.

Kerrie

Jan19-04, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Who said anything about making people sick? I've already addressed the health myths about being vegan/vegetarian many times. Vegetarians are usually healthier than omnivores!
Food from industrial animal agriculture makes people sick....disease, antibiotics, synthetic growth hormones, milk puss, etc.

There is nothing "natural" about the way animal food is produced. It does not benefit anyone. There is no "food chain" with animals filling their niches. It's just one species (homo sapiens) creating animals for their consumption. If nature is your concern, animal agriculture only disrupts the natural environment.

As I've already stated numerous times, a child does not need to eat meat, nor even animal products. Milk, for one, is the most unhealth, unnatural (you said that you value nature) thing to feed a child. No other species eats another animal's milk (unless fed such by humans), let alone milk filled with bovine growth hormone or the puss of udder infections.

I agree with you that we should support local farming, but I think that that is getting of the topic. [/B]

i have to respect your stance on this Dan, as you don't seem the typical vegetarian/vegan follower who does so out of meeting the societal expectations...that's why i asked what your views of abortion were, as i see it just the same as killing an animal...many believe in pro-choice, but are vegetarians, thus i have to assume they are "following a fad"...

nutrition wise, a little bit of meat is quite beneficial as I mentioned before for those with low iron...if I have a doctor recommending to me to increase my meat consumption because that is the fastest and best way to increase and absorb my iron levels, then I am going to listen to him, which by the way is what I have actually been advised in a doctor visit several years ago...

taken from this link:

Meat: a healthy option (http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/features/meat_003728.htm)

Eating meat also aids the absorption of iron from vegetables and cereals. 'One of the benefits of eating meat is that when you eat a proper balanced diet it can help iron absorb into the body. A lot of things have iron in them but you need to get it out and into the body.

i think the basic rule of thumb is, everything in moderation...

Dissident Dan

Jan19-04, 04:29 PM

Well, if you have dangerously low iron levels, that does put you in an atypical category, but it's still one that can be overcome. For example, taking iron supplements with meals will easily give you what you need (although you don't want to overdose). Very little iron is actually needed in the body. Also, just because meat enhances iron intake doesn't mean that meat is necessary to get enough iron.

http://vegsoc.wellington.net.nz/veg_iron.htm

It's a common misconception that vegetarians will have problems with iron deficiency and anaemia. However, while iron stores may be lower, there is no evidence that vegetarians are any more likely to develop anaemia than the rest of the population.

http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/janfeb97/iron.html

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777

pace

Jan19-04, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
i have to respect your stance on this Dan, as you don't seem the typical vegetarian/vegan follower who does so out of meeting the societal expectations...that's why i asked what your views of abortion were, as i see it just the same as killing an animal...many believe in pro-choice, but are vegetarians, thus i have to assume they are "following a fad"...

Following a 'fad' or not, they've decided to stop eating animals, and stop supporting a side of society that's killing.

Originally posted by Kerrie
I see this question as a personal choice though,

In some manner yes, in some manner no. Killing is our buisness.

Originally posted by Kerrie
i don't question the natural balance of nature, it seems that all the plants and the natural order of the food chain is to the benefit of all of life on earth... [/B]

Sorta, yeah. And since we're part of the animals, no reason trying to put ourself on the top of some food-chain, except over plants and so on.
Hopefully the evolution principle, in the end, does more good towards animals, than as a misuse for bad morals.

[ Oi, saw this link on your homepage Galatea http://www.amys.com/, and that's easy -premade vegan food for us lazy boys too! [6)] ]

Dissident Dan

Jan20-04, 10:59 PM

What would be the reasons for eating meat?

What I can think of:

1) It's yummy
2) Possibly: having lots of allergies that restrict you from getting proper nutrients from readily available plant sources. (However, I think that this is highly unlikely, firstly because a person would have to have a crapload of allergies, and secondly because multivitamins should be able to make up for any such condition.)

Kerrie

Jan21-04, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
What would be the reasons for eating meat?

What I can think of:

1) It's yummy
2) Possibly: having lots of allergies that restrict you from getting proper nutrients from readily available plant sources. (However, I think that this is highly unlikely, firstly because a person would have to have a crapload of allergies, and secondly because multivitamins should be able to make up for any such condition.)

as the link i provided states, meat helps the nutrients from vegetables absorb easier into the body...multi-vitamins are well known to not have this ability and just pass on though without being used by the body...

the meat i do eat is mostly fish with some chicken & turkey (about 3 times a week for all meat), lots of steamed and raw vegetables, and too many processed carbs...the fish i do buy mostly is farm raised do to the price (you would think fish would be inexpensive in oregon, but it's not really, but then again i am not contributing to upsetting the natural balance of the wild salmon that is highly prized here in oregon, the vegetables i try to buy are mostly from the united states...

gluttony is big here in america, unfortunately it has given eating a little meat a bad name...

Dissident Dan

Jan22-04, 01:39 AM

OK, it helps some nutrients be absorbed better. But if you would absorb adequate amounts anyway, that's not really an issue. There are also plant foods that increase the absorbtion of nutrients from other plants. If you were to find yourself lacking nutrients in any way, it would only be a matter of dietary planning to fix the problem. And if you are significantly concerned with nutrition, you will probably plan, anyway.

I am aware that most of the conten of multivitamins is not usually absorbed, but taking them will meals enhances absorbtion, and that's why I said, "with meals." However, I was not meaning for multivitamins to be a main source of nutrients, only a back-up.

I think that any dietary benefit that most people will see in meat (although people with certain problems [iron deficiency, for example] may be more affected) is not too great. There are negative effects of meat, too, that really counter-balance this fact. While meat may provide the quickest solution, it comes with its own detriments that I've mentioned before.

So, one might say that a benefit to meat is that "it makes it easier". But I do not find that a convincing argument, especially in light of the fact meat has its own problems and the seriousness of the way in which meat is obtained.

I must say that it caught my eye that you said, "the meat i do eat is mostly fish with some chicken & turkey (about 3 times a week for all meat)". I am glad to hear that your meat intake is relatively small compared to the typical American diet.

Most people like to say, "I only eat chicken and/or fish," as if that makes the situation better. This does not improve the situation in the eyes of a vegetarian. In fact, I would rather a person eat beef instead of poultry or fish, as there is more meat to the cow, meaning that fewer animals must suffer to produce the same amount of meat.

Dissident Dan

Jan27-04, 02:12 PM

A lot of people like to defend omnivorism by claiming health concerns or that it's "natural" or part of the "food chain".

I wonder if this is really the primary concern, or just a rationalization. If someone was to prove to you that avoiding animal products is not only adequate, but healthier, would you still eat them? If someone was to prove to you that eating (certain) animal products is not natural (or that the natural/unnatural distinction doesn't matter), would you still eat them?

Even if all such qualms were satisfied, would you still eat these things just because you find them tasty? If so, did you really even care about these other things in the first place?

Kerrie

Jan27-04, 08:02 PM

I wonder if this is really the primary concern, or just a rationalization. If someone was to prove to you that avoiding animal products is not only adequate, but healthier, would you still eat them?

this issue is already a reality with the mad cow disease that was discovered-but this is due to the attrocious environment cows are subjected to that finally caught up to us...it has definitely deterred me from buying beef, and i was never much into pork...if it was proven unhealthy to eat any kind of meat, i would mostly likely stop...and now i pose a question to you dan, which i have not heard an answer to:

if it was proven that plants could "feel" pain in being harvested, would it deter you as well? i feel this is just as much a valid question as the one you posed...

Dissident Dan

Jan27-04, 11:05 PM

The thing about the plants feeling pain is that moving to eating animals wouldn't help anything, in fact, it would just increase the number of plants harmed, because you have to feed the animals. So, it would sadden me for plants to feel pain, but it would not cause me to eat meat because of the fact that I mentioned above. If there was equal suffering in either case, it wouldn't matter whether plants or animals.

But that is not here nor there. Plants do not feel pain, and animals do. Therefore, we have an ethical obligation regarding our treatment of animals, but not of plants. The fact that we can easily survive without animal food should be enough to convince.

Kerrie

Jan28-04, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The thing about the plants feeling pain is that moving to eating animals wouldn't help anything, in fact, it would just increase the number of plants harmed, because you have to feed the animals. So, it would sadden me for plants to feel pain, but it would not cause me to eat meat because of the fact that I mentioned above. If there was equal suffering in either case, it wouldn't matter whether plants or animals.

But that is not here nor there. Plants do not feel pain, and animals do. Therefore, we have an ethical obligation regarding our treatment of animals, but not of plants. The fact that we can easily survive without animal food should be enough to convince.

you cannot make the absolute claim that plants do not feel pain, there is no proof of either, but it is a living being is it not? it dies when it is killed true? i am not saying that if plants feel pain we should eat meat instead, what i am saying is that you cannot justify not eating meat because of the pain and suffering it endures in the killing process if we do not know for sure that plants feel anything...

So – what’s the answer? Well, recent research indicates that plants do have a stress response, which is used when a leaf is cut, for example. They release a chemical called ethylene (also known as ethene, a simple hydrocarbon: C2H4). Ethylene is released as a gas, all over the surface of the plant, and indeed its release is not only triggered by damage, but also decay. So a rotting plant releases lots of ethylene too.

taken from:
Do plants feel pain? (http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/bio/plants/otherplant/b01052d.html)

Dissident Dan

Jan29-04, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
you cannot make the absolute claim that plants do not feel pain, there is no proof of either, but it is a living being is it not? it dies when it is killed true? i am not saying that if plants feel pain we should eat meat instead, what i am saying is that you cannot justify not eating meat because of the pain and suffering it endures in the killing process if we do not know for sure that plants feel anything...

taken from:
Do plants feel pain? (http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/bio/plants/otherplant/b01052d.html)

Merely being alive does not indicate ability to feel pain. As that very article mentions, bacteria do the same thing that plants do. Do you content that bacteria feel pain? Merely repairing does not mean that an organism feels. All that article does is describe a particular repair mechanism, and we all already knew that any organism has repair mechanisms.

The fact is that plants do not have nerves. As nerves are necessary for pain, plants do not feel pain. Also, you can think about it evolutionarily. Animals have feelings because they can act on them, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. However, a plant is stationary, so the existence of feelings provides no evolutionary advantage for them.

And, even if plants did feel pain, not eating meat would still reduce the total amount of entities suffering. So, independent of plants' capability for feeling, it is better to not eat meat. I've already made this argument before, on physicsforums, but it seems to be unheeded.

Kerrie

Jan29-04, 09:04 PM

perhaps plants cannot feel pain through nerves such as the animal world, but the article did mention a stress response when a leaf is cut from the plant, thus leading me to believe there is an amount of negative reaction to being injured...i don't understand why you cannot take the devil advocate's perspective in this in answering my question-if it were proven that plants experience pain/stress when being injured/cut/harvested, how would it affect your vegetarian views?...

this conversation reminds me of track 69 on Tool's Undertow:

"And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.
And terror possesed me then.
And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
"Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul!
Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!"
Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........

This is necessary"

[6)]

Dissident Dan

Jan29-04, 10:20 PM

I cannot say that I would condone eating meat if plants were to feel pain, because I wouldn't. I've already said why. When you think through it, it would still be worse to eat meat.

Life may feed on life, but we don't have to feed on sentient creatures. Maynard was just having a knee-jerk reaction.

Stress is not pain. If that article indicates experiencing pain, then by the same reasoning, a self-repairing robot would experience pain.

Kerrie

Jan30-04, 02:29 PM

I cannot say that I would condone eating meat if plants were to feel pain, because I wouldn't. I've already said why. When you think through it, it would still be worse to eat meat.

you still didn't answer my question dan:

if it were proven that plants experience pain/stress when being injured/cut/harvested, how would it affect your vegetarian views?...

the question was not asking if you would eat meat, but how would it affect your current views on eating plants?

pain is a personal interpretation as well, as different beings experience it differently...

Dissident Dan

Jan31-04, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
you still didn't answer my question dan:

the question was not asking if you would eat meat, but how would it affect your current views on eating plants?

The question was, "how would it affect your vegetarian views?"

And, I answered, saying that I would still find it wrong to eat meat. As far as it would affect my views on eating plants, it would cause me to think that some plants my be just as important as some animals, for their own sake. It would probably lead me to look for someway of scientists creating pain-less, unconscious plants. It would make me sad to know that what I am eating was once a living, feeling being.

But I will say no more about this question. I do not want the conversation to become side-tracked. The fact is that plants don't feel pain, and animals do. There is no nutritional need for meat (or even other animal products). Any material contained within animals that is necessary for human consumption is available from non-animal organisms or inanimate objects. It may be easier to gain some things from animals, but I hardly consider that an excuse.

Be Happy!

Feb15-04, 11:07 PM

Despite all the arguements posed here, the bottom line is, can animals suffer?

Animal Behaviorists share a resounding yes...not only can they suffer, but they share with us a wide range of emotional capacity.

Knowing this, how we treat animals- who are like us- defines the morality of our species. Will we "evolve in consciousness" and as Albert Schweister says, "expand our circle of compassion"? or will we forever make excuses to eat the flesh of another who values his/her life as much as we ours.

This one question will lead us to the very heart of our humanity.

FZ+

Feb16-04, 01:55 PM

Despite all the arguements posed here, the bottom line is, can animals suffer?

Animal Behaviorists share a resounding yes...not only can they suffer, but they share with us a wide range of emotional capacity.
Not that easy. The bottom line is - is their suffering something of comparative significance? A computer can suffer - it registers damage, and it acts in certain ways to deal with it. Yet to talk about computer rights is something that is ludicrous.

The question as to whether animal life is, in our perspectives, closer to that of our lives, or closer to that of a computer, is an altogether harder, more subjective question.

physicsisphirst

Feb16-04, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Robert Zaleski
I'm for eating Vegans. There docile and dim-witted, so they'll be easy to capture and butcher. Just think of it, all your vitamins, minerals and proteins in one tasty morsel.

i think this concept is even written into some constitution or other:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created edible ..."

actually, i have always maintained that humans can never be at the apex of the food chain without resorting to cannabilism.

only a small step for man ... and a giant plunge for mankind ...

[:D]

Be Happy!

Feb16-04, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
Not that easy. The bottom line is - is their suffering something of comparative significance? A computer can suffer - it registers damage, and it acts in certain ways to deal with it. Yet to talk about computer rights is something that is ludicrous.

The question as to whether animal life is, in our perspectives, closer to that of our lives, or closer to that of a computer, is an altogether harder, more subjective question.

Descartes believed that animals were mere automatons and this thinking justified all sorts of horrendous experimentation. Animals were nailed to a cross and cut open while they screamed and writhed in pain. But followers of Descartes thought that these reactions were just automatic, as a machine would react to an external stimuli.

But I think most people, especially people with animal companions, will agree that animals are like us. All animals’ brains experience chemical reactions, like ours, which lead to a wide array of emotions. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/)

Animals value their lives, they run from pain, they love their young, and have even showed capacity for compassion beyond species…yet they are born into a world where they are seen as objects by many for human use and therefore exploited with disregard for their interests and well-being.

How we treat these sentient beings, who have been denigrated to become our modern day slaves, will once again be the test of our morality.

FZ+

Feb16-04, 04:47 PM

But I think most people, especially people with animal companions, will agree that animals are like us. All animals’ brains experience chemical reactions, like ours, which lead to a wide array of emotions.
You see, I don't agree with that. I mean, I personally agree that animals are no different - that we are a type of animal. But in human society, anthrocentrism is exceedingly strong. Religions for instance usually involve a radical difference between man and animal. Whole branches of philosophy dealing with consciousness take it as given that humans are conscious, and animals either are not conscious, or have a "lesser" form of consciousness. Taking a non-materialist idea of consciousness, we do have a problem in determining whether something is sentient.

MacTech

Feb16-04, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by physicskid
Should we eat meat?

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:

Freedom for all farm animals!
Eating less unhealthy food
No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess
Eating more healthy food!
No more interference with the animals' life and death.
Increase in animal population!
More animals to conduct researches on.
No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!
and many more!!!

Freedom for all farm animals eh? Freedom is just a constructed word that we like to think we have and really we have no freedom at all on earth.

Eating less unhealthy food eh? Probably since meats contain tons of fats and of course a supply of other things our bodies need.

No more interference with the animals' life and death? Who says that? I mean seriously humans are part of the natural order and we are taking steps to be the survival of the fittest in this world, the death of something is going to happen no matter what you do to stop us eating them. Mb you shouldn't be driving a car as well and increasing CO2 levels or the fact that your house is probably in a habitat that once was dominant to animals. No the fact is that Earth is a close system and for one animal to survive another must be moved or destroyed.

More animals to conduct researches on? What! So you are exchanging the curlily that you state about farm animals and rather have them researched on. Woah.

Increase in animal population, personally I would like some proof on this and from my view infact there would be less animals in those domesticated animals that we use for food. Unless you are going to clear cut the rest of the rain forest and give the remaining population of say cows free rain so we don't interfere with their life and death cycles. Tho you just destroyed most the of the animals on earth if you did that.

Ok to the meat of the question, should we or should we not eat meat at all? Probably not since yes it is pretty unhealthy but, but meat is also the best source of most of the natural things we need to keep living. The only reason that we are questioning this source is that the evolutionary way our science works is allowing us to figure out other ways of sustaining life without meat. I personally thing that a cut down on meat products is needed but not a total conversion of a race that has for thousands of years survived on both, plus how would you suggest we implement this? I think that this is really a decadent dream of first worlds and not of all the people of the world. Also I disagree with your meat is the cause or will cause massive population growth, I think it is the growth of agriculture/irrigation of the Mesopotamia region (~8000BC) and that farming itself is the cause of massive growth in population not of meat.

Be Happy!

Feb16-04, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by FZ+
You see, I don't agree with that. I mean, I personally agree that animals are no different - that we are a type of animal.

Hi!
I'm just confused here...you say you agree that animals are no different from us, but you open your post saying that you don't agree with what I say. So, do you agree that animals are like us or not?

Religions for instance usually involve a radical difference between man and animal. Whole branches of philosophy dealing with consciousness take it as given that humans are conscious, and animals either are not conscious, or have a "lesser" form of consciousness

Actually at the heart of most religions (not always in the practice of them) compassion to animals is of utmost imporatance...

"There is not an animal on the earth, nor a flying creature on two wings, but they are people like unto you."
--The Koran, sacred scripture of Islam

"Then I will make a covenant on behalf of Israel with the wild beasts, the birds of the air, and the things that creep on the earth, and I will break bow and sword and weapon of war and sweep them off the earth, so that all living creatures may lie down without fear"
--Hosea 2:18

"O men! you can take life easily but, remember, none of you can give life! So, have mercy, have compassion! And, never forget, that compassion makes the world noble and beautiful."
--Buddha

Taking a non-materialist idea of consciousness, we do have a problem in determining whether something is sentient.

What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people.

elwestrand

Feb16-04, 07:07 PM

I was born and raised as a lacto-ovo-vegetarian. I have had meat before. When I was in boot camp I basically needed to eat it, very little alternative. I can't think of anything truly more discusting. The smell of meat makes me sick. I believe eating meat makes one intellectually and spiritually dull. That is not to say that you can't be very bright and eat meat, it means that if you gave it up you might be even more bright. A greater precentage of geniuses were vegetarian than in the general population.

Anyways, meat does compromise health. Everyone is thinking "protien, protien," (because the meat industry is huge and has been spoon feeling society propaganda for decades into believing giving it up is bad for health) I did a survey once. There are individuals out there who believe that it is impossible to survive without meat. Protien is very much overrated, infact, most Americans consume so much that it damages their kidneys. I heard this. According to most people, I can't exist. ! Meat has an acidic PH. The body requires an alcaline o0ne, avout 7.4 I think. Otherwise it dies. Therefore, the body must counteract the acids in meat by releasing bases form the bones. The result is a loss of calcius, so while meat contains calcium, calcium is lost. Eskimoes, whose diet consists of blubber pretty much, have the word's highest instances of osteoperosis. It is proven that vegans have stronger bones than meat eaters. I heard.

Also, I think your ideal diet depends on your bloodtype. I am A positive, perfectly suited for vegetarianism.

"What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people."

Can life be determined biologically? Life is expressed very differently between a plant or an animal. Why should we expenct consciousness or "sentience" to be expressed or exhibited in exactly the same way? The mammal has a hesrt, its life depends on its function. A plant has not heart. It is alive nonetheless. Thereofre, the presence of a heart is not the presence of life. The mammal has a brain, by which it has mind. The plant does not. What argument is there that the plant has no mind?

Most vegan fundamentalists I've known refuse to believe that plants are sentient-- obviously, because they think they are so "compassionate." The vegans I've known believed plants are just automations-- like a growing sugar crystal I guess. I believe plants are sentient, I know they are. I once did experiments that proved (to me) that they are.

LAacoustics

Feb16-04, 09:32 PM

A friend told me about this thread on this forum and I had to check it out. It has sparked in me a wide range of feelings, from glee to indignance to utter disbelief. My apologies in advance for a long post, but I want to respond to a number of points I have read here:

1. The fallacy of plant pain

Plants do not feel pain. Pain is a subjective negative response that is the interpretation of a stimulus as "uncomfortable." Plants have no brains or nervous systems and are therefore not capable of interpreting anything as bad, uncomfortable, or painful. Pain is, in fact, an evolutionary factor. Those animals whose bodies are in imminent danger of damage feel a sensation that the brain interprets as painful, and the animal will move quickly away from the stimulus. The being is thus able to live longer. Plants are not mobile. The ability to feel pain would therefore serve no purpose from an evolutionary point of view. it would, in fact, be detrimental. The ability to react to a stimulus is by no means the same as feeling pain or suffering.

2. Hypothetical situations

"What would you do if it were proven that plants could feel pain?" The question is so ludicrous as to defy answering. We're talking about ethics in our world, not in some imaginary other world where plants feel pain (in which case they wouldn't be plants anyway.) Hypothetical questions such as this have no place in a discussion about ethics.

3. Switching to a vegetarian diet causes: a) Increase in animal population, b) More animals to conduct researches on, and c) No more artificially caused extinction of any animals.

a) Let's assume that any significant conversion of the population to vegetarianism would take a number of years to occur. In this time the animal population would DECREASE, not increase, because demand for farmed animals would decrease. Human consumption of wild animals is insignificant compared to consumption of farmed animals.

b) It's not often we hear about medical research being performed on cows, chickens, and pigs (although it does occur.) Most research is done on animals that are not used for food, and therefore the two sets of animals would not affect each other in terms of supply and demand.

c) There are hundreds of different ways that humans contribute to extinction of species, but eating is not one of them. If anything, eating animals perpetuates the species because they are bred for consumption.

4. Quotes from the Bible are reasonable evidence that something is true.

Give me a break!

5. Computers can suffer

Are you kidding me? Computers do exactly what they're told to do and nothing more. A computer does not spontaneously take steps to avoid its own destruction except when directly instructed to do so. A computer cannot sense fear or pain. A computer can be rebuilt or replaced by another computer that is identical in every measurable respect. Conscious beings instinctively protect their own lives, and (with the possible exception of newborn identical twins) are all unique in form and character.

6. The nature of the question

There are several questions implied when one asks, "should we eat meat?" There is an evoluntionary question as to whether humans are "designed" to eat meat. This is not an ethical question, but an historical one. Humans started eating meat in small amounts as much as 4 million years ago, and in larger amounts about 2 million years ago. Obviously there has been plenty of time for our bodies to evolve certain mechanisms for digesting meat. One study showed that diets consisting of small amunts of meat are healthier than those with no meat at all. (In my opinion all studies are suspect, and are generally biased by whomever is paying for them.) There is no doubt, however, that a person does not require meat to live a long and healthy life. About 80% of the population of India is Hindu and most of them don't eat meat. If we take a conservative estimate and say that half of the population of India doesn't eat meat, that means that about 500 million Indians are vegetarian, almost twice the population of the United States.

There are two ethical questions, and one pure philosophical question involved as well. The philosophical question is whether humans are more valuable than other animals. Is it ok to eat meat simply because we are "more important?" I would say that there is a significant probabiliy that humans are no more important than any other animal. does the fact that we have more developed brains and technology intrinsically give us the right to plunder other species? I don't see why it should, considering that most of what we've done with our brains and technology has lead to the continuing destruction of our planet. With the recent resurgence of Islaamic fundamentalism it seems that even our great human societies are at risk of disitegrating. Thus far I have not seen any evidence that our intellect makes us intrinsically any more important than other species. Humans will be gone long before life is extinguished from this planet.

The ethical questions being discussed are, I believe, more important than all of the other issues combined. The two ethical questions at hand are a) whether animals are capable of suffering, and b) whether it is ethical to subject a being who is capable of suffering to an environment that is likely to cause pain and trauma.

It is obvious to me and to anyone who owns a dog that animals are not only capable of feeling pain, but a wide range of feelings. There are also a number of research papers on the subject, but I don't see why these are even necessary as the answer is so immediately apparent in the actions and reactions of any labrador retriever.

As for question b, it seems to me that the answer is plainly "no." Even if there is only a 10% chance that animals might be able to suffer, it is not worth the damage to my moral well being to take that risk. I know that I do not need to use animals in any part of my life to live happily and healthily, so for me there is no ethical justification for intentionally causing animals to suffer.

Another important issue involving the eating of meat is the environment. Animal agriculture is one of the top 3 polluters in the world. A single pig farm can produce as much waste material as a medium sized city, but they have no waste treatment facilities. It goes directly into the groundwater. Most of the clearing of rainforests is for the creation of grazing land. The air quality in central California is as bad as in the city of Los Angeles now, due to the animal agriculture. It takes about 2,500 gallons of water and 10 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. Farmed fish eat more than half of fish caught from the ocean. The current trend of animal agriculture is untenable. It will completely destroy the global ecosystem if it continues in its current direction.

It follows then that given that animal farming in a global free market economy intrinsically causes ecological destruction, poor health (apparently), and animal suffering (and it does), the use of animals for food or any other purpose is morally and rationally unjustifiable.

XcuddleXcoreX

Feb16-04, 10:08 PM

With regard to sentience, let's dismiss sentimentality and conjecture and work only with documented and observable scientific facts. Animals are sentient. Their sentience can be defined in terms of biological, chemical, and otherwise physiological traits. Animals, or specifically those animals one would argue are sentient, share the same biological components with us that maintain our own sentience, e.g. nociceptors and complex brains capable of self-awareness. All of this can be explained, in great length- which I doubt is necessary, in purely biological terms. Consciousness and sentience are not subjective or metaphysical concepts, not insofar as they relate to this discussion anyway; they are observable characteristics of animal life. EEG scans can prove conclusively, if common sense were not enough, that animals feel pain- both physical and psychological. This much is documented and unquestionable.

The question, "should we eat meat?", is a matter of ethical subjectivity, as all morality is, and is therefore worth discussing at length. Debating animals' sentience is a defensive rationalization, and it defies basic scientific knowledge: that animals are sentient creatures.

So we're left with ethics. If we are to decide that unnecessarily killing (innocent) humans is wrong- something I'm certain we all agree on, then let's analyze why this is so. We can identify with the human capacity to feel pain or fear. We're familiar with our own species' reaction to noxious stimuli. We can then reasonably project our own reactions onto others of our own species. I know that I dislike pain and I know that other humans dislike pain. I have then decided that to cause pain unnecessarily is immoral. This judgement is subjective, but it is logical.

Studies conducted by animal behavioralists and data derived from the brain scans of animals can prove conclusively that animals have that same capacity to feel pain and fear, and they similarly make an effort to avoid it. They value their lives just as jealously as you or I. There is nothing more basic and universal than the animal (and this includes we dear homosapiens) want to be free of pain.

If any of us decide we want to be compassionate people and we want to ascribe moral qualities to actions and perceptions then we have already decided against pure, "logical" materialism. Science shows us precisely how similar we are to other animals; ethics then allows us to make the choice to extend them our compassion. By refusing to extend our compassion to animals we are negating the validity of our unique ability to compose complex ethical systems. We are instead choosing to revel in a "might makes right" philosophy, which one can hardly debate is ethically sound.

Once you understand that animals share with us all the properties that we hold dear (the want to be free of pain, etc) then I see no reason why extending them our compassion should even be questioned. They want to be free just as we do. If mercy trumps tyranny, then there is only one solution:

Veganism.

elwestrand

Feb17-04, 12:50 AM

My reasons for being a vegetarian at least have nothing to do with ethics.

Yeah, the vegans I've encountered usually do not believe that plants are sentient, obviously. They cite a lack of "scientific proof" but common sense tells you that if they were to believe plats as sentient beings, it would destroy their views of themself as a totally non-violent, compassionate entity. I'm glad to see you're not one. Instead of "sentimentally" believing plants to be consious, their basis for not believing it is ultimately sentimental. There is evidence that plants are sentient, can remember and such, althouigh no everyone regards it as "scientific" there is no scientific evidence to support that plants are purely mechanisms. Not that I know of.

In answer to the other guy, I agree with you. Plants do not feel pain, certainly not as an animal does. They have no nervous system, but of course they also don't have many of the organs that an animal does and also don't survive on oxygen- but they still have metabolism, immue system (I am sure), etc. It is uninportant whether a being feels pain. A truly compassionate peson does not protect life because it feels pain, it does it because it is alive. In this sense, consciousness or self awareness don't even matter. On the otherhand, if plants do not "feel pain," then why or how have they devoloped so many mechanisms from keeping them from being eaten: poison, thorns, cactus stickers... The thorns on cactus are apparently intended to cause an animal pain if it tries to eat it. How can plants evolve such a mechanism without having any insight into animal feelings-- if a plant is eaten, how does it pass on the genetic information necissary to evolve a defense mechanism in the species? How do other plaants know of the danger? Do they just randomly , accidentally develop poison and thorns and through natural selection those varieties survive? Did the venus fly trap "accidentally" develop into a carnivorous plant? Did it accidentally guess that there are such things as flys? It has no brain, no senses, how do the orchids know what their particular insect looks like or that it even exists at all?

It should not affect a vegitarian to know that plants are sentient beings. Many plants survive BY being partially eaten. That is why they produce fruits, so that animals will eat the fruits and spred the seeds through their excrement (also prodicing fertilizer. Nature is beautiful, planned) Evolution and reductionism are solipsistic.

Most of the scientists I have met do not believe animals are sentient (except for higher primates). In psychology, I was taught that humans below the age of three or so are no self aware and have no capacity for remembering. This is false. It is a theory you know.

I do not view "self-awareness" as differnet form consciousness.

LAacoustics

Feb17-04, 07:50 AM

How can plants evolve such a mechanism without having any insight into animal feelings-- if a plant is eaten, how does it pass on the genetic information necissary to evolve a defense mechanism in the species? How do other plaants know of the danger? Do they just randomly , accidentally develop poison and thorns and through natural selection those varieties survive? Did the venus fly trap "accidentally" develop into a carnivorous plant? Did it accidentally guess that there are such things as flys? It has no brain, no senses, how do the orchids know what their particular insect looks like or that it even exists at all?

I think you need to read a little Darwin. The process of evolution is not a conscious one. It is simply a matter of those plant species that acquired fewer genetic mutations such as thorns, poison, efficient seed spreading mechanisms etc. did not survive. Often, being eaten is part of the survival mechanism, as it is with fruit trees. Not only is the existence of plants with survival mechanisms not proof; it isn't even evidence that plants can feel pain.

arivero

Feb17-04, 08:15 AM

My sister once meditated that vegans very frequently eat living beings, or kill by themselves when cooking. Meat, at the end, is already dead beyond any possibility of recovering. Not the same with fungus, seeds, grains etc.

elwestrand

Feb17-04, 12:26 PM

What is the proof or evidence that plants are_not sentient? How can you know? Have to been a plant? It is pointlerss to go further. Darwin wrote Origin of species in the late nineteenth century, within it is an entire chapter about problems with his theory, is there not? He remarked how proposterous it seemed to him, that the human eye ball could have evolved. Never take a theory as gospel. I have posed questions, why do you refuse to wonder? Philosophy is not persuasion, nor it is even knowing, it is wondering.

Regardless,as I have said, my vegetarianism has nothing to do with ethics, killing or compassion. I do not believe it is wrong to kill to eat. Infact, I believe it is wrong to kill for sport. The meat has been dead for some time, and it has begun to decompose at the cellular level. That is why it is acidic.

Dissident Dan

Feb17-04, 01:07 PM

FZ, you normally post very sane and thoughtful things, but the notion that a computer is somehow sentient is preposterous. When we are talking about sentience, we are talking about feeling and consciousness. Computers do not have these. They are just calculating machines--electric abicuses. There things that are associated with sentience (and indeed, are what create sentience) are the brain and the rest of the nervous system. Netiher computers nor plants have either of these.

Animals certainly do. Any legitimate reason you have to believe that humans do, you also have to believe that other animal species do. Any doubts that people are raising as to animals' sentience is an epistemological argument--the classic "How can we be sure/know??" Reducing the argument to this shows the absurdity of the position. These same people operate on the belief that they can know about the world by treating other humans respect and even just by taking the effort to post on this message board.

Through observation of behavior, degree of similarity in structure, and evolutionary reasoning, we can see that other animal species are sentient, as are humans, and that plants and computers are not.

The anti-anti-meat arguments are all borne out fo a combination of desire to continue the unethical practice of eating meat and fear that one is incorrect. It is a rationalization technique that one employs in order to avoid the feelings associated with being incorrect.

Being alive is not the basis for ethics applying to an object, it is being sentient. Bacteria, plants, fungi, etc. all are alive, which only means that they grow and reproduce--nothing significant ethically, while most animal species have sentience (I do not conjecture that sponges are sentient).

The reasoning is really very simple, and I know that most people here on both sides of the argument can understand it, it's just that many people aren't being intellectually honest with themselves and are rationalizing their prejudices.

What is the proof or evidence that plants are_not sentient? How can you know? Have to been a plant? It is pointlerss to go further. Darwin wrote Origin of species in the late nineteenth century, within it is an entire chapter about problems with his theory, is there not? He remarked how proposterous it seemed to him, that the human eye ball could have evolved. Never take a theory as gospel.

Just because we don't know the entire history of evolution does not mean that it is not true. For the sake of argument, I will give in the the idea that there is a chance that no form of evolutionary theory is true. Well, it's still the best thing that we have to go by. Using a small chance of incorrectness is no reason to go against the odds. For over a century, science has upheld evolution. It's best to assume that it's true because that's the way the evidence points.

Also, not eating meat is giving animals the benefit of the doubt, which is the correct option, for the suffering that they endure if sentient is far greater than any of us can imagine, while any disadvantage you incur for not eating meat is incredibly slim and is counter-acted by health and environmental benefits.

We know that plants are not sentient not only through evolutionary reasoning, but through the facts that they do not respond as one would expect sentient beings to do, and more importantly, they lack brains.

Every time someone tries to argue against animal sentience, they try to argue against evolution or our very ability to have knoweldge, and ask us to deny our strongest evidence. The evidence is humongously in favor of non-human animal sentience-as much in favor of non-human animal sentience as in favor of human animal sentience.

elwestrand

Feb18-04, 02:57 PM

Well, I do not deny that non-human animals are not sentient. I believe, in fact, that consciousness and "self-awareness" are exactly the same. But the persence of a complext neurological system, or any at all, is not the CAUSE for consciousness. Infact, this cannot be proven empiracally, scientifically, so there is no "scientific" reasoning that plants or even inanimate object do not have minds. The only reasoning for or against anything is based on postulates. In this case the postulate is that a brain is required to have a mind. But that is not the axiom that I am working from. You are also using different definitions for life than I am. I mentioned, animals require hearts to live and in the anarobic entity, there is no heart, but it is alive. So why should the absence of a brain imply no mind? In the plant structure, I am sure, following a very in-depth study, we could find some principle which performs basically the same principal of a heart in animals. The Chlorophyll provides the same function as stomache and intestines. Yet the Chlorophyll is very different from the asnimal digestive system. So too is a plant's reseratory system very different, and it is hard to recognize that all of these things serve the same functions. If it were "proven" that plants are sentient, alot of religions would probably go down the toilet. No, I take that back because the discovery of the helioconcentric solar system didn't impact Christianity. Anyways, are we not conditioned since childhood to not believe that plants are just "there"? How many children, with no knowledge, would deny thgat plants "think"? Okay, how many adults who deny the same thing are merely those children who have carried over and adapted their convicion to fit inside a new system of "proving it"? There is emotional security in this. Vegans almost must be against plant sentience.

In his book, written in the early 20th century, Willian J Sidis, Undoubtedly one of the most intelligent humans to walk the earth, "the Animate and the inanimate," about thermodynamics, wrote that life didn't originate. It simply always existed, even before the formation of the solar system, in the nebulae, and before that. In different forms that would be almost impossible for us to even regognize. He was a rabid athiest. Now, we are indeed observing, scientifically, that life does not materialize from inanimate matter. This has not been observed happening in labs, as much as we try to make it happen. Thus we just keep modifying the theory of evolution, the security blanket of science. "It must be very very rare" The only thing evolving in the threory is the theory itself. In his day, nothing was known about genes. Darwin could only look at tow very different birds in the Galapagos and say they are different species. But they aren't. All the breeds of dogs, from the tiniest to the ST bernard, are the same species. They can all impregnate eachother. Their difference is due to selective breeding, but no new spiecies ever devolops. This is a scientific observation. Maybe it will change one day, I don't know. It takes imagination to go anywhere in thought. Darwin had imagination, he was a good scientist... He was such a good scientist that given the knowledge we have today, I doubt he would believe in his own threoy anymore. Scientists who cling to their world views as their life and blood, lack the imagination that progress demands. As for science holding the theory up, it was my impression that it depends on which scientist you talk to. On paper, Science may appear cohesive, but in real life, I think that scientists are very diverse in what they consider sceince.

Look up Clive Baxter. You will probably deride it all, but here is evidence in plant sentience. He even helped win a court trial by enabling a plant to testify through his polygraph.

There are also my own experiments. I postulated that A seedling knows which direction to grow its root, by sencing gravity. That alone proves plant sentience. In animals, senses do not work without neuological systems. Plants have many senses. It is not a biological principle that the root, and nto the stem, grows down, or that it follows light. Anyways, my experiment proves otherwise.
So I planted some Mung beans and places a fine nylon net over the soil (the kind that Oranges come in), then I inverted the pot and hung it. The roots should grown down right? (even though to survive they should grown up) . I cheated though, I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown. I hope you will overlook this bit of unprofessionalism. The results were supprising. Each seed reacted differently, as an individual. One started to grow down, then immediately turned and grew upwards. The second seed grew horrizontally. The third seed was the slowest to grow and it just grew down. Even more supprising, I thin planted a seed normally, not inverting the pot. (this seed was among one that I telepathically told to grow up). This seed grew its root up from the start, completely oblivious to gravity, It grew for about three forths of an inch, then it immediately turned, made a hook and started growing downward! But it didn't get very far. It soon died.

If you were offered a million dollars to provide a convincing explanation that plants are sentient, even if you disbelieve it, what would you say? If you can do this and not believe it, you are a very good logician.

As a side-note, Since you believe that animals are sentient, yet that that sentience is due to certian physical mechanisms, then where does sentience stop or begin? At the insect level? Also, are protozoa sentient?

FZ+

Feb18-04, 05:19 PM

I'm just confused here...you say you agree that animals are no different from us, but you open your post saying that you don't agree with what I say. So, do you agree that animals are like us or not?
I agree. But most people don't. That is the point.
What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people.
And I think many people disagree with this too. Just ask Chalmers.

FZ, you normally post very sane and thoughtful things, but the notion that a computer is somehow sentient is preposterous. When we are talking about sentience, we are talking about feeling and consciousness. Computers do not have these. They are just calculating machines--electric abicuses. There things that are associated with sentience (and indeed, are what create sentience) are the brain and the rest of the nervous system.
Heh, yes, I was just trying to do a devil's advocate. But the rub is that animals have varying degrees of complexity in their nervous systems. And at the lower level, they do resemble a computer. So at what stage do we label it as pain, and at what stage do we not?

elwestrand

Feb18-04, 05:42 PM

An article on memory in plants

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14535888&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000

I don't understand any of the scientific jargon, but you can clearly see that there is more to a plant that what we see: cellulose and water.

Back when I used to join high iq societies, I encountered alot of people who do believe that humans ARE automations. They don't consider consciousness as anything more than a boichemical sensation, and feelings as also simple biochemical states in the brain, none of it meaning anything and that there is no purpose to existence of life at all-- it is just an absurdly and chaotic thing. Existentialists who believe as such are almost always "chemically imbalanced," suffer depression and basically survive off of prozack and other drugs.

To me, denying that plants are sentient, or denying that inanimate objects are sentient is just a step in that direction. I guess I'm just emotionally attached to this. But I am not a scientist. The native Americans believed that everything is sentient and in quantum physics also, there are theories that all energy is sentient. Infact, the theory of evolution would work better if it included this, I think.

Dissident Dan

Feb18-04, 06:23 PM

The same argument that is used to suggest that plants may be sentient can as easily be applied to a rock. People like to use the wonder-word "life" when talking about sentience, as if being alive somehow implies that an object is sentient. Like I said, all that alive means is that an object grows (or has a metabolism) and reproduces--Nothing more.

We are getting off topic, though. This thread is titled, "Should we eat meat?" Regardless of whether plants feel, which they do not, it is unethical to eat meat, because of the intense suffering that it inflicts upon animals. If plants were conscious, eating animals would just cause more of them to be killed than if they were eaten directly, because of the huge inefficiencies involved in producing animals for food.

That brings me to the point that animal agriculture is tearing apart the environment, by using up so much water and land (I think that over half of all water used in the USA goes to agriculture, and a substantial majority or that goes to animal agriculture, directly or indirectly), and polluting like you wouldn't believe - big fecal spills covering the countryside, bacteria-laden substances (such as feces) creeping into groundwater, and so on.

physicsisphirst

Feb18-04, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by elwestrand
To me, denying that plants are sentient, or denying that inanimate objects are sentient is just a step in that direction. I guess I'm just emotionally attached to this....The native Americans believed that everything is sentient and in quantum physics also, there are theories that all energy is sentient. Infact, the theory of evolution would work better if it included this, I think.

my feeling is that while you may have some excellent and thought-provoking ideas in much of this, it is important to deal with the animal issue here. certainly, the former could be pursued in a separate thread.

my understanding of this thread is that it deals with the consumption of the carcasses of dead creatures (and presumably certain by-products as well). personally, i thought that the posts by Dissident Dan, LAacoustics, XcuddleXcoreX and Be Happy! have been remarkably well-reasoned, thorough, logically sound and enlightening.

the issue seems to hinge around 3 primary areas health, environment and ethics. to that effect, i would like to contribute this excellent summary i found (on a chess site of all places!) while surfing the web that deals concisely (and not without some humor) with all three. what was most encouraging was that the author tells "readers to do their own research and thinking, for it is the only way to be truly convinced"

in friendship,
prad

-----------
goVeg! for Health

A vegetarian diet is recognized as not contributing to heart attack, high blood pressure, cancer, osteoporosis as well as a myriad of other diseases including diabetes, asthma and arthritis. Becoming vegetarian often reverses these conditions (a not-so-surprising fact when you consider that even diehard practioners of 'modern medicine' tell patients to avoid certain foods like red meat, unfortunately after the damage has been already done).

Why this is so, is very simple. Species homo sapiens is not designed to consume animal proteins. Our basic biology forbids it.

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs), nor do we possess the short digestive tracts through which consumed flesh passes through quickly. Instead, humans have teeth that are suitable for grinding and a long digestive tract in which vegetable material can be processed (in fact, when meat winds up here it putrifies leading to a host of physical problems).

Our digestive system is not capable of properly breaking down large animal proteins which wind up in the blood stream resulting in protein antigeneity (the production of antibodies to attack the large proteins) leading to inflammatory conditions such as eczema, asthma and arthritis. Nor can it handle the high cholestrol fat that animal products contain leading to obesity and clogged arteries resulting in heart problems. When an autopsy is done of a heart attack victim one can pull out the cylinders of fat that constricted blood flow. Never, ever has it been found that the flow of blood was stopped by pieces of apples, brocoli or tofu!

Even our psychology isn't designed for an animal consumptive lifestyle: when you see a squirrel do you think 'how cute!' or do you start salivating?

"But where will I get my protein?" is a concern that often arises. The human body's protein requirements are easily met through a vegetarian diet - there is no need to 'carefully combine' vegetable proteins as is sometimes incorrectly thought. The non-vegetarian's body, on the other hand, is overloaded with many times the proper protein amount and becomes acidic (proteins are chains of amino acids) resulting in conditions such as gout and osteoporosis. The idea that milk will provide required calcium to prevent osteoporosis is udder nonsense since the high protein content of milk also leaches calcium from the bones. North Americans, who consume the most dairy, have the second highest osteoporosis rate in the world (outstripped only by the Eskimos who live on a very high protein fish diet). If you thought from all that advertising that bovine milk is the perfect food (which it is for a calf), take a look at all the chemicals, steroids and hormones that wind up in it causing allergies, acne, premature pubescence (and we haven't even told you about the cow pus!).

Speaking of health, a vegetarian diet is very healthy for your pocketbook too. Vegetarian meals are comparatively inexpensive since production costs raise the price of animal-based foods to ridiculous proportions.

So save your wallet, save yourself and save your family - goVeg!

goVeg! for Environment

Do you have any idea the kind of mess 10,000 cattle make? And we're not just talking excrement here. Okay, the excrement is a significant problem for sure - there is no denying it. A hog farm with 5,000 animals produces as much fecal waste as a city with 50,000 people. Factory farms produce 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year. This stuff stays. It contributes massively to air and water pollution and is linked to various diseases caused by E. coli, listeria, and cryptosporidium.

Since cattle consume huge quantities of water, factory farming has a serious impact on the water table. Underground aquifers are being depleted. The largest one in the United States, the Ogallala, stretching from the Midwest to the mountain states, is being depleted by 13 trillion gallons a year and will run out. Northwest Texas is already dry: they can't get any water from their wells.

People are often concerned about the cutting down of forests - the destruction of the 'lungs' of the earth. What many don't recognize is that this isn't so much for the timber industry, but for creating land to grow feed for cattle. Farming methods are designed to produce high quantity through use of potent fertilizers and pesticides destroying the soil's eco-systems.

Consumption of 'wildlife' also leads to severe though not immediately apparent problems. Over-fishing, for instance, creates breakages in the links of the food chain that affect hundreds of species as in the devastation of the Sea of Cortez described in December 1995 in the Sacramento Bee newspaper.

These and many related problems are not just going to go away. While we may not have the power to change things directly and immediately, we certainly do have the power to change our lifestyle to one that doesn't contribute to the destruction of the earth.

So save your planet - goVeg!

goVeg! for Ethics

This is a topic many people don't like to deal with sometimes because they think that talking about ethics is preaching and sometimes because they do have an idea about the horrors in the animal agriculture industry.

Factory farming is intended to produce the most meat, milk, and eggs as quickly and cheaply as possible. Cows, calves, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, rabbits, and other animals are kept in small cages or stalls so that all of their bodies' energy goes toward producing flesh, eggs, or milk. They are fed drugs and are genetically altered to make them grow larger or produce more milk or eggs. Cramped and unclean conditions promote disease and so they are fed large amounts of antibiotics and sprayed with pesticides.

Cattle are castrated, dehorned and branded without anesthetic. Milk cows are forced through artificial insemination and drugs to produce at many times any natural rate leading to mastitis and vastly shortened lifespans while their offspring male calves are chained in stalls only 22 inches wide with slatted floors that cause severe leg and joint pain, deprived of their mother's milk all in preparation for the veal industry. Chickens go mad in their crowded cages and have their beaks seared off with hot blades so they don't 'damage' each other.

These are just a few of the atrocities that billions of our planet's beings endure. Indeed, the only escape is through an even more horrific death. It is irrelevant whether they have as high an intelligence as humans or have a soul as humans apparently are supposed to. What is important is that these beings can and undeniably do suffer and in this capacity, they are our kindred.

We must not forget that 'human' is the start of the word 'humane'. What do we as a species value most? Is it wealth, power, technology? Our literature, philosophies, religions all emphatically stress we strive for other qualities like courage, empathy, humility and kindness. When we stop another being's pain, we free ourselves from fear; when we acknowledge the being's intrinsic value, we gain wisdom; when we embrace the being in compassion, agape touches us. Only in this way will we evolve to what has always been our destiny.

So move your species up a rung on the evolutionary ladder - goVeg!

Conclusion (but perhaps your introduction)

Someone once said to me she found it very difficult to think about going vegetarian. I suggested she contemplate the drugs, the growth hormones, the mercury poisoning, the heart attacks, the cancer, the osteoporosis, mad cow disease, the samonella, the cow pus ... so what's so difficult?

We have given you a brief introduction as to why you should go vegetarian. Here's what it now boils down to: either you believe what you have read (in which case, goVeg for it!) or you don't. If you don't, at least make the effort to find out for yourself by consulting not only the mainstream propaganda, but also the health food nuts, the wacky environmentalists and the in-your-face animal rights activists. Each group has its own version of the same story and it is up to you to figure out what makes sense. For us, it was the most important thing we did!
-----------

elibol

Feb18-04, 10:08 PM

this thread is massive, i vote no, i will cur if it were ever proven it would benefit worldwide harmony...

i mean, i guess if it ever came down to it i would rather have a world that didnt eat meat...

i would be down wit that.

so u know though: i eat meat like crazy...

XcuddleXcoreX

Feb22-04, 12:24 AM

Veganism benefits worldwide harmony moreso than any other lifestyle choice you could make. No single choice has more positive reprocussions than opting for veganism.

Foremost, veganism offers innocent and exploited creatures the compassion and mercy they are deprived of. 400 animals are murdered for food every second in the United States; every person who chooses veganism decreases that number- to the estimated annual sum of 94 land animals. There can be no harmony where there is slaughter.

Veganism also benefits humanity. Animal-based agriculture is the single most destructive force on our Earth. Animal agriculture produces more pollution than all other industries combined. Animal agriculture kills the rain forest more rapidly than any other industry.

Animal agriculture is the single most prevalent reason for human suffering: it inefficiently funnels edible and nutritious plantfoods through animals whose deaths yield only a minute portion of the nutritional potential of those fruits, vegetables and grains. In the United States, over 80% of domestically grown corn and 90% of domestically grown grains are fed to farmed animals. In Ethiopia and Somolia, while thousands of people were starving to death and dying of nutrition, millions of dollars worth of edible plantfoods were sold to the U.S. to be used as animal feed. Animal agriculture takes food from the poor and wastefully funnels it through animals so that the priviledged can revel in their gluttony.

The consumption of cholesterol, saturated fats, and animal proteins are linked to the top three causes of death in the United States: cancer, heart disease, and stroke. A person with "normal" and "acceptable" cholesterol levels has a 50% chance of dying from heart disease, whereas vegans have a roughly 2% chance.

Veganism causes less suffering to animals. Veganism causes less damage to our Earth. Veganism increases the quantity and decreases the cost of food in poor countries. Veganism improves your personal health.

If that isn't benefiting worldwide harmony, what is?

NUKEELT

Feb22-04, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
i like meat, i am borderline anemic, and i need it...i am not saying that i have a fat steak everynight for dinner, but i do consume meat at least every other day, mostly fish and chicken...cows, chicken, pigs and fish are not about to be extinct one bit...the farms that specially raise these animals for consumption are horrid, but last i checked, americans have the choice to pick at the grocery store what meat they want to consume...

Kerrie,

While I have great empathy for your condition eating meat is in no way the only or the best way to combat your anemic state. So many non meat foods are fortified with iron these days and iron suppliments are also widely available. If you are concerned for your health (as you seem to be) it would make great sense for you to not eat meat. I dont feel the level of scarcity of the animal has much of anything to do with making the choice or not to consume flesh. The choice to consume flesh should be based on firstly meat consumption is in no way in the best interest of your body or health. Secondly, the animals are kept in factory farms treated horribly then systematically killed in unsanitary conditions (yet another health concern). Finally, meat consumption supports not only mistreatment of animals but it supports the widespread deforestation to make room for factory farms, It supports the continued pollution of water supplies from factory farm runoff, it supports the continued build up of antibiotic resistant bacteria, it supports a gross misappropriation of resources (the amount of water used in any standard factory cattle farm is OBSCENE considering that the beef producing states tend to also be draught prone). If you have any questions about a potential alternative to eating meat that will also effectively deal with your anemic condition please dont hesitate to ask me. I'd be more than willing to help out. Thanks for reading what I have to say.

elibol

Feb22-04, 10:29 PM

damn b's... this thread is outta control ! ;D

ranjana

Feb23-04, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
i like meat, i am borderline anemic, and i need it...

About 10 years ago I discovered I was anemic. My doctor recommended a blended greens soup which consisted of romaine lettuce, green beens, green pepper, cucumber, any other green vegetable I wished, and seasonings all pureed together in a blender. He told me that a concentration of greens would help provide the necessary building blocks of haemoglobin the essential oxygen binding substance in red blood cells. I tried this and after a short while I found my energy returning. I made a full and happy recovery without consuming the flesh of murdered animals. A friend who visited today used a phrase which is appropriate here. She said “It’s a mind set, isn’t it?” about people who consume meat. It’s hard to see a way without it. But once another “mind set” is adopted, the way becomes clear. My doctor was not bound to the meat mindset and so suggested something different.

Ranjana

ShawnD

Feb23-04, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by XcuddleXcoreX
Veganism improves your personal health.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/65863p-61352c.html

The child - fed on an odd menu that included ground nuts, juice and cod liver oil - was suffering from rickets and broken bones and could not even lift her head, cops said.
A 16 month old baby cannot lift its own head.... healthy?

Growing kids need lots of calcium for bones and protein for tissues. Milk is a great source of calcium but vegans cannot drink milk. Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat. Vitamin B12 is very important (just like any other vitamin), but unlike other vitamins, it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants). A vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious problem leading to irreversible nerve damage.

Many of you vegetarians seem to be wildly misinformed about how much of the animal is wasted. If you did any research at all, you would find that 99% of every cow is used for one thing or another.
Here is a list of stuff that is made from animals. All you vegans might want to look away; this will hurt you a lot more than it hurts me.

1. Plastic
Several fatty acids from animals are key ingredients in plastic. Think of all the things that are made of plastic!

2. New heart valves (most vegans probably won't need these)
Since 1971, tens of thousands of pig heart valves have been used to replace weak or diseased human heart valves.

3. Anything with gelatin
Gelatin, a protein in animal bones and skin, is used in ice cream to keep its shape and texture. You'll also find it in some yogurt, chewing gum and marshmallows.

4. Many different drugs
-insulin (treatment for diabetes)
-Heparin (used in treatment of allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, rheumatic fever, and respiratory diseases)
-Thyrotropin (stimulates the thyroid gland)
-Parathyroid Hormone (used to treat parathyroid deficiencies)
-Thrombin (promotes coagulation during surgery)
-Glucagon (treats hypoglycaemia)
-Sodium Levathyroxine (thyroid replacement therapy)
-Trypsin & Chymotripsin (cleansing wounds and ulcers)
-Deoxyribonuclease (acts against devitalized tissue in purulent (discharging pus) states)
-Fibrinolysin (treatment of blood clots within the cardiovascular system)
-Pancreatin (treatment of infants with celiac disease (gluten intolerance ) and related pancreatic deficiences)
-Thyroid (treats myxedema (metabolic disease caused by deficient action of the thyroid gland) in adults and cretinism (deformity and mental retardation caused by thyroid deficency) in children)

5. Various household stuff
-candles
-deodorants
-soaps
-textiles
-insecticides
-photograhic film
-shaving cream
-fabric softeners
-glue
-violin strings
-paints
-cosmetics
-detergents
-toothpaste

Now I'm a bit curious as to how a vegan can reply to this message without using a plastic keyboard or plastic mouse [:D]

elwestrand

Feb23-04, 03:53 AM

I'm lacto-ovo vegetarian. That means I eat dairy and eggs.
Dairy is the most "ethical" food in existance-- it EXISTS to provide sutinence. Am, Vegans don't eat honey either. But actually, most foods that seem vegan have some sort of animal product in them. Small children cannot absorb everything from their food than adults can.. . So they need extra nutrition. If you will not feed your infant your own milk (the milk that comes from the mother), it is very insane and you should not be considered a human being. (the definition of mammal is that the mothers feed milk to the babies-- so if you do not, then you are not worthy of the title mammal and hence human being.) This is my logic. My mother was vegetarian the whole time she was pregnant with me and I was breast fed for two years. Breast feeding is very important for brain development. Am, B12 vitamin is in soul. It is lacking from processed foods due to poor topsoil and stuff, so I heard. Just grow a garden. Don't even wash the carrots, just eat them with the dirt and everything. You will have plenty of B12. You should anyways. I have strong bones. Never broke one of them. Of course to be a healthy vegitarian, it is more than avoiding certain foods. And remember I am vegetarian not because of any religious/moral reasons or sentimentality. I do not believe it is wrong to kill to sustain the body-- but I do believe it is wrong to kill and not eat what you have killed-- sport.

pocebokli

Feb23-04, 08:36 AM

As a matter of fact, Leonardo Da Vinci said that humans will once consider consumption of animals as cannibalism, and this guy was a real visionary hot-shot.

But then again...plants are alive as well aren't they? The trees scream when they're cut down in their own dull way.

The plants are also "alive" and in every way behave like all other beings.

Should I cry when I trample grass?

Should a herd of buffalos be punished for eating out an entire pasture?

A very interesting thing is that a few thousant years ago, at the dawn of civilisation in the indian sub-continent, there were kingdoms where it was FORBIDDEN to eat meat. ANY meat.

EVERYONE was a vegetarian. This lasted for a few hundred years until Arians from around Afghanistan and Iran conquered these kingdoms and as de facto conquerors radically changed their culture.

I really don't know what to think about this issue...

And don't worry, cows get their due. We don't slaughter only cows, we also slaughter eachother.

pocebokli

Feb23-04, 08:43 AM

and something else...

you must realize that human culture is a culture of excesses in it's environment. It is not in-balance with the nature as we know it.

Thus it is not logical to expect a city like New York or Mexico city, with enough population to fill an ant-hill, will live off a few farms where cows are well cared for, like in them olden days.

physicsisphirst

Feb23-04, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by ShawnD
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/65863p-61352c.html

A 16 month old baby cannot lift its own head.... healthy?

Growing kids need lots of calcium for bones and protein for tissues. Milk is a great source of calcium but vegans cannot drink milk. Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat. Vitamin B12 is very important (just like any other vitamin), but unlike other vitamins, it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants). A vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious problem leading to irreversible nerve damage.

Many of you vegetarians seem to be wildly misinformed about how much of the animal is wasted. If you did any research at all, you would find that 99% of every cow is used for one thing or another.
Here is a list of stuff that is made from animals. All you vegans might want to look away; this will hurt you a lot more than it hurts me.

shawn,

from your avatar, it appears you are an advocate of freebsd! this is a good thing. unfortunately, i cannot follow the logic in your post which does not appear to contain the same structural strength of your operating system.

rather it seems to be a puzzling attack on vegans, using rather dubious and somewhat sensationalistic arguments.

for instance, you seem to be shocked that the baby couldn't lift her head and admit that the diet was 'odd'. your insinuation is that the diet which included "ground nuts, juice and cod liver oil" is somehow related to veganism - which it obviously isn't. admittedly, this attempt is not all your fault, since the paper itself makes the same mistake when they say the parents were " using a vegan diet to nearly starve to death their 15-month-old daughter". it is fortunate that the prosecutors wisely didn't use the term vegan, because the case has nothing to do with being vegan. it is unfortunate that the newspaper used that term in an attempt to disparge what has been proven over centuries (veganism is hardly a new fad) to be a very healthly diet, purely for the sake of sensationalism.

so i'm really not sure what your point was. the child was malnourished because the parents permitted a vitamin deficiency - this has nothing to do with a vegan diet.

then you go on to say that milk is a great source of calcium (which admittedly it is - the advertisements say so too), however the reality seems to be that there is a serious osteroporosis problem in north america ( eg more than 1 million Americans suffer from fractures due to osteoporosis every year - info not from a vegan site http://www.lifescript.com/www/HealthResources/Spotlight/HealthConditions/Osteoporosis/index.asp ). if your implication is that drinking milk is a good idea because you get lots of calcium (a necessary preventative to osteoporosis), then it is reasonable to conclude that

a) the people who get the condition are always vegan (or at least don't consume milk).
b) milk is not a particularly good preventative for osteoporosis

since a) is completely false, there may be a very good possibility that b) is true. this leads to an interesting and apparent paradox - how is it that something that is touted as such an excellent source of calcium and is so strongly recommended and used as a deterent to osteoporosis (go check the internet for osteoporosis + milk) still leaves the disease rampant? it's fine to go along with the ads and make claims like "Milk is a great source of calcium", but given the high incidence of osteoporosis, the idea may be pragmatically meaningless.

then again you link the not drinking milk to veganism. are you suggesting that vegans are somehow deficient in calcium because they don't drink milk, or that they are deficient in milk because they don't drink milk?

and again, "Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat". the implication is i presume that vegans are deficient in protein, because they don't eat meat.

and then there is the very perplexing B12 comment " it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants)" with a flourishing warning about B12 deficiencies. so are you suggesting that vegans somehow remove the B12 organisms before munching on the plant and so are also B12 deficient (along with all the others deficiencies you have given them)?

somehow you try to tie all this to "Growing kids" who need all these things and are in trouble if they are vegan. if this is your intention, then you should at the very least provide some statistical evidence to that effect other than the single Swinton child who wasn't even vegan. can you do that? because if you don't, it seems to me that you are just throwing anti-vegan propaganda around with a similar lack of integrity as scott shifrel.

the rest of your post is completely irrelevant to the discussion for it seems to be nothing more than a cheap and self-admitted attempt to make vegans feel bad about using certain products. i have no idea why you introduce this here other than to possibly settle some personal vendetta. whereas, the first part of your post had some interesting points worth considering and pursuing (if you wish to), this latter effort seems bizarre by comparison.

ShawnD

Feb23-04, 04:38 PM

My post was to show that most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about. Vegans say how wonderful their lifestyle is but then I see them buy the same hand soap and toothpaste that I use.
Another weird thing is that whenever I see somebody pickup things like soyburgers, the burgers are always wrapped in plastic. Isn't that just a little hypocritical?

About the milk thing, I was not implying that most non-vegans have healthy bones. I was saying that vegans make it very difficult to get recommended amounts of calcium. In 1 day, you can have drink 3 cups of milk, 6oz. of beans, 5 cups of spinach, 50 slices of bread, or 12oz of almonds.
I can drink 3 cups of milk in 2 minutes, no problem. 6oz. of beans takes a while to make and beans are very filling. 5 cups of spinach? 50 slices of bread? 12oz. of almonds?
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/milk/whycal/sources.cfm

And yes, my post was to make vegans feel bad for using certain products. People should feel bad when they say they don't use animal byproducts then turn around and accept medicines and use things like drywall and plastics when they know those items are made with animal byproducts. Selling out your morals should make you feel bad.

ranjana

Feb23-04, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by ShawnD
My post was to show that most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about......

And yes, my post was to make vegans feel bad for using certain products.... Selling out your morals should make you feel bad.

Your post showed no such thing. It only showed your personal animosity towards vegans which is not a very convincing argument for your cause. Have you conducted a survey or have any statistical information regarding your claims that "most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about"?

Vegans are opposed to murder of people and animals. And as such do what they can to not support this. Since the slaughter of animals for food is the main reason for murdering them it makes complete sense to stop eating meat first. As people learn about other byproducts and find alternatives, these too can be incorporated into a vegan's lifestyle. The ethics are clear and the intention good. Can the same be said of yours based on your post?

Ranjana

physicsisphirst

Feb23-04, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by ShawnD
My post was to show that most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about.

well i don't have a clue how your post shows that most vegans "do not have a clue what they are talking about". all your postings do is demonstrate clearly that

a) you make wild connections based on cheap tabloid style media writing
b) you attack the vegan platform through blatant accusations of 'vegan lack of knowledge'
c) you have a personal problem with vegans, with their lifestyles, or their statements or all of these

the vegans (i presume they are vegans at any rate) on this thread for the most part have presented their case with clarity and cohesiveness. they provide detailed rationale (eg see LAacoustics post) to justify the arguments which are well-constructed (eg dissident dan's stuff) and come to a decisive conclusion (eg see XcuddleXcoreX initial post) and even pose the ethical issue effectively (eg be happy).

and your effort? i am going to make these clueless vegans feel really bad by pointing out that they are typing on a plastic keyboard! (geewiz, i am tempted to dump freebsd and go to windoze)

as for your calcium argument, you can get into serious trouble on that one when the vegan knowledgebase point out that

a) milk's high protein content (acidic) leaches out the calcium (the oxalic acid in spinach apparently does something similar) so getting it doesn't mean you are going to be keep'n it
b) the rda or dri (whatever!) are deliberately inflated for legal reasons and have little bearing on what the body needs (of course, this has nothing to do with veganism but it proves interesting to investigate)

using the convenience argument that you can drink 3 cups of milk faster than the poor vegan who has to gobble down a loaf of bread is not confidence inspiring.

these vegans seem anything but clueless and if one is going to take the opposing side, there are plenty of resources still out there that will enable the formation of a reasonable basis for attack - so by all means use them.

personally, i don't see what the problem is. veganism seems to me from what i've read here and elsewhere a very efficient and intelligent way to live (eg see the goVeg stuff i pulled from the web). i think, given the overwhelming nutritional and environmental evidence, it has become increasingly difficult to argue against.

so the only course left seems to be to rant and rave along the lines of who is really more holier-than-thou. people may not like to have their ethics challenged, but if that challenge cannot be met in a rational fashion, perhaps those ethics should be re-examined.

ShawnD

Feb23-04, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by ranjana
Have you conducted a survey or have any statistical information regarding your claims that "most vegans do not have a clue what they are talking about"?

Of course I do - PLASTIC

You yourself claim to be a vegan yet you are using a plastic keybard, a plastic mouse and have a plastic computer monitor. That means one of two things.
a). you have no idea what contains animal byproducts
b). you simply don't care

Now you say you know plastic contains animal byproducts, why are you still using plastic? You either use byproducts or you don't, there is no happy medium. You are either a vegan or you are not.

ranjana

Feb23-04, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by ShawnD
Of course I do - PLASTIC

You yourself claim to be a vegan yet you are using a plastic keybard, a plastic mouse and have a plastic computer monitor. That means one of two things.
a). you have no idea what contains animal byproducts
b). you simply don't care

Since vegans care, that leaves only one option.

Your posts have no rational basis. Your list of possible conclusions are not exhaustive. To the list might be added, for example, c). you haven't found an alternative, d) you haven't been able to access an alternative or even e) you are aware of many items containing animal byproducts but have not yet discovered all items containing byproducts. Can you suggest a keyboard that doesn't contain plastic? Could you please give me a reference for the animal byproducts in keyboards? I would gratefully be enlightened.

At any rate, your conclusions are not valid as you didn't take into account the above possibilities.

Ranjana

ShawnD

Feb23-04, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by ranjana
Can you suggest a keyboard that doesn't contain plastic?

Well that's flawed logic. If you can use a keyboard saying there is no keyboard not made of plastic, I could just as easily say it's ok to eat jello because there is no jello not made of gelatin.

Now let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. It's ok to use plastic because there is no byproduct-free alternative but it is wrong to eat jello even though there is no byproduct-free alternative?
How does that make sense?

Being a vegan is not about making up excuses for why it's ok to use animal byproducts in some cases but not others. You either use byproducts or you do not.

Be Happy!

Feb23-04, 10:36 PM

Shawn, I have been vegan for over 12 years, and I have never heard of such a claim of animal by-products in plastics...

Even so, it doesn't negate the good that a vegan diet brings to one's health, alleviation of animal suffering, and the positive global ramifications of such a lifestyle...

We do the best that we can, in the society that we live in.

By your logic, why do anything good if you can't do everything.

ranjana

Feb23-04, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by ShawnD
Well that's flawed logic. If you can use a keyboard saying there is no keyboard not made of plastic, I could just as easily say it's ok to eat jello because there is no jello not made of gelatin.

Being a vegan is not about making up excuses for why it's ok to use animal byproducts in some cases but not others. You either use byproducts or you do not.

If the logic you are suggesting is employed then, taken to its conclusion vegans should not breathe because it too involves the killing of living organisms (as does the use of animal byproducts). Without breathing vegans will surely die, again involving the willful killing of living beings. You end up in logical bind, a paradox, which of course is perfectly possible in a mere intellectual exercise. Let us inject a healthy dose of common sense, reason and real life - it makes no sense to commit suicide and certainly is not reasonable to expect it! In order to function and live in this world and society as it is, it is not possible to eliminate use of all animal byproducts. The rubber of tires for example contains animals byproducts however, in the structure of present day North American society it is not possible to transport oneself everywhere by foot only. In today’s world computers are all prevailing and pretty much essential for most professional occupations and communications – in other words it is important to many in earning their living or for many others to function in our society. It doesn’t make sense and is not reasonable to expect computers not be used. Jello, on the other hand, is not in anyway important in order for us to live and function in society. It is a food which we clearly do not need to survive in today’s world. What we are talking about here is making reasonable choices and eliminating as many animal based products as possible.

Let’s put your concern in perspective. 80 to 90 percent of profits derived from the murder of animals is made from the meat industry. You are “worried” about the significantly smaller part.

Finally, I have failed to find any references that directly link animal byproducts to all plastics. Plastics as you know are made up principally of a binder together with plasticizers, fillers, pigments, and other additives. Again, I ask you, can you please give me a reference that states which components of plastics contain only animal derived fatty acids? If you cannot, then I suggest that you put your concerns to rest as this is then much ado about nothing.

Ranjana

Dissident Dan

Feb23-04, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by ShawnD
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/65863p-61352c.html

A 16 month old baby cannot lift its own head.... healthy?

http://www.pcrm.org/news/health030317.html

“Studies show that a meat-free vegan diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes offers clear advantages to growing bodies. In fact, some research has even shown that vegan diets may offer advantages for developing minds as well,” says Dr. Lanou. “The Swintons weren’t even following a real vegan diet because they reportedly gave their child cod-liver oil, which is derived from fish.”

Leading baby expert Dr. Benjamin Spock embraced the use of vegan diets in the 7th edition of Baby and Child Care, the leading guide for parents. Vegan babies, like all infants, should be raised on mother’s milk or formula, eventually followed by fortified infant cereal and mashed fruits and vegetables. At approximately eight months, parents can begin introducing additional foods. To ensure adequate vitamin B12 after weaning, parents should also introduce any common children’s multivitamin.
....

Growing kids need lots of calcium for bones and protein for tissues. Milk is a great source of calcium but vegans cannot drink milk. Meat is the best source of protein you will find but once again, vegans cannot eat meat. Vitamin B12 is very important (just like any other vitamin), but unlike other vitamins, it cannot be found in plants (with the exception of other organisms living in the plants). A vitamin B12 deficiency is a very serious problem leading to irreversible nerve damage.

[/quote]

Milk has lots of calcium, but the animal protein in it counters the calcium in it. You can get plenty of protein from plants. The typical US diet is too hight in protein. B12 can be obtained from fortified foods or supplements (from sea algae-like organisms) or the mother's breast milk

NUKEELT

Feb23-04, 11:24 PM

Firstly I'd like to point out that to make a general statement that all plastics contain animal by product is ignorant at best. Lactic acid which is occasionally used in soft plastics can be found and extracted from animal tissues but the laboratory grade Lactic Acid used in the creation of such soft plactics such as polyurithane is created through a bacterial fermentation process of cellulose (for a multitude of reasons, cost, clenliness control, quality control and biohazard safety issues) so any lactic acid containing plastic is most likely vegan. As far as glycerin is concerned for many of the same reasons (cost efficiency, quality control, etc) Vegetable Glycerine is most often used in plactic formation as well. The only even marginally valid non vegan plastics claim you have is in geletin. The number of household plastics that use geletin instead of agar are going to be fairly slim. I can guarantee that the Polypropenol that was most likely used to make my keyboard parts contains zero animal byproducts.

Secondly I'd like to point out the biggest flaw of all in your thinking. If I live a vegan lifestyle to the best of my ability then I've accomplished every imaginable goal. I've upheld my morals, I've greatly increased my health, I've saved countless animals from suffering and needlessly dying. If by some oversight I purchase a plastic product that has some trace amount of an animal by-product in it so what. It's not like I compromised my morals, it's not like it takes back all the wonderful things that me following a vegan lifestyle has done. The greater good is still obtained. I appricate your opinion but you really need to stop skirting the issue with ad hominem attacks against vegans and really stick to the issue at hand.

Thanks for your time,
Gabriel

Dissident Dan

Feb23-04, 11:32 PM

What's all this talk about plastic? I thought that we were talking about meat...

physicsisphirst

Feb23-04, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by NUKEELT
I can guarantee that the Polypropenol that was most likely used to make my keyboard parts contains zero animal byproducts.

wow! what a great post gabriel!
i wish i'd seen it earlier - i've been running all over the net and even into my van nostrand scientific encyclopedia (ya the big fat one!) to see if i could find anything on animal products in keyboard plastics. i couldn't so your explanation on this is much appreciated!

so were your subsequent points about what a vegan lifestyle can accomplish were inspiring!

ShawnD

Feb24-04, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Be Happy!
By your logic, why do anything good if you can't do everything.

Point duely noted. It's great that you're trying to change something.

Let’s put your concern in perspective. 80 to 90 percent of profits derived from the murder of animals is made from the meat industry. You are “worried” about the significantly smaller part.

Although that is true, those animals would still be killed even if the meat was not used. It's not about byproducts making big money, it's about SAVING big money. Gelatin taken from cows that are being killed for meat is cheap. Gelatin (or something like it) created in a lab would be very expensive. Jello only costs like 30 cents per box right now when it's made from animal parts. If the gelatin had to be created from scratch, that same box of Jello would cost at least $1.

Finally, I have failed to find any references that directly link animal byproducts to all plastics
http://www.akzonobel-oleochemicals.com/fatty_acids.htm
"Fatty acids are mainly used as a raw material in the chemical industry. After conversion into products like fatty alcohols, amines, or esters, they are used in various market segments. The main application areas are resins, soap and surfactants, paper chemicals, plastic additives, lubricants and consumer products, like candles."

physicsisphirst

Feb24-04, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by ShawnD
Point duely noted. It's great that you're trying to change something.

ya it is isn't it!

and it is also decent of you to acknowledge this, shawn :)

ranjana

Feb24-04, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by ShawnD

http://www.akzonobel-oleochemicals.com/fatty_acids.htm
"Fatty acids are mainly used as a raw material in the chemical industry. After conversion into products like fatty alcohols, amines, or esters, they are used in various market segments. The main application areas are resins, soap and surfactants, paper chemicals, plastic additives, lubricants and consumer products, like candles."

Thank you very much for your reference, it is much appreciated. However, it does not state that the fatty acids are animal based, and many of those listed are also found in plants.

Ranjana

Dissident Dan

Feb24-04, 07:03 PM

If you don't really know how food production works, please check out the following videos:

http://www.meetyourmeat.com/

http://www.dissidentlogic.com/temp/BARC/video/Pig_Farm_Investigation.mpg (it's about 90 megs, non-streaming).

I think that these videos lend strength to the vegetarian argument.

XcuddleXcoreX

Feb24-04, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by elwestrand
I'm lacto-ovo vegetarian. That means I eat dairy and eggs.
Dairy is the most "ethical" food in existance-- it EXISTS to provide sutinence. Am, Vegans don't eat honey either. But actually, most foods that seem vegan have some sort of animal product in them. Small children cannot absorb everything from their food than adults can.. . So they need extra nutrition. If you will not feed your infant your own milk (the milk that comes from the mother), it is very insane and you should not be considered a human being. (the definition of mammal is that the mothers feed milk to the babies-- so if you do not, then you are not worthy of the title mammal and hence human being.) This is my logic. My mother was vegetarian the whole time she was pregnant with me and I was breast fed for two years. Breast feeding is very important for brain development. Am, B12 vitamin is in soul. It is lacking from processed foods due to poor topsoil and stuff, so I heard. Just grow a garden. Don't even wash the carrots, just eat them with the dirt and everything. You will have plenty of B12. You should anyways. I have strong bones. Never broke one of them. Of course to be a healthy vegitarian, it is more than avoiding certain foods. And remember I am vegetarian not because of any religious/moral reasons or sentimentality. I do not believe it is wrong to kill to sustain the body-- but I do believe it is wrong to kill and not eat what you have killed-- sport.

Dairy-producing cows suffer worse and for longer durations of time than any animals on this planet, with perhaps the exception of egg-laying hens. I cannot fathom how you consider dairy to be the most ethical of all foods.

http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/dairy.html

These animals are deprived of everything natural to them. Their natural environment is replaced with crowded and filthy stalls. Their natural diet is replaced with antibiotics, rendered animal byproducts (including blood, feces, rectum, eyes and other treats), and inefficiently used plantfoods (recall that 90% of America's domestically grown grains are fed to farmed animals). Their natural social orders are disrupted: calves produced by dairy cows are often torn from their mothers days after birth and slaughtered for veal. And ultimately they are denied their natural lifespan: dairy cows are typically slaughtered at 5 years of age (note that over 85% of all ground beef in the United States is made primarily of "spent" dairy cows).

Most dairy cows develop mastitis, a painful udder ailment caused by milking machines. They routinely suffer from untreated cuts and bruises on their udders. The majority of dairy cows in the United States are artificially inseminated- an invasive and unnatural procedure that causes pain and stress to the cows. Almost all dairy cows are kept in a perpetual state of pregnancy, causing unimaginable strains on their bodies.

Buying dairy products is supporting animal cruelty.

Be Happy!

Mar3-04, 11:06 PM

www.goveg.com is a wonderful site jammed packed with great reasons to go veg and it even tells you how...

elwestrand

Mar6-04, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by XcuddleXcoreX

Most dairy cows develop mastitis, a painful udder ailment caused by milking machines. They routinely suffer from untreated cuts and bruises on their udders. The majority of dairy cows in the United States are artificially inseminated- an invasive and unnatural procedure that causes pain and stress to the cows. Almost all dairy cows are kept in a perpetual state of pregnancy, causing unimaginable strains on their bodies.

You are arguing against how dairy producing animals are treated in the US... but you have no argument why milk ITSELF is inherantly evil and cruel. I don't even Live in the US.

pocebokli

Mar7-04, 06:12 AM

I'm sorry for interrupting, but is collecting points for each side philosophy??

this post is pretty much collecting data and bickering about wether we should eat plastic keyboard (hey, microsoft has this "natural keyboard", probably for vegetarians? doh...)

you really can't see the broader picture?

Dissident Dan

Mar7-04, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by elwestrand
You are arguing against how dairy producing animals are treated in the US... but you have no argument why milk ITSELF is inherantly evil and cruel. I don't even Live in the US.

Do you know how the milk you get is produced? Do you really think that dairy cows are allowed to live full lives? In order to produce milk, they are impregnated frequently. I'm sure that this is common in all industrialized areas. The male calves are probably used for veal or adult meat. Dairy supports the meat industry. If you want to raise your own cow, that's one thing, but if you buy it from the store, it is a product which has a production method that causes killing, and in many "modernized" areas, torture.

physicsisphirst

Mar7-04, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by elwestrand
You are arguing against how dairy producing animals are treated in the US... but you have no argument why milk ITSELF is inherantly evil and cruel. I don't even Live in the US.

The milk itself isn't evil or cruel. It has to do with how it is acquired and from whom.

The cow doesn't make the milk for homo sapiens - she makes it for bos taurus. The dairy mechanism, large or small, forces the cow to produce a child, takes her child away from her, and then, takes the nourishment that she produced for that child away from her too.

From your posts on this thread, it is obvious that ethics and compassion are important to you. Otherwise you wouldn't be challenging the others for an argument to show that milk is 'evil and cruel'.

Yet, i do not think that what i have written here, or dan in the last post, or XcuddleXcoreX earlier can possibly be construed as being kind or beneficial to the cow or her children.

Therefore, the challenge goes back to you. either prove that this is not what is done to produce milk, or demonstrate that these practises are really not cruelty in action. Since the former is pretty hard to dispute, the focus will probably be on the latter and the attempt thereof, may provide an deeper insight into our species' sense of understanding and empathy.

Tragically, the saying needs to be modified:

"to err is human, to forgive is bovine"

and cows certainly have much to forgive [:(]

Jonh Doe

Mar7-04, 11:31 PM

More animals to conduct researches on. By physicskid

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

No, seriously, not a so good argument. (if you consider that some research is a lot more cruel than just killing the animal. (figure that I have heard about research of how to graft genital human organs on mice!)

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on earth stopped eating meat. By decibel

This is, and sorry for insulting him, espescially stupid of him, because the actual consumption of meat on earth has already disrupted the food chain by a lot, and isnt even part of the natural predator/prey food chain anymore. If we would all stop eating meat, it would more likely restore the food chain than disrupt it.

Oh, and by the way, I am against eating meat, of any kind. (yes, fish is still meat...)

pace

Mar8-04, 08:33 AM

Just to put a little more light into this thread, I've been a vegetarian(eating milk and eggs) for 2 months now, after discussing in this thread.
I've tried a couple of times before, but now I found it suprisingly easy after discuissing against eating meat in this thread. [:)]

XcuddleXcoreX

Mar9-04, 11:17 PM

I commend you for making a compassionate decision. As you learn more thoroughly about the issues your ethics will evolve and you will become more secure in them. Remember to constantly ask yourself, "is the decision I'm about to make a compassionate one?". You're on the right path.

revesz

Mar18-04, 10:58 PM

what is it that the average vegitarian sees wrong eating meat? is it the killing or suffering caused to the living animal? Or, is it the consumption of the flesh of an animal that they don't like?(OR BOTH)

the killing is justified, it is for neutrients, for food, life. It is a natural way to get energy. If you think it cruel or evil, you must think about the fact that you are in your personal universe, it is reality as it exists to you, you only experience your own conciousness, so why would the pain inflicted be morally wrong if it is not as a result causing you personally any suffering? The feelings of the animal are not a part of your experience, the feelings dont exist to you, like a bad dream you had and then forgot, it causes no pain.

Death itself is not so bad(except the part where you actually experience death). but being dead is nothing bad, its nothing good either, its nothing at all really, so why is that not wanted for an animal? Do you fear not waiking up one day? why? you wont feel any regret or pain from not living anymore, so an animal is not going to care that its life is over.

If its the eating the meat that makes you not want it, the actual consuption of somethings body, that you find disturbing or whatever, then you should also stop eating plants too, infact just starve to death while your at it. the fate of your body doesnt matter just because you were once alive, a dead animal is just as much going to care about being eaten as a apple, or head of cabbage. so really eating meat is perfectly fine, in fact if you dont eat meat, then thats your problem. i dont see anything wrong with not eating meat, just that eating it is more convenient, and it tastes great.

Dissident Dan

Mar19-04, 08:49 AM

revesz, would you find nothing wrong in raising humans in intense confinement so that they could be slaughtered for your consumption?

revesz

Mar19-04, 03:12 PM

One thing i overlooked, i was not considering the living conditions of the animals, i was more thinking about the fate of the animal. It is wrong to have animals living in poor conditions, not because they are being eaten, but because while they are alive, they are unhappy.
I see how it is evil, and i eat meat, i see that the only thing to do personally that will in any way help, would be to stop eating meat, but im also a gready human, and i want my meat, and im not going to stop eating meat. if someone were to say, we should not eat meat, because eating meat is bad i would have to argue. but livestock should be raised in good conditions, in open fields.

I cant remember seeing anything wrong with the conditions of livestock. is it really confinement? cows live in open fields, and they seem happy, chickens dont need lots of room. dogs live in confinement, is that also wrong?

I think we should eat meat, but we should also, give the animals good soroundings, not overcrowded or dirty. And when we slaughter them, it should be by some nonpainfull or at least very quick method.

Dissident Dan

Mar20-04, 12:05 AM

When I first became vegetarian, I did not find it wrong to raise animals for slaughter in general, but I found that our system of production is so horrible that I could not fathom further supporting the system.

There are plenty of resources available on the internet that teach about the cruelties involved in modern intensive confinement food production, often referred to as "factory farming." Some URLs:

http://www.factoryfarming.org
http://www.ciwf.co.uk/Pubs/factsheet_contents.htm
http://www.vegsoc.org/animals/

There are videos, too, like "Meet Your Meat" (www.meetyourmeat.com), "Diet for a New America" (based on a book), and "Peacable Kingdom".

I do not believe that those who raise animals for food will give much concern to animal welfare. This is especially true given the trend towards larger and larger corporate operations.

chrismbg

Mar21-04, 06:01 AM

I really don't care if we eat meat or not. Here's why.

There are a lot of people that eat meat. They don't care about the health of the animal they are eating. This is part of the food chain, whether we like it or not. We are at the top.

I see a lot of people that are against eating meat because it hurts the animals involved. Of course it will, you are killing the animals to eat them. Whether it's systematic or personal hunting, the animal dies, usually a painful death, to be eaten. So is nature.

The problem I have is that so many people are spending so much time on this topic. Whether to save the whales or not....come on! There are people dying every day from more ridiculous things. Shouldn't we focus our priorities on people first, then animals?

Maybe I am thinking too big, but this is the way I see things.

Chris

cookiemonster

Mar21-04, 06:23 AM

Are cows even smart enough to care how they live?

cookiemonster

pace

Mar21-04, 11:35 AM

Yes I think so.

chrismbg,
We do focus a lot more more on humans than other animals.

It's sad that when violence and torture is done to humans we are so horrified but when it's done between different animals(including us) it's suddenly supposed to be so natural.

Where is the line?
I might as well argue that my mom, dad and cousins are like me, and that americans are so different. I might as well back this up by saying nations have gone too war as long as man's memory, therefore it's completely natural that we capture all americans and do whatever we please with them.

There is no line to love, morals, and friendship.

Dissident Dan

Mar21-04, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by chrismbg

The problem I have is that so many people are spending so much time on this topic. Whether to save the whales or not....come on! There are people dying every day from more ridiculous things. Shouldn't we focus our priorities on people first, then animals?

"When non-vegetarians say that 'human problems come first,' I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of animals." -- Peter Singer

physicsisphirst

Mar27-04, 03:48 PM

The problem I have is that so many people are spending so much time on this topic. Whether to save the whales or not....come on! There are people dying every day from more ridiculous things. Shouldn't we focus our priorities on people first, then animals?

This is a common argument and certainly not an unimportant one. Should we be focussing our attention on helping animals when there is so much to do to help people?

Is it possible that the two ideas are more closely intertwined than it may appear on the surface? May it be that when we can show compassion to a sentient non-human, we are better able to do the same for one of our own kind?

It is a conjecture which I am making for consideration, but here are some quotations from people who are fairly well-known in history who have said similar things:

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
Mahatma Gandhi, statesman and philosopher

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men."
Francis of Assisi, saint

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."
Pythagoras, philosopher and mathematician

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
Thomas Edison, inventor

"Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace."
Albert Schweitzer, missionary and statesman, Nobel 1952

Perhaps it is only by acquiring compassion for and showing compassion to, the helpless who can least ask for it, that we can achieve the integrity our own species is capable of.

In friendship,
prad

darkmage

Apr2-04, 06:21 PM

Mankind will always be violent. There will always be useless fighting and killing, because this is simply the nature of man.

Moving on to a different point, I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat. Killing a plant is almost no different from killing an animal (the only difference being that an animal has a mind). So why not kill an animal instead of a plant? The fact that an animal has a mind is not a strong enough argument to persuade me.

motai

Apr2-04, 10:14 PM

Do humans not also have minds?

loseyourname

Apr2-04, 10:54 PM

Before I actually read through all 11 pages, can I ask if anyone has presented an ecological argument for vegetarianism?

darkmage

Apr2-04, 11:39 PM

Do humans not also have minds?

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at, but yes humans have minds (and humans don't eat humans). In addition, I never said it was right to kill other humans. I said that humans most likely won't live in peace because the nature of humans is to fight.

Les Sleeth

Apr3-04, 08:32 PM

When I first became vegetarian, I did not find it wrong to raise animals for slaughter in general, but I found that our system of production is so horrible that I could not fathom further supporting the system. . . . I do not believe that those who raise animals for food will give much concern to animal welfare. This is especially true given the trend towards larger and larger corporate operations.

dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

I thought the arguments presented by Dissident Dan and Kerrie well represented two sides of the moral vegetarian debate. Since I agree and disagree with both of them, I used their general beliefs as a foundation to bounce my comments off of.

I've been a vegetarian for about 32 years, and I can assure you Kerrie neither you nor your children need meat to be healthy. Most doctors who recommend meat are counseling you as meat eaters, and from traditional "food groups" training. For example, when they say meat helps you to absorb certain nutrients you need, they mean that the fat soluable vitamins need fat to be asborbed; other basic principles are that meat has the eight essential amino acids, more iron than most vegetable sources, vitamin b-12, etc. Meat covers several bases nutritionally, but only on the front end. For that convenience, you may pay dearly down the road.

Before I move on to what I disagree with about Dissident Dan's reasons for why we "should" be vegetarians, there is one more reason besides overall health benefits why I like not eating meat: it is easier to digest non-meat stuff. If you know that digestion costs energy, and that what you eat gives energy, then the difference between the energy needed for digestion and the energy you end up with is important. I've have found ways to eat that minimizes the energy of digestion, such as eating sprouted bread made with the combination of sprouts that form a complete protein (check out "Food for Life" sprouted breads).

Even though I can whole-heartedly recommend the vegetarian diet, it isn't because of why Dan says so. Well, some of it is, like the utterly inhumane way slaughter animals are treated. I wish humans would boycott meat eating until both the way animals are raised/kept and how they are slaughtered are done with compassion.

But beyond that, as hard as I've tried I cannot come up with a moral reason why animals shouldn't be killed and eaten. If you are a Darwinist, then you can see killing and eating animals is quite the way things are done in the natural world. If you believe in God, then you can see God created things so that animals eat each other, so obviously God isn't all that worried about it (both possibililties make it VERY difficult to watch nature shows featuring carnivores because sometimes they start eating their victims while they are still alive).

So, I cannot see the moral "should" in meat eating if humane treatment of slaughter animals is factored in. However, I do see an "inner" sort of reason to not eat meat, something that goes beyond health and humane treatment issues.

I grew up around people who were used to slaughtering, and I saw in them a certain insensitivity to other living beings that seems to be what Dan talks about. I think you have to be that way to slaughter. If you've ever seen a pig slaughtered, his throat cut, hung upside down by his feet so the blood drips out, the pig squealing the whole time . . . well, it's not pretty. I know we get to remain unaware of that when we shop at the supermarket, but even that's a kind of deadness. Personally, I prefer to be more sensitive. I don't want to have to shut off my sensitivity for any reason.

So for me, the bottom line for being a vegetarian is, first, the heightened sensitivity not killing gives me; and then, how much easier it is to extract energy from non-dead-rotting-flesh food :wink:, along with the healthier life it gives.

Dissident Dan

Apr4-04, 06:23 PM

Mankind will always be violent. There will always be useless fighting and killing, because this is simply the nature of man.

Things can always improve. People have used such arguments to justify all sorts of the things (slavery, monarchism), but we've progressed passed them.

Moving on to a different point, I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat. Killing a plant is almost no different from killing an animal (the only difference being that an animal has a mind). So why not kill an animal instead of a plant? The fact that an animal has a mind is not a strong enough argument to persuade me.

Killing a plant is completely different from killing an animal. The existence of sentience (the ability to experience) is the ONLY legitimate basis for ethics. We know what it is to suffer (bad) and to experience pleasure (good). Everything else is arbitrary.

Dissident Dan

Apr4-04, 06:33 PM

But beyond that, as hard as I've tried I cannot come up with a moral reason why animals shouldn't be killed and eaten.

I do not make a strong distinction between humans and other species. We are just another species.

If you are a Darwinist, then you can see killing and eating animals is quite the way things are done in the natural world. If you believe in God, then you can see God created things so that animals eat each other, so obviously God isn't all that worried about it (both possibililties make it VERY difficult to watch nature shows featuring carnivores because sometimes they start eating their victims while they are still alive).

I am a Darwinist, but not a Social Darwinist. Evolution and natural selection say nothing of ethics, only how things have occurred. They do not say what is right or wrong or good or bad. They are not things to revere.

I grew up around people who were used to slaughtering, and I saw in them a certain insensitivity to other living beings that seems to be what Dan talks about. I think you have to be that way to slaughter. If you've ever seen a pig slaughtered, his throat cut, hung upside down by his feet so the blood drips out, the pig squealing the whole time . . . well, it's not pretty. I know we get to remain unaware of that when we shop at the supermarket, but even that's a kind of deadness. Personally, I prefer to be more sensitive. I don't want to have to shut off my sensitivity for any reason.

I've heard stories about people who work in slaughterhouses who became abusive of their families.

darkmage

Apr5-04, 10:15 PM

Killing a plant is completely different from killing an animal. The existence of sentience (the ability to experience) is the ONLY legitimate basis for ethics. We know what it is to suffer (bad) and to experience pleasure (good). Everything else is arbitrary.

That's what I essentially mean when I say "an animal has a mind". And still, I do not find this a sufficient reason as to why one would not eat meat.

Dissident Dan

Apr6-04, 12:44 AM

That's interesting. I hold the ability to experience as the only legitimate basis for any ethics.

For any linguistic explanation you attempt to give someone as to why something is right or wrong, bad or good, should be done or should be not done, they can always ask, "Why?" There is only one way to get past the infinite string of "Why?"s. That is to invoke the knowledge of experience of the person whom you are talking to. Each of us has experienced. We know what it is to suffer and to experience pleasure. We know the badness of suffering and the goodness of pleasure. It cannot be explained, because language has limitations, but each of us knows this because we know the qualities of these experiences.

Les Sleeth

Apr6-04, 01:44 AM

I do not make a strong distinction between humans and other species. We are just another species.

Okay, but lots of "other species" eat each other, and would eat us too. Are those species behaving immorally? And then, I don't eat meat. However, I do let my cat eat the gophers she catches (actually, as much as I hate what those little devils do to my garden :mad:, I do try to save them). What is the extent of my responsibility? Should I interfer with other animals killing and eating each other?

I am a Darwinist, but not a Social Darwinist. Evolution and natural selection say nothing of ethics, only how things have occurred. They do not say what is right or wrong or good or bad. They are not things to revere.

I know you're not a Social Darwinist, but my point was to ask what natural or universal conditions you are relying on to derive your ethics. It is one thing to determine what is ethical for yourself, but this thread is about what is "right" overall, and therefore for the rest of us. For that you need to something more than your compassionate beliefs (besides, if slaughter animals were given a good life, and killed humanely, we've actually improved the way most prey animals die). So I still cannot see the moral/ethic issue here, even if I personally agree with you about killing animals.

Dissident Dan

Apr6-04, 01:53 AM

Okay, but lots of "other species" eat each other, and would eat us too. Are those species behaving immorally? And then, I don't eat meat. However, I do let my cat eat the gophers she catches (actually, as much as I hate what those little devils do to my garden :mad:, I do try to save them). What is the extent of my responsibility? Should I interfer with other animals killing and eating each other?

Sometime in the past year, I have stopped being a preservationist. Applying the idea of morality to other creatures is more limited than application to humans, because the other creatures do not think or communicate on the levels that we do. You can't expect a cat to know why it is wrong to eat a gopher. I find the killing or suffering of any creature unfortunate and saddening, and would do what I could to reduce suffering. I would stop the cat from eating the gophers if able.

I know you're not a Social Darwinist, but my point was to ask what natural or universal conditions you are relying on to derive your ethics.
...

Read my last post (at the end of the last page). You were probably typing this up as I was typing mine.

LuciferPrometheus

Apr6-04, 07:51 AM

This is my first post. Great topic. It is a topic that only a human would have. Other animals do not concern themselves with the impact of their actions on the rest of the world. Of course, it could be argued that we are the only ones who impact the world enough to unbalance it.

I finally finshed all 11 pages and have a few points.

I do agree that the raising of meat as opposed to plants for consumption is wasteful. Cattle filter the food energy (most easily expressed as calories) that we could be receiving. It takes multiple pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat (aprox. ratios 10:1/cow 6:1/chicken). Not to mention that just by virtue of their stationary position plants are a wiser use of land for food production. Cattle require acres to roam. This is an issue which has to do with global starvation.

My probelem with vegetarians bringing up this reasoning is that they are not too sincere. As a general rule they don't eat foods which necessarily promote global food development. Most "veggie" items are wasteful themselves. Especially the burgers, hot dogs, and other processed "veggie" foods. Also, if you are concerned for global hunger you should boycott organic foods, as this way of creating food energy is less productive.

The probelem is not that we eat meat. It's that we eat too much meat. Even if you beleive in the 4 basic food groups, it should be noted that almost everyone eats primarily meat. Our portions our half a plate of meat, some veggies, and some carbs. This is excessive by anyones standards. It is my opinion that if we still had to hunt & gather, we would primarily eat plants peppered with meats. I do not think it is ethical to eat something you would not get yourself. If you can't stomach killing & gutting a cow, then you have no business grabbing a burger. Luckily for me if I was hunting and gathering I'd grab some apples and broccoli on my way to kill/skin/roast a rabbit for dinner.

motai

Apr6-04, 12:47 PM

Dissident Dan

Apr14-04, 11:04 PM

russ_watters

Apr16-04, 01:27 PM

When I think about the eating of animals, I wonder why it is such a contentious issue. Is it really such a detestable request that we extend some basic compassion to our fellow creatures? These animals feel and think as we do. For the sake of taste and texture, we subject them to horrors that would elicit immediate, impassioned, nearly-unanimous outcry had humans been subjected to them.

The suffer. They long for their families. They are diseased. They are malnourished. Their bodies are deformed and often unable to support them. Many cannot move. They cannot roam, for they are confined to small stalls, pens, or cages or are cramped in a huge, dark room with thousands of others. They stand or lie in their own excrement on metal or concrete.

Merely so we can satisfy our cravings they endure all this. It is unending for them until they die. What will it take for us to have some mercy? What will it take for us to respect other creatures as individuals?

Is it so radical that think that we should exhibit some decency in how we treat other animals? "Detestable request?" I wouldn't characterize it like that. Shortsighted, unrealistic, irrelevant, overly emotional maybe. There's probably another one, but I can't think of the right word. The issue here is simple: the animal kingdom is violent. To pretend otherwise is... see above.

If you personally feel uncomfortable with it, fine. But I don't consider your opinion all that reasonable here. It requires a lot of unreasonable logical leaps and assumptions:

-Animals have feelings: do they?
-We are causing unnecessary pain: are we causing any more pain than already exists? Have you ever watched National Geographic?
-We're better than the animals so we should treat them better: I don't see a logical connection there.
-And the biggie: animals have rights (not sure if you're suggesting that or not): no animals do not have rights.

To answer this one thouh: "What will it take for us to respect other creatures as individuals?" At the very least, evidence that they qualify for rights. Sentience, intelligence, etc. Ie, some reason to consider them equals to us.

edit: slight clarification - I'm not a big fan of the way calves for veal are treated. I think its unnecessary and unreasonable. But the general raising and kiling for food, no.

Dissident Dan

Apr16-04, 05:24 PM

"Detestable request?" I wouldn't characterize it like that. Shortsighted, unrealistic, irrelevant, overly emotional maybe. There's probably another one, but I can't think of the right word. The issue here is simple: the animal kingdom is violent. To pretend otherwise is... see above.

I'm sure that people said all the same things about those who supported the abolition of human slavery in the USA.
It is not short-sighted.
Unrealistic? only history can tell. Saying such now is to have a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Irrelevant? It is only the most important thing I know of.
Overly emotional? It is not any more emotional than saying the same things regarding other human beings. What is overly emotional is letting our prejudices overcome the realizations of how similar we all really are and how irrelevant our differences are.

If you personally feel uncomfortable with it, fine. But I don't consider your opinion all that reasonable here. It requires a lot of unreasonable logical leaps and assumptions:

-Animals have feelings: do they?
-We are causing unnecessary pain: are we causing any more pain than already exists? Have you ever watched National Geographic?
-We're better than the animals so we should treat them better: I don't see a logical connection there.
-And the biggie: animals have rights (not sure if you're suggesting that or not): no animals do not have rights.

1) Animals definitely do feel. Ignoring this, or claiming it as unproven is an unfortunate product of our prejudicial society. Behavior, biology, and evolution all demonstrate that they do feel.
2) We are causing unnecessary pain, because (a) that suffering would not otherwise occur, and (b) eating them is not necessary for our nutritional needs. I understand that there are saddening violences in the wild, which is why I am not a preservationist. However, one misfortune does not justify another misfortune.
3) I don't recall ever saying that we are "better" than animals. All I've said is that we have great abilities to comprehend, and we should use them to understand the moral obligations to other creatures. I'm not sure if I've even said this in a recent post.
4) If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience. There is no question about it.

edit: slight clarification - I'm not a big fan of the way calves for veal are treated. I think its unnecessary and unreasonable. But the general raising and kiling for food, no.

Givent that we do not need to eat them, and even more animals suffer just as much as veal calves (egg-laying chickens, sows, etc.), I find it very unneccesary and unreasonable.

It is not such a very hard thing to do to give up meat, either, provided you don't mind the occasional joke. Hopefully, any adult could deal with that. It really is amazing how quickly one becomes used to a non-animal diet such that hardly does it even feel like restricting oneself.

Rader

Apr16-04, 05:40 PM

Dayle Record

Apr16-04, 05:50 PM

The stomach dumps refined sugar, but hangs onto fruit sugar, and fruit, my guess is that it really wants to get at those minerals in the fruit. Coronary ICU's all over our nation are chock full of individuals on the Adkins diet. There were days in the last year where, 1/2 of the individuals I interviewed in the Coronary ICU, were on Adkins. A healthy diet has at least 2 whole fruits a day, and 3-5 servings of vegetables, and not much more than 6 oz of high protein food. The fuel foods, grains, need to be added last and in accordance with activity level. The grains need to be whole.
The number one solvent to facilitate all bodily functions is water, and we should make it easy on the body, by taking that on in pure water form. It is possible to live very well as a vegetarian, and as we move more into the genetic manipulation of animals for transplant tissue, and higher production of milk, and greater muscle mass, we have to remember that the animals that have our genetic material, might engender even more capable viral predators to our species. An example of this is the work done with pigs. Pigs are scavenging animals and therefore have super hardy immune systems. When we lend our wimpy genetic material to them, then their predators have a stab at gearing up to attack our tissues. The pigs might do alright with this, but we might not. The effects of BGH on humans who consume milk, are already showing, up because there are many other imitators of estrogen in the environment now. Very young girls are starting to menstruate, some of these estrogen imitators are in sunscreen, shampoo, cadmium from batteries in the groundwater, so the lower you eat on the food chain, the better off you will be. Even Salmon has gotten into the act now, with GM Farm Salmon, and dyed Salmon. So as in all matters, name your poison. Or name your Poisson.

Dissident Dan

Apr16-04, 06:40 PM

Dissident Dan you got my vote, i agree whith most of what you said. This sounds like the end of the thread. But there is one more consideration, what do we do with all the animals we do not eat. You know they would starve if there was no predators. So what do we do? Ask the predators. The problem does not end with us resolving the problem.

Well, the fact is that the whole country won't go vegetarian overnight. There would be a tapering off, if people are to leave off eating animals, as demand decreases in a more-or-less smooth fashion. There would be fewer and fewer animals bred to replace the ones slaughtered.

Rader

Apr17-04, 07:25 AM

Well, the fact is that the whole country won't go vegetarian overnight. There would be a tapering off, if people are to leave off eating animals, as demand decreases in a more-or-less smooth fashion. There would be fewer and fewer animals bred to replace the ones slaughtered.

While I agree with your philosophy, when making philosophical decisions, you have to really think things out. A wrong decision could create more pain and suffering than it was suppose to elimate. Change must be gradual, as abrupt decisions can be catastrophic. Have you seen the data studies if everyone stopped smoking all at once. Half of the planet smokes and from the PF survery 3/4 of us eat meat, so if that is any indication of what the rest of the world does. If we stopped eating meat all at once, the world economy would collapse. It would take a gradual redistribution of weath in other sectors or the decision to stop eating meat would do more harm than good.

russ_watters

Apr19-04, 10:38 AM

I'm sure that people said all the same things about those who supported the abolition of human slavery in the USA. I'm sure thats not even close to the same thing. 4) If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience. There is no question about it. And you base this on what exactly? Most animals can't even recognize their reflection in a mirror. That's one of the simpler tests of self-awareness.

As for rights, have you discussed rights with your cat? How can you be sure your cat's idea of rights is the same as yours? Your cat clearly doesn't see a moral issue with killing and dismembering that mouse for sport - yet you do. What gives you the right to decide for your cat what is right and wrong for it?

No, Dan, rights were invented by humans for humans. They most certainly were not intended to extend to animals. Though there are a lot of people who think they should be extended to animals, that they were not intended for animals when they were thought up is simply a matter of historical/literary fact: ie, find me a pasage in one of Locke's books about rights where he talks about animal rights.

Averagesupernova

Apr19-04, 01:16 PM

Dissident Dan

Apr19-04, 08:34 PM

I'm sure thats not even close to the same thing.

What makes you say that? You don't think that people called abolitionists unrealistic? Ridding ourselves of human slavery was a revolutionary change. Such revolutionary talk necessarily was called unrealistic. There used to be people who said that black people didn't have feelings. Such people surely called people advocating for black slaves "emotional" or "sentimental".

And you base this on what exactly? Most animals can't even recognize their reflection in a mirror. That's one of the simpler tests of self-awareness.

1) "Self-awareness" is not the correct criterion upon which to extend consideration. The ability to feel is the criterion. This ability to feel is commonly called sentience.
2) The mirror test isn't a good test. It is a test of intelligence, not a test of whether or not one knows of one's own existence. You have to understand the idea of reflection, which is beyond merely knowing of one's existence. I am continually astounded by the belief that the mirror test is so significant.
3) As you implied yourself, some animals, such as nonhuman primates, do pass the mirror test. Should they, at least, be afforded rights?

As for rights, have you discussed rights with your cat? How can you be sure your cat's idea of rights is the same as yours? Your cat clearly doesn't see a moral issue with killing and dismembering that mouse for sport - yet you do. What gives you the right to decide for your cat what is right and wrong for it?

Any creature has an interest in not being harmed.

No, Dan, rights were invented by humans for humans. They most certainly were not intended to extend to animals. Though there are a lot of people who think they should be extended to animals, that they were not intended for animals when they were thought up is simply a matter of historical/literary fact: ie, find me a pasage in one of Locke's books about rights where he talks about animal rights.

Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights. As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society. In this case, you would not see the conditional that I stated as applying, since no one really has rights in the first place.

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals. We all have interests. While the nature of those interests have variations between species, the fact that all these different species have the capacities for positive and negative experiences renders us all relatively equal.

It would be sticking one's head in the sand in one instance, and opening one's eyes in another (an inconsistency) to say that other humans can feel and nonhuman animals cannot. It would also be taking the more dangerous side of any error in calculation. The facts of behavior, biology (structure and process), and common heritage (evolution) show the link between oneself and other animals. These are the same facts upon which we believe in sentience in other humans (although the heritage link was not obvious until about a century and a half ago, and much knowledge of neurology is pretty recent). One of the many facts showing animal sentience is the fact that basic emotions like fear, anger, and lust are based in the hind- and mid-brain, present in mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish.

Dissident Dan

Apr19-04, 08:58 PM

I have never seen such stupidity in my life as is in this thread. For all of you vegans, do you know how many acres of rain forests have been cleared in South America for guess what: Soybeans. That's right. Thousands of thousands of acres have been cleared for soybeans. South America has lines of trucks hundreds of miles long to dump grain at the terminals.

First, please stop and ask yourself why are you so angry and antagonistic.
Why human activity necessarily uses resources, the production of plants uses far less in land, energy, and water than the production of animals, especially in the USA, where most animals are no longer grazed, but are kept confined and fed cash crops.

BTW, soybeans aren't grains.

Human life as we know it cannot exist without the consumption of animals. We have socially evolved by moving into cities, getting our food at the supermarket, having the conveniences of computers, automobiles, a pretty damn cushy lifestyle all because of the consumption of animals.

This is just not true. Eating animals is much less efficient than eating plants. This would allow more resources to be available for improving living conditions.

Most land that is suitable for raising crops is used for that. Livestock graze on what we call waste-land. Land that is not suitable for raising crops. So until you agree to move onto this 'wasteland' and become a gatherer of berries and such, cattle will roam on it. They are not all 'couped up' as you would believe.

Most of the agricultural land in the USA was once considered "wasteland". Then the "Reclamation of the West" (irrigation) came about. In addition, synthetic fertilizers have rendered soil quality irrelevant. Also, notice that even grazing animals are fed bundles of hay, which had to be grown in fields elsewhere.

Beef cattle are often allowed to graze before being slaughtered. I live in Florida, where there are many pasture farms. However, I seriously doubt that grazing makes up the majority of the beef industry. Most other animals, including cows used for dairy, are kept in confinement. Birds and pigs get the worst of it. Dairy cows are in pretty bad shape. Here is a link that states that in Minnesota, only a small percentage of dairies graze their cows: http://www.extension.umn.edu/mnimpacts/impact.asp?projectID=2802

For animal welfare, if one is going to eat meat, it seems that eating beef would be the best, both because of the high amount of flesh per animal and the conditions of the animals. However, even many cattle "farms" keep the animals very closely packed, often in dirt or mud, as the following website shows: http://www.factoryfarm.org/resources/photos/cattle/

40% of all beef production comes from two percent of the feedlots, with three companies (IBP, ConAgra and Cargill) having market shares of 35%, 21% and 20% respectively.8

http://www.factoryfarm.org/topics/cattle/facts/

There is also great suffering due to feeding animals drugs and synthetic growth hormones and selective breeding.

I could go on and on, but it is easy to do the research. Tell me if you find any facts contrary to what I'm saying.

They also don't come close to thinking like a human being. Most of the time they would rather trample you if you get to close to their calf. They don't 'give you the benefit of the doubt' like it is assumed we should give them. I agree, animals should be treated humanly unlike the chickens that are raised nowadays. Until people agree to pay more for their food, that is the way it is going to be.

I'm glad that you think that chickens should be treated better, but that does not make it so. As long as there is demand, great suffering will happen. Also, I find it interesting that you try to refute the vegetarian argument using one type of animal (cattle) while acknowledging the confinement the argument regarding birds.

Firstly, a person does not have to treat you well in order for you to treat that person well (a person not necessarily being a human). Secondly, if a creature that you perceived as potentially-threatening approached your child, I'm sure that you would do the same. Our moral appraisal of the animals doesn't matter. We cannot expect less intelligent creatures to be as good as we are. All that is relevant is that they can experience. Because they can experience, we should extend consideration for them. Due to this consideration, we should stop eating them.

Dissident Dan

Apr19-04, 09:26 PM

I just dug up the following document: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/pct-bb/catl0104.txt

It states that in Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma (ranked 1, 3, and 4 in cattle population in 1998 according to http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/ranking/lrank97.htm#allcattle), only 2.9 million (down from 3.7 million in 2003) cattle and cavles are estimated to be grazing on "Small Grain Pasture" in 2004. These states are estimated to have 26.65 million cattle and calves. That means that only 11% are "Grazing on Small Grain Pasture".

Les Sleeth

Apr19-04, 09:33 PM

As for the responsibility thing; im not sure that interfering another animals' dinner is necessary (they are doing their instinctive thing), but we as humans should probably stop raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them.

Sorry, I just saw your response. As I said, I personally cannot bear to participate in killing and eating animals. It is the "should" in your statement that makes me hesitate. Killing animials is how the universe works here on planet Earth. I can't see how to derive some morality for all humans from the nature of things, or (especially) from what I find repusive.

Averagesupernova

Apr20-04, 01:27 PM

First, please stop and ask yourself why are you so angry and antagonistic.
Why human activity necessarily uses resources, the production of plants uses far less in land, energy, and water than the production of animals, especially in the USA, where most animals are no longer grazed, but are kept confined and fed cash crops.

Why am I being angry? Because while you sit by spouting off this BS in your (appearing to be--->) Burger King crown, you are attacking the very well being of myself and family. Remember I said I live and work in an ag community.

In addition, synthetic fertilizers have rendered soil quality irrelevant.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture you wouldn't have made that comment. Believe me, certain land will only produce so much product. There are HUGE differences in the soil and no amount of fertilizer can make poor land good.

Secondly, if a creature that you perceived as potentially-threatening approached your child, I'm sure that you would do the same.

I'll remember that when I see some goofy looking idiot in a Burger King crown come near my family.

Dan, to the majority of the people here you may appear to have valid points. But to someone who actually lives and works in ag, you seem completely clueless. Let me clue you in about beef cattle: I own them and as we speak their calves are being born. They choose to drop them out in the dirt. They have the choice to go inside on clean concrete lined with nice fresh straw if they want. They have been inside but still choose the calve elsewhere. As we speak, it is raining. Guess where all the calves are? That's right, outside. Do you feel sorry for them? I do sort of, but not really. Ever hear the phrase 'not smart enough to come in out of the rain'? How about you come out here and convince my cattle to get their calves into the barn? You will soon realize just how different humans are from other animals. For someone who has not likely ever dragged a calf out of the mud and wondered why the cow didn't drop it in the dry dirt or grass you sure seem to be an expert.

When we can all live in harmony with the animals and let them have their way and not keep them confined, you can deal with all of them that kill people on the highways each year. It won't be long though, because the domesticated cow cannot live in the wild any easier than you can. Neither can chickens. Through selective breeding chickens have been developed to grow so fast (not from drugs) that if they are not butchered within a certain amount of time their legs will break under their own weight. Believe me, the animals are better off either where they are or extinct.

Dissident Dan

Apr20-04, 02:48 PM

Why am I being angry? Because while you sit by spouting off this BS in your (appearing to be--->) Burger King crown, you are attacking the very well being of myself and family. Remember I said I live and work in an ag community.

What are probably hurting your family's pocket books even more are foreign competition and large-scale agribusiness. It is an unfortunate situation that your income depends on poor treatment of animals. However, the fact that some people will have to find new jobs pales in importance compared to the suffering that animals endure. These jobs will diminish anyway as agriculture consolidates. I prefer open-range raising of animals to intensive confinement, but since World War II, intensive confinement has been overtaking open-range raising.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture you wouldn't have made that comment. Believe me, certain land will only produce so much product. There are HUGE differences in the soil and no amount of fertilizer can make poor land good.

I would argue this point more, but it's not relevant to the issue of animal suffering in agriculture, so I'll leave it alone.

I'll remember that when I see some goofy looking idiot in a Burger King crown come near my family.

You were using that as a distinction by which you could justify the cruel treatment of cows, and when I made a statement denying that distinction, you resorted to personal attacks.

Dan, to the majority of the people here you may appear to have valid points. But to someone who actually lives and works in ag, you seem completely clueless
...........
For someone who has not likely ever dragged a calf out of the mud and wondered why the cow didn't drop it in the dry dirt or grass you sure seem to be an expert.

All these statements point to the fact that cows are not as intelligent as normal human beings. But so what? Neither are mentally-handicapped people. Are mentally-handicapped people not deserving of good treatment?

When we can all live in harmony with the animals and let them have their way and not keep them confined, you can deal with all of them that kill people on the highways each year. It won't be long though, because the domesticated cow cannot live in the wild any easier than you can. Neither can chickens. Through selective breeding chickens have been developed to grow so fast (not from drugs) that if they are not butchered within a certain amount of time their legs will break under their own weight. Believe me, the animals are better off either where they are or extinct.

If we don't raise them in agriculture, they will be extinct. There will not be former farm animals running around the country. That's a hypothetical situation that will never happen.

russ_watters

Apr20-04, 03:43 PM

....[re: racism] The only possible way to connect racism to animal rights is the fact that racism is not now, nor was it ever based on science. It was an emotional issue only. Animal rights is not based on science or philosophy. It is also strictly an emotional issue. 1) "Self-awareness" is not the correct criterion upon which to extend consideration. The ability to feel is the criterion. This ability to feel is commonly called sentience. Awareness is the other half of the definition of sentience - the part that enables you to have feelings. Otherwise, feelings are indistinguishable from stimulus-response. 2) The mirror test isn't a good test. It is a test of intelligence, not a test of whether or not one knows of one's own existence. You have to understand the idea of reflection, which is beyond merely knowing of one's existence. I am continually astounded by the belief that the mirror test is so significant. So how exactly do you test for sentience? Remember: now you are arguing real science. You cannot just assume animals to be senteint. You have to prove it scientifically. From what I understand, there is not much debate about animal sentience in the scientific community (ie, the scientific community does not accept that animals are sentient) except in the case of a handful of higher level mammals. Scientists consider the mirror test to be one of very few valid ones for self-awareness. 3) As you implied yourself, some animals, such as nonhuman primates, do pass the mirror test. Should they, at least, be afforded rights? Quite possibly - and we already do treat them different in a lot of cases. But you wouldn't want to draw a line, would you...? Feel free to argue where that line should be though, if you want. [re:cats and mice] Any creature has an interest in not being harmed. Ok, so you're saying cats are immoral. Good. Now, how did you punish this cat for these atrocious acts of immorality? Does your state have a death penalty for example? While we're at it, any animal that has ever killed another animal is guilty of murder, right? They all need to be executed then, don't they? Am I starting to sound at all absurd to you? (I sure hope so) Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights. And you base this on what exactly? Which of the great philosophers discussed this issue? AFAIK, the principle authority on rights (Locke) never mentioned animal rights. As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society. That is not what I said. Have you read any of the philosophy of rights? Learning the modern understanding of rights would be a good place to start before deciding these concepts can be extended to animals. A little taste: According to Locke, rights are inherrent in humans and are endowed by 'nature' - natural law. To some, that may imply God, to others, it may sound like the laws of science... My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals. I pointed out several differences - whether you consider them relevant or not, philosophers considered them relevant enough to not even consider the possibility that animals have rights. In order to change that, you will need to come up with some good philosophy/science of your own. Good luck though - part of my cat exercise that you ignored was critical: You certainly have not ever discussed rights with a cat. What if the cat disagrees with you? No, thats not meant to be funny - it really is critical. You want to say animals have rights, yet at the same time you want to force your interpretation of rights on both us and them. It's a catch-22: if they are sentient and therefore worthy of rights, then their opinion matters (and guess what - they outnumber us). It would be sticking one's head in the sand in one instance, and opening one's eyes in another (an inconsistency) to say that other humans can feel and nonhuman animals cannot. It would also be taking the more dangerous side of any error in calculation. All I want you to do is prove it. Prove they are sentient. Prove they are worthy of rights. Prove they will agree with us on what rights are. One of the many facts showing animal sentience is the fact that basic emotions like fear, anger, and lust are based in the hind- and mid-brain, present in mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. Interesting that you'd bring that up: the part of the brain where conscious thought resides is the cerebrum. The front. You just gave an important piece of evidence against those emotions being connected with conscious thought but rather just being pre-programmed stimulus-response. The cerebral cortex is what makes humans different from other animals.

There is a great Far Side cartoon where a wife paramecium is nagging her husband: 'stimulus/response, stimulus/response - don't you ever think?!' Important question and you are assuming the answer to be yes.

Averagesupernova

Apr20-04, 04:34 PM

What are probably hurting your family's pocket books even more are foreign competition and large-scale agribusiness. It is an unfortunate situation that your income depends on poor treatment of animals. However, the fact that some people will have to find new jobs pales in importance compared to the suffering that animals endure. These jobs will diminish anyway as agriculture consolidates. I prefer open-range raising of animals to intensive confinement, but since World War II, intensive confinement has been overtaking open-range raising.

I realize what large scale ag does to the economy and I also realize what foreign competition does. But to completely ELIMINATE a legititmate market is a completely different thing. It takes a lot of balls on your part to ASSUME my livestock are treated poorly. BTW, consolidating ag is not necessarily a good thing. Do you really want a handful of companies controlling the whole food supply?

I would argue this point more, but it's not relevant to the issue of animal suffering in agriculture, so I'll leave it alone.

Nice way to skirt the fact that you know nothing about ag.

You were using that as a distinction by which you could justify the cruel treatment of cows, and when I made a statement denying that distinction, you resorted to personal attacks.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't have used the idiot comment, but the whole argument still stands up. I have never justified cruel treatment. I am arguing about what actually IS cruel treatment.

All these statements point to the fact that cows are not as intelligent as normal human beings. But so what? Neither are mentally-handicapped people. Are mentally-handicapped people not deserving of good treatment?

Mentally handicapped people are at least in the human race.

If we don't raise them in agriculture, they will be extinct. There will not be former farm animals running around the country. That's a hypothetical situation that will never happen.

If you listen to alot of PETA people they would have you believe otherwise. You say it will never happen, so are you admitting to fighting a losing battle?

You also realize that the balance of nature that is OUT OF THE HANDS OF HUMANS relies on animals eating the 'less fortunate ones'? Look at the fish populations in rivers, lakes and streams. Look at the insect populations. The US imported an insect that looks alot like the ladybug. Do you know why? To eat soybean beetles. To raise your precious crops for human consumption, lots of insecticide has to be dumped on the ground as well as rely on the ladybugs to eat the beetles which destroy the crop. If american farmers quit using insecticides yields would drop tremendously. Incidentally, soybeans take more nutrients out of the soil than about any other crop grown in the US. All nutrients that need to be put back. Don't argue about genetically modified crops that stand up to things like corn borers because what the GM crop actually does is kill the invader. The corn borer doesn't simply decide he doesn't like the taste, he eats it without knowing and it kills him. You need to learn that life involves death on many scales. Are you not worried about the insects or will you start to preach about the senseless killings of bugs? Maybe since cows are furry and cuddly looking to you they are more important?

One last thing, do you know what happens to a cow or about any farm animal who is allowed to die a natural death? Basically they starve to death. Most farm animals teeth get bad to the point that they are unable to eat. My sister had a horse which she was unable to part with and we watched it slowly die off.

YOU are fighting in a battle in which you know nothing about. It would be comparable to me arguing with an airline pilot about why I think it is possible to land a 747 on a small grass airstrip that is only a couple of hundred feet long, and I will plainly admit that I know NOTHING about landing a 747.

Dayle Record

Apr20-04, 08:11 PM

Here is an interesting link to personal consumption habits and how many earths we would need to support us, if the resources were doled out according to how we use them. http://myfootprint.org/

There is a religion in India called the Jains, who even wear little cards in front of their mouths lest they inhale flies and harm them. They have a long history from 6th century BC until now, and number at approximately 6.5 million individuals, mostly in the business class. Meat is very high on the food chain, we all know this, and takes a lot of resources to make, that could make us, and take the pressures off the Oceans, and plains and rivers, and ultimately take the pressure off our DNA. Predator viruses arise in us, go out into other hosts, and return to us with a vengeance. Like begets like, so if we ate far less animal protein, we would be exponentially safer from food borne predators. Other animal proteins also trigger immune responses in us, there was some discussion a few years ago regarding the onset of Type 1 diabetes, and consumption of cows milk before the second year of human life, there was a strong auto immune link indicated.

Anyway, that is my fourty cent continuum of commentary on this issue. I had a bacon and egg and potato burrito for breakfast and chicken at lunch. If only I had more compassion, I would be vegetarian again, I was for seven years, and ran a vegetarian restaurant during that time. It will come back to me.

Dissident Dan

Apr20-04, 10:47 PM

BTW, consolidating ag is not necessarily a good thing. Do you really want a handful of companies controlling the whole food supply?

No, I don't. If you read my whole post, you will see that I stated that I prefer small-scale agriculture.

Mentally handicapped people are at least in the human race.

First, you stated that they don't deserve consideration because they're dumb. Now you're saying that it depends on whether or not they're human. What is your criterion changing?

If you listen to alot of PETA people they would have you believe otherwise. You say it will never happen, so are you admitting to fighting a losing battle?

Not at all. The extinction or near extinction of farmed animals would be a good thing, because they no longer have any niche other than being raised for slaughter and milk. There would no longer animals born only to live short lives of misery on farms. I do not care so much about the preservation of species. I care about the reduction of suffering.

You also realize that the balance of nature that is OUT OF THE HANDS OF HUMANS relies on animals eating the 'less fortunate ones'? Look at the fish populations in rivers, lakes and streams. Look at the insect populations.

Suffering in one situation does not justify violence in another. It's not all-or-nothing. Just because something's natural does not mean that it's acceptable. Hell, rape is natural....but it's not acceptable.

The US imported an insect that looks alot like the ladybug. Do you know why? To eat soybean beetles. To raise your precious crops for human consumption, lots of insecticide has to be dumped on the ground as well as rely on the ladybugs to eat the beetles which destroy the crop. If american farmers quit using insecticides yields would drop tremendously. Incidentally, soybeans take more nutrients out of the soil than about any other crop grown in the US. All nutrients that need to be put back.
.........
You need to learn that life involves death on many scales. Are you not worried about the insects or will you start to preach about the senseless killings of bugs? Maybe since cows are furry and cuddly looking to you they are more important?

It is sad that pesticides are used so gratuitously in plant agriculture. However, most crops consumed in the USA are actually fed to animals raised for food--mainly soybeans, corn, and grains. By reducing consumption of animals, we are reducing consumption of crops, and therefore pesticide use, drastically. BTW, I'm very interested in something called Aeroponics. It could eliminate the "need" for pesticides.

According to http://www.populationconnection.org/Communications/ED2002WEB/demfactsf.PDF, the animal feed makes up 66% of the USA's grain consumption.

One last thing, do you know what happens to a cow or about any farm animal who is allowed to die a natural death? Basically they starve to death. Most farm animals teeth get bad to the point that they are unable to eat. My sister had a horse which she was unable to part with and we watched it slowly die off.

What are you argueing with this?

YOU are fighting in a battle in which you know nothing about. It would be comparable to me arguing with an airline pilot about why I think it is possible to land a 747 on a small grass airstrip that is only a couple of hundred feet long, and I will plainly admit that I know NOTHING about landing a 747.

I do not have to have a career in agriculture in order to form a valid opinion regarding it. I have seen the statistics. I have seen the videos and the photographs. Argueing expertise isn't a good argument. I hope that not many people here would think, "He works in agriculture, so I should never question anything he says regarding agriculture."

Also, many, if not all, the arguments that you have brought up have already been addressed in previous posts.

Lastly, I would like to say that, out of all animal agriculture, cattle is the lowest on my concern list. Birds and pigs are treated far worse and in far greater numbers. I would prefer that people eat beef to chicken or pork.

loseyourname

Apr21-04, 12:07 AM

Dan, you're really going to run into problems here arguing from animal suffering, given that we just don't know what animals are even capable of suffering. There can be no doubt that they respond to stimuli, as the mentor (I forget his name) continually points out, but this doesn't mean that they are actually experiencing any pain. Even single celled organisms move away from harmful factors, but I think we can be pretty certain that they experience nothing when they are being attacked. It should be obvious that some animals that are not human do experience consciousness, if not to the same degree as us, at least in that they experience pain and can suffer. I have no idea where to draw the line, and much as I do when arguing against abortion, I would say that this is sufficient to justify not inflicting the negative stimuli on these animals the way we do. It seems to me that if they may be experiencing pain, and certainly most birds and mammals are high enough on the evolutionary path that it is fairly likely, then we should not take the chance, but no one seems to buy into this. They would rather make an error than play it safe morally.

I think it would be more fruitful for you to argue from an ecological standpoint. The energy used when we move up the trophic chain is immense. If the entire world were to convert to vegetarianism, the reduction of ecological footprint would be huge. As it stands now, we are already past carrying capacity given the footprint we have, and this is with most underdeveloped and developing nations eating a mostly vegetarian diet. As they advance in wealth and acquire our eating habits, the strain put on the biosphere will increase a great deal. You can also argue from air pollution. Currently, the second most prevalent pollutant behind carbon dioxide is methane, and the number one methane producer in the world are methanogens that exist within the digestive cavities of cattle. A vegetarian world would put far less strain on the land, would use less land, produce more calories (which in turn would feed more people), be more cost-efficient, and reduce air pollution. These are not as vague as the ethical issues you might have. No one can argue against the fact that vegetarianism is the way to go in terms of conservation.

Dissident Dan

Apr21-04, 04:27 AM

The environmental argument is a very good one. However, the animal suffering aspect is more important. Whether more people will care about environment or animal suffering, it is hard to say.

I have no doubt that other animals experience pleasure and pain. The first and most obvious measure is behavior. Other animals' behavior is similar to my own to such a degree that it would be ludicrous to suggest that they don't experience. Their behavior is much more complex than that of any microscopic organism.

The second measure is structure. They have brains very similar to our own. The most glaring difference in nervous systems is our enlarged and wrinkled forebrains. However, basic emotions have long been known to be based in the midbrain and hindbrain, which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals all have (although I'm not quite sure of how similar the fish brain is).
The third "measure" is evolution. We come from a common background at some point. The fact that humans weren't just dropped down from the sky by god, separate from other animals, indicates that other animals have mental capacities similar to my own.

I do not find the evidence for animal sentience any less strong than the evidence for human sentience.

The distinctions that people draw in their minds between humans and other animals are mostly religious or cultural, not scientific.

Dayle Record

Apr21-04, 11:00 AM

People who state that there is some question as to animals ability to suffer, are simply not doing their research. There is plenty of research, to back up unpleasant stimulus, vs pleasant. Oh come on, almost all behavioral research uses pain, or threat of pain to some extent; as the opposite of pleasure to control behavior.

I saw this Nova about the goings on at a set of springs somewhere in Africa. The discussion was about Hippopotamai, and how fierce they are. No one at the water hole messes with them, including the Crocs. In this vignette, one Hippo has passed away, and you see its companion, open its mouth, and grieve. The Hippo is crying, and crying, and you see the pathos plainly, the tears are abundant. Even the Crocs understand that, because they wait for that to pass. Only after the Hippo has grieved, does it move on, and leave the Crocs to ravage the carcass.

There is sentience at every level of the equation that is Earth, and we are simply the most viscious, and capable of the predators here. We could choose to be the conservators, of life, and many cases, we do just that. Every life form feels pain, it is a part of our basic aversion to damage, mechanism. If animals felt no pain, then they would not protect their bodies from harm. That is why pain exists in the first place.

Let me help you with this, it hurts like hell when some human hits you over the head with a sledge hammer, whether you are a cow, horse, human, bird, or fish. It really hurts when they begin to dismember you, before you are dead. This is how the meat is kept fresh, by the meat industry, and how labor cost is kept to a minimum.

The technology is abundantly available, to end life painlessly. We just don't afford that courtesy to our prey, nor to our enemies.

Averagesupernova

Apr21-04, 11:38 AM

First, you stated that they don't deserve consideration because they're dumb. Now you're saying that it depends on whether or not they're human. What is your criterion changing?

Quit putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that they don't deserve consideration because they are dumb. I was simply correcting your assumption that they DO think like humans.

Suffering in one situation does not justify violence in another. It's not all-or-nothing. Just because something's natural does not mean that it's acceptable. Hell, rape is natural....but it's not acceptable.

Do you remember my comment about the idiot in the Burger King crown coming near my family? Well, the rape comment certainly justifies my position on that. Incidentally, I DON'T find rape to be natural. You sicken me.

What are you argueing with this?

Just a point I was trying to make concerning an animal 'living a natural life'. It may not be you that said it, but my point is still valid.

I do not have to have a career in agriculture in order to form a valid opinion regarding it. I have seen the statistics. I have seen the videos and the photographs. Argueing expertise isn't a good argument. I hope that not many people here would think, "He works in agriculture, so I should never question anything he says regarding agriculture."

I can argue that the same way. I could tell you all about statistics on how US soldiers shot and killed young children in Vietnam. That seems completely horrible. But unless you were a soldier there (I wasn't but know people who were), you really can't say much until you've talked to those soldiers. At first I thought this was a completely horrible thing and still do. But the instinct of survival kicks in when a little 10 year old pulls the pin and tosses one at you. The next 10 year old you see who is looking right at you and ready to pull the pin is gonna get wasted. I'm not condoning wasting little kids, but the whole opinion can change when you actually are educated with experience of those who were there or actually were there yourself. You seem unable to accept true facts given by those who are actually in the experience.

Lastly, I would like to say that, out of all animal agriculture, cattle is the lowest on my concern list. Birds and pigs are treated far worse and in far greater numbers. I would prefer that people eat beef to chicken or pork.

I couldn't agree more. Pigs are not that high of a concern to me, but chickens are treated horribly. Where you and I agree is that while the animal is alive, it should not be treated poorly. Where we start to disagree is what exactly is considered poor. I will agree that chickens and turkeys have horrible lives.

Dissident Dan

Apr21-04, 08:41 PM

Quit putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that they don't deserve consideration because they are dumb. I was simply correcting your assumption that they DO think like humans.

It seemed to me that you implying that their not being very intelligent was a reason to disregard them. Perhaps I was wrong. I don't think that I stated that their thoughts are almost just like human thoughts. I've stated that, like humans, they can think and feel emotions.

Do you remember my comment about the idiot in the Burger King crown coming near my family? Well, the rape comment certainly justifies my position on that. Incidentally, I DON'T find rape to be natural. You sicken me.

Please, let's keep personal attacks out of this. Those get us nowhere. I didn't state that I find a natural rape urge. I was speaking historically. After all, what is considered natural is history; natural usually just means "the way that things have been for a long time".

Just a point I was trying to make concerning an animal 'living a natural life'. It may not be you that said it, but my point is still valid.

I would prefer to die a painful death than live an entire life in agony.

I can argue that the same way. I could tell you all about statistics on how US soldiers shot and killed young children in Vietnam. That seems completely horrible. But unless you were a soldier there (I wasn't but know people who were), you really can't say much until you've talked to those soldiers.
.....
You seem unable to accept true facts given by those who are actually in the experience.

Firstly, there are no farmed animals throwing grenades at anyone,. There are no real reasons to consume meat other than preference and societal influences.
Also, just as I cannot pretend to know exactly how your particular farm operates, you would be assuming too much to think that most farms operate however yours is. I've seen stuff from many different farms and slaughterhouses, and I've seen statistics. Checking valid statistics in combination with a wide enough personal sampling of "farms" and slaughterhouses is a very good, if not the only, way to determine this.

I couldn't agree more. Pigs are not that high of a concern to me, but chickens are treated horribly. Where you and I agree is that while the animal is alive, it should not be treated poorly. Where we start to disagree is what exactly is considered poor. I will agree that chickens and turkeys have horrible lives.

I'm glad that we agree in some areas. Please don't take anything I say to necessarily refer to the conditions of your animals. I can only make general statements on what is common in the industry or comments on specific things that I have seen and/or heard. The things that I have seen and read about are quite appalling. There are many websites, books, and videos detailing the situations.

loseyourname

Apr21-04, 09:22 PM

The environmental argument is a very good one. However, the animal suffering aspect is more important. Whether more people will care about environment or animal suffering, it is hard to say.

Well, to begin with, I'm not really sure that animal suffering, or anybody's suffering, is more important than conserving the biosphere that supports all life. But that isn't really my point anyway.

What I'm saying is that your argument from animal suffering can be disputed, and will be disputed, no matter how obvious it is that livestock experience suffering, simply because people will always point out that we can't talk to them and ask them. The argument from ecosystem conservation can't be disputed. No one can argue with the fact that filtering the energy from the sun through several layers, or even just one layer, of livestock, greatly reduces the amount that makes it to us, and so greatly increases the volume of the crops we must grow and the land we must use. It is just an extremely inefficient way to utilize photosynthesis when we can simply get the calories straight from the plants. Doing so would go a very great distance toward lessening the strain we place on ecosystems, do away with a great deal of deforestation, and decrease air pollution and increase the productivity of agriculture. A small lifestyle change could very nearly cut in half the impact we have on the planet, if only everyone would make the switch. One step up the trophic change entails a tenfold increase in the amount of total calories consumed, by both livestock and humans. That means ten times as much grain is needed to feed livestock that will then feed us than would be needed simply to feed us. Imagine the difference that could be made.

Let us not forget how much of an impact agriculture has. As a case in point, take the Salton Sea. As of right now, the Salton Sea stands as the only refuge for about 300 species of birds that migrate south through California every winter. The coastal wetlands are all but gone due to development. Eutrophication through agricultural runoff causes immense algal blooms that suck all of the oxygen out of the water, killing all the fish, and periodically leaving the migrating birds with nothing to eat. If this continues at the rate it is currently moving in, within ten years there will be no more fish, and the last refuge for these birds will be gone. This is the only place on the entire west coast that they can go to, and destroying it will effectively end the existence of 300 species west of the Rockies. This is only one example. If the land used was cut by a factor of ten, the problem would all but disappear. Another large problem is the need of agriculture for water. The Colorado river right now stands as the only source of water for three huge metropolitan areas: Phoenix, San Diego, and Los Angeles, none of which have their own water. The strain put on natural resources by the size of the populations, and by the amount of farm land that exists out in Riverside County, is devastating. Removal of livestock in favor of exclusively vegetable and grain crops would not do away with the this problem entirely, as overpopulation of a basically desert environment is a large part of it as well, but it would be a great start.

cragwolf

Apr21-04, 09:23 PM

I'm too lazy to read this long thread, so I'm sorry if I raise issues that have already been raised. I'll just state my opinion here.

I'm a hypocrite. I eat meat, but I recognise that there really is no valid reason for my doing so. Why should animals die just to satisfy my taste for their BBQ'd flesh? A proper vegetarian diet would provide all the necessary nutrients I need. There certainly are some people who live in some places in the world where a meat diet is justified. Meat for these people might be the only way they can obtain their required nutrients. But in my first-world society of plenty, that is not an applicable argument.

In a rather perverse way, I admire animal hunters who eat their victims. Unlike shoppers like me who buy their pre-packaged meat at a supermarket, these hunters have fully faced up to what they are doing: participating in the slaughter of an innocent animal. Better still, the animals they've killed have likely led far better lives then the animals who find their way into supermarkets. Now this doesn't mean I propose that people go out and hunt for their food. But it does lead nicely to my next point.

That point is about suffering. OK, so if I'm going to be a hypocrite, and support an animal-murdering industry, then at least I should do everything in my power (as a consumer and as a voter) to see to it that this industry treats these animals humanely. This means I should support an end to so-called factory farming, or at the very least, support a set of strict regulations that would totally transform the practice.

Of course, it would be a lot better if we all just went vegan. But that would require some intellectual or rational consistency that people like me are too cowardly to implement in our lives.

Galatea

Apr24-04, 09:53 PM

In a rather perverse way, I admire animal hunters who eat their victims. Unlike shoppers like me who buy their pre-packaged meat at a supermarket, these hunters have fully faced up to what they are doing: participating in the slaughter of an innocent animal. Better still, the animals they've killed have likely led far better lives then the animals who find their way into supermarkets. Now this doesn't mean I propose that people go out and hunt for their food. But it does lead nicely to my next point.

I can't say I admire hunters more than the average consumer; ignorance is generally better than malicious behavior. I fear anyone who will end a living creatures life for any reason besides minimizing its suffering.

That point is about suffering. OK, so if I'm going to be a hypocrite, and support an animal-murdering industry, then at least I should do everything in my power (as a consumer and as a voter) to see to it that this industry treats these animals humanely. This means I should support an end to so-called factory farming, or at the very least, support a set of strict regulations that would totally transform the practice.

Even devout meat eaters feel a twinge in their conscience when they think about factory farming. I've yet to meet anyone who says, "Yeah, factory farming is great. I think they treat these animals just fine." I think that more humane ways of killing them are certainly a step in the right direction - at the very least, it might at least indicate an evolution of thought about these issues.

Of course, it would be a lot better if we all just went vegan. But that would require some intellectual or rational consistency that people like me are too cowardly to implement in our lives.

The first step is to stop thinking animals are food. After that, it's all just details.

Dayle Record

Apr24-04, 11:29 PM

I saw this study regarding empathy, and animals.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994901

cragwolf

Apr25-04, 06:15 PM

I can't say I admire hunters more than the average consumer; ignorance is generally better than malicious behavior.

But it isn't ignorance. Everyone knows that animals are killed before they reach the supermarket. Everyone knows that such animals are raised in less than ideal circumstances. Consumers can't use the excuse of ignorance. They are just as malicious as hunters. The main difference is that they let others do the dirty work for them, and so they avoid witnessing the suffering that they are causing. They are cowards and hypocrites (that includes me).

The first step is to stop thinking animals are food. After that, it's all just details.

That's not good enough. Why can I think of plants as food? Why is it better to eat an insect than a pig? Why is it OK to swipe at a mosquito but not OK to smash a baseball bat over the head of a kangaroo? There must be well-reasoned answers to such questions. I don't want to do things just because they feel good. That's why I continue to be a meat eater today.

loseyourname

Apr25-04, 08:33 PM

At least the hunter does not hurt the environment. If he is skilled, he will also inflict no suffering on the animal he kills.

TheBestOfMe

Apr25-04, 09:17 PM

Wow, First off, I'd like to commend all these agruments and points you all place. You really think outside the box.

But, as it goes, I take a postion, I stand on the side of Dan(whom is doing a very good job on his own).

Now, can we put 'humane' back into human? First, we can realize that we are not the only one's who have feelings. ^_^

KingNothing

Apr26-04, 01:47 AM

russ_watters

Apr26-04, 01:53 PM

Now, can we put 'humane' back into human? First, we can realize that we are not the only one's who have feelings. ^_^ Ironic choice of words: DD is trying to take the "human" out of the "humane." That's not good enough. Why can I think of plants as food? Why is it better to eat an insect than a pig? Why is it OK to swipe at a mosquito but not OK to smash a baseball bat over the head of a kangaroo? There must be well-reasoned answers to such questions. I don't want to do things just because they feel good. That's why I continue to be a meat eater today. Agreed. Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

Yossarian

Apr26-04, 02:50 PM

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on earth stopped eating meat.

earth worked perfectly fine with out humans eating meat. earth will alwasy adjust its self to the population fluctuations whether it is a few hundred amamals one way or the other or, millions of anamals. the foodchain will always readjust itself.

Yossarian

Apr26-04, 03:06 PM

[QUOTE=For me, I couldn't become a vegetarian because of my weighlifting and powerbuilding/boxing. It truly is detrimental to you physically in that respect.

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Also on another note, if a person is vegetarian for religious reasons, that's fine with me, no questions asked.

I'm not trying to make a 'barbaric' argument...it may be mistaken as that. I really think protestant vegetarianism is futile. There are much greater things you can do to help out.[/QUOTE]

I have been a vegitarian my entire life and am the prosses of going vegan. I am an athlete as well and workout. i have never encountered any physical problems with my being a vegitarian. it is quite easy to get all that is required for a healthy diet.

I am also quite curious to see what you so aptly called other things that one must take into consideration. i agree that you must be more carful but it is quite easy to do.

I would also like to know what other things you would suggest to do. and in respose to what.

Les Sleeth

Apr26-04, 04:10 PM

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Be careful there . . . I don't think you can make your case when you say it is less healthy to be vegetarian. I know nutrition quite well, and I also can compare the first 25 years of my life as a meat eater, and the last 32 years as a vegetarian. I can report there is no comparison, not even close! I feel much better, digest food easier, have more energy (e.g., I play racquetball for 3 hours without a break, not bad for a 57 yo), get over the few colds I ever get faster, and more.

Healthwise, I am convinced the vegetarian diet wins hands down (obviously it has to be eating good food and a well-rounded diet . . . an all Twinkie diet is vegetarian). But I still can't see how it is anybody's business whether others eat meat or not, and so cannot be considered a "should" socially. If you want to eat dead, rotting flesh and have it sit around in your gut for days, weeks, even years . . . be my guest! One thing I can agree with Dan about is to work for more compassionate treatment of slaughter animals.

TheBestOfMe

Apr26-04, 04:17 PM

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. .

Well, many doctors and scientists have done numerous experements on whether it is unhealthy or not. I'm assuming you've read or gotten information that its unhealthier? maybe by personal experience?
But It has been PROVEN that vegetarians are much more healtheir. Did you know that heart disease, cancer, strokes, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, and other diseases have all been linked to meat and dairy consumption. In fact, the risk of developing heart disease among meat-eaters is 50% higher than that of vegetarians. One more thing, Vegetarians and vegans live, on avegerage, 6-10 years longer than meat-eaters.

Les Sleeth

Apr26-04, 04:18 PM

Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

When a friend introduces me to someone and teasingly says "he's a vegetarian," I always deny it and say instead, "there is simply no meat [nor fish or eggs] any of the dishes I eat."

If they ask me why I say, "because I don't like flesh [or eggs]."

They might continue by saying how "good" meat tastes, etc. To that I say, "maybe, but I feel better when I don't eat it."

There you have it. Fully justified with evidence, logic, and reason . . . no glossing over. Of course, I am not a vegetarian either. :wink:

Alliance

Apr26-04, 04:34 PM

I definately agree with Dan's side of the argument here (and well done to him by the way for all the great points he's making) as I'm a vegetarian myself. Firstly I don't know how people can say a vegetarian diet is less healthy than a meat eaters diet. I agree with KingNothing in that you can't just see protein on a food label and think that is enough, but I don't agree that eating meat is the only way to gain all the essential amino acids you need. And as for the rest of your argument, you are basically saying let's do it because we can. Hitler was the dictator in Germany and killed millions of Jews. Because he was top of the Chain, does that make it right?

motai

Apr26-04, 07:26 PM

but I don't agree that eating meat is the only way to gain all the essential amino acids you need.

It isnt. Soy contains the essential eight amino acids and higher amount of high-quality proteins.

http://vegweb.com/articles/monique-1003688934.shtml

Dayle Record

Apr26-04, 08:58 PM

This is a little bit more regarding empathy and other life forms here on Earth.

I ended up with some parakeets. I am allergic to feathers, and still I ended up with them. They make a comfortable noise, we had them when I was a kid. Anyway, Mr and Mrs Bird had, in their third year fallen in love, and danced at each other, and sang and sang, and daily they were lovers in the afternoon light. Later Mrs. Bird became very ill, and I didn't know what to do for her, though she was three years old, it seemed that she had some problem laying an egg, or so it seemed.

I knew she was having a hard time, and on the last day of her life, Mr Bird supported her on the perch, and held her head under his wing. I had a nest for them and everything I could think of to make their life work. There they were in this embrace, and I just remembered that day again, when I came back home she had passed away, and we had the funeral out back, and she rests near Miss Kitty.

Mr Bird looked into the mirror for three months after that. HE never sang ANOTHER NOTE. He mourned in silence, until I couldn't stand it any more and I bought another bird to keep him company. Parakeets for sale are so juvenile that it is hard to determine the gender. He perked up within a week, and they seem to get along. But people who question the connection, and sentience of animals as a rationalization well, what other blatant things do they also ignore, for their emotional convenience?

Galatea

Apr26-04, 09:03 PM

But it isn't ignorance. Everyone knows that animals are killed before they reach the supermarket. Everyone knows that such animals are raised in less than ideal circumstances. Consumers can't use the excuse of ignorance. They are just as malicious as hunters. The main difference is that they let others do the dirty work for them, and so they avoid witnessing the suffering that they are causing. They are cowards and hypocrites (that includes me).

I disagree. I don't think everyone really knows. I certainly didn't know until I decided to become a vegetarian - even when I began, it wasn't for moral reasons. It was simply for health. I didn't even think about what it meant to eat meat until after. It is such a commonly accepted practice that most people just go along with it; if you ask a lot of people why they eat meat, they will simply say it tastes good. To them, it is as though you asked why they breathe air. You might get some silly answers about them "needing" the protein and "important nutrients" etc. but often these people haven't the slightest clue as to what kinds of proteins and nutrients meat contains, nor do they know how much the daily requirement(s) are. They are even less educated about the dangers of such things. This is not to say all meat eaters are uneducated - quite the contrary, a great many know quite a bit about nutrition and I've seen many points favoring an omnivorous diet.

However, I will agree with you that far too many people are cowards and hypocrites. It bothers me quite a bit that the people I know won't even buy organic meat (which benefits their health more than the animals!) People simply do not care. To cause a disruption in their lives is unthinkable.

That's not good enough. Why can I think of plants as food? Why is it better to eat an insect than a pig? Why is it OK to swipe at a mosquito but not OK to smash a baseball bat over the head of a kangaroo? There must be well-reasoned answers to such questions. I don't want to do things just because they feel good. That's why I continue to be a meat eater today.

A lot of people don't think of plants as food. I should introduce you to my southern US, "fry everything until it looks like charcoal", won't eat anything without an animal product family :wink:

My point was, if you feel guilty about eating meat (as you appear to), one of the best things to do is to stop thinking of animals as food. The toughest thing to do is to change your manner of thinking about such a topic. Actually eating vegetarian food is quite simple. Thinking animals aren't food will make it easier when you realize there is no steak on your plate and that's OK.

I needn't reiterate the many points about animals ability to feel pain. That is why you shouldn't consider them food, as opposed to asparagus or what have you.

FWIW, I don't kill insects either.

loseyourname

Apr27-04, 04:30 PM

Ironic choice of words: DD is trying to take the "human" out of the "humane." Agreed. Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

Have you even looked at any of the ecological arguments made? Granted, what I've posted is nothing but an outline, but if you'd like, I can go into more detail and include some figures.

Dissident Dan

Apr27-04, 05:28 PM

Ironic choice of words: DD is trying to take the "human" out of the "humane."

How am I doing this?

Agreed. Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

What arguments are you looking for? Logical, scientific arguments that animal agriculture causes environmental degradation? Logical, scientific evidence that a vegetarian diet is healthy? Logical scientific evidence that it is ethically wrong to eat animals? All these topics have been addressed. What, specifically, are you looking for?

russ_watters

Apr27-04, 10:26 PM

How am I doing this? By applying it to non-humans. What arguments are you looking for? Logical, scientific arguments that animal agriculture causes environmental degradation? Logical, scientific evidence that a vegetarian diet is healthy? Logical scientific evidence that it is ethically wrong to eat animals? All these topics have been addressed. What, specifically, are you looking for? This thread is about the morality of eating meat - so clearlly the 3rd one. You've asserted a number of times that animals are our equals, but you have yet to show any evidence, not for specific animals or animals in general (a number of people have asked about "the line" and you haven't addressed it). I even stipulated to the intelligence of certain animals, partially as bait of course, and I think thats why you didn't elaborate. And you have completely ignored the next step: developing the philosophical/moral/practical implications (my cat cases - they get pretty comical, but they're for real).

edit: scrolling back, DD, you provided a number of links outlining how animals are treated - but I stipulated to that long ago. I even stated that I don't like the way calves are treated to make veal (for example). What you haven't shown a single piece of evidence for is that that treatment is actually wrong. That's the crux of the argument you are glossing over!

Now, I think I know why: you consider it axiomatic. That's fine for you as a pseudo-religous belief, but I don't hold that as a belief and and the scientific community doesn't either. You need to prove it.

Dayle Record, incidentally was the only one who made an attempt - he posted a link to a scientific study on animals and empathy, but he didn't say anything about it...
Have you even looked at any of the ecological arguments made? Granted, what I've posted is nothing but an outline, but if you'd like, I can go into more detail and include some figures. Go for it - I'm not sure I've ever heard an ecological argument on this. If you're just talking about forests being converted to farm/grazing lands - well, I live in Southeastern Pennsylvania where farmland is being converted to subdivisions. I don't see that as a very compelling argument. Quite frankly, it looks like a smokescreen to me.

Dissident Dan

Apr27-04, 11:15 PM

By applying it to non-humans. This thread is about the morality of eating meat - so clearlly the 3rd one. You've asserted a number of times that animals are our equals, but you have yet to show any evidence, not for specific animals or animals in general (a number of people have asked about "the line" and you haven't addressed it). I even stipulated to the intelligence of certain animals, partially as bait of course, and I think thats why you didn't elaborate. And you have completely ignored the next step: developing the philosophical/moral/practical implications (my cat cases - they get pretty comical, but they're for real).

edit: scrolling back, DD, you provided a number of links outlining how animals are treated - but I stipulated to that long ago. I even stated that I don't like the way calves are treated to make veal (for example). What you haven't shown a single piece of evidence for is that that treatment is actually wrong. That's the crux of the argument you are glossing over!

Now, I think I know why: you consider it axiomatic. That's fine for you as a pseudo-religous belief, but I don't hold that as a belief and and the scientific community doesn't either. You need to prove it.

Level of intelligence is irrelevant. If it can be shown that a creature feels, then it is wrong to harm the creature. I have stated (briefly, at least) at least 3 different ways of coming to the conclusion that non-human animals are sentient (have the ability to experience):

1) Behavior-
The behavior of all animals with which we are familiar indicates that they are conscious. Furthermore, if you pay attention, you notice personality differences among animals that cannot be attributed to mere "instinct". There are no human behaviors which are evidence any stronger than those of non-human animals.
In the case of mammals, we can see concern for family and anguish when families are torn apart.
2) Structure-
Most animals are structurally like oneself in the relevant ways--those dealing with the nervous system. Animals that have nervous systems with sensory nerves and brains (and perhaps even some with ganglia that can't quite be considered "brains"--it's hard to rule out completely) experience. Neuroscientists have known for a long time now that our basic emotions like fear, attraction, anger, etc. are correlated with activity in the hind- and mid-brain--regions such as the thalamus, amygdalla, and medulla oblongata (I may have misspelled that). Scientists have been able to reproduce the same types of emotionally-correlated behaviors in both mammals and reptiles through neural stimulation. In case you may believe that the cerebrum is necessary, even reptiles have at least small cerebrums. Mammals and birds have rather well-developed forebrains.
3) Evolutionary-
Conscious experience involving pain and pleasure is a necessary part of being an animal. A plant does not need these. They would only be detrimental, as a plant cannot escape a displeasurable stimulus or approach an attractive one. Animals, however, need emotional motivation.
The discovery of evolution serves to let oneself realize how similar oneself really is to members of other species. It was not that long ago, evolutionarily speaking, that the human species branched off from other known species. Humans split off from chimps and bonobos only about 6 million years ago! Knowledge of this common past should do away with preconceptions of fundamentally different humans and "animals".

In all these cases, the relevant data does not have significant differences between humans and nonhumans. If I am to conclude that humans other than myself are sentient, I would be inconsistent to doubt the same in other species.

hitssquad

Apr28-04, 01:04 AM

We come from a common background at some point. The fact that humans weren't just dropped down from the sky by god, separate from other animals, indicates that other animals have mental capacities similar to my own.According (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=698c89aa.0303052040.375b393e%40posting.goo gle.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3Dlang_en%26ie%3D UTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26q%3Dauthor%253Acallen%40efn.org%2 Bjensen%2Bchimps) to Arthur Jensen, intelligence among all animals is essentially the same thing:

The main indices of intelligence in animals are the speed of learning
and the complexity of what can be learned, the integration of sensory
information to achieve a goal, flexibility of behavior in the face of
obstacles, insightful rather than trial-and-error problem-solving
behavior, transfer of learning from one problem situation to somewhat
different situations, and capacity to acquire abstract or relational
concepts. There is a definite relationship between high and low
ratings of animals' performances along these dimensions (all of which
involve a common fact of differences in complexity) and the animals'
phylogenetic status. Numerous ingenious behavioral tests have been
devised to investigate this relationship, tests that permit
comparisons of behavioral capacities of quite differing animals
despite their often vast differences in sensory and motor capacities.
It is possible to give such diverse species as fish, birds, rats,
cats, and monkeys essentially equivalent forms of the same test
problems. In terms of measured learning and problem-solving
capacities, the single-cell protozoan (e.g., the ameba) rank at the
bottom of the scale, followed in order by the invertebrates, the
lower mammals, the primates, and man. The vertebrates have been
studied most intensively and show fishes at the bottom of the
capacity scale, followed by amphibians, reptiles, and birds. Then
comes the mammals, with rodents at the bottom followed by the
ungulates (cow, horse, pig, and elephant, in ascending order), then
the carnivores (cats and dogs), and finally the primates, in order:
new world monkeys, old world monkeys, the apes (gibbon, orangutan,
gorilla, chimpanzee), and, at the pinnacle, humans. Because of
individual differences within species, there is considerable overlap
between adjacent species and even adjacent phyla in the phylogenetic
hierarchy.
from the section "Animal Intelligence" (pp 175-182) from Jensen's book
Bias in Mental Testing (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029164303/).

quddusaliquddus

Apr28-04, 06:53 AM

:smile:
Why does it matter whether the animals feel pain or not? Isn't it enough that you end their life?...I'm hoping were all agreed that they are living beings...

Would killing a guy painlessly make it any better?....ok...cow's not a human....but can't we consider life as sacred?....

I think the same might apply to vegetables....they are also living beings....how can it be justified killing them then?

Maybe...just maybe...it can't be justified both ways therefore out of the necessety to eat -its ok to eat meat or just vege's.

I'm confused about this 'directiveness' of the morality behind killing animals and vegetables. Whatever you make of use in life - one of you're possible opportunity cost is that you could have let someone/something else make use of it.

Same for veges - you could have let it gro and no doubt some animal would have eaten it and extended its life. So what i meant by 'directiveness' (if you'll please excuse term and possibly let me in on the word im looking for...) is that to kill a cow - is horrible for some because the next step is to eat it. But killing a plant isn't so nasty cos you don't see the poor little rat (again sorry .... ) dying earlier than it should. I don't know how many people who campaign for animal food (im just saying this...i don't know any campaigners at all..but im assuming there is no campaign to save the coakroach) to be banned do the same for the fly, mouse, rats, lice, slugs, fleas, and other harmless insects/animals that aren't very appealing (this is an assumption - i might be wrong and i'm using hypotheitcal examples).

Meat-eaters shoudn't moral superiority as much as non-meat eaters (sorry...can't remember whose 'carnivourous' and not...done biology long time ago....)

As much as non-meat-eaters try and raise the status of animals - they lower the status of humans and vegetables.

Humans: because it is said that such a big part of our being human is to do with us having a nervous system that animals should have a share in some of our most basic rights. Sure - we do - but we're more than that otherwise you would have to agree with making lawful a lot of nasty things.

Vegetables: because they are reduced in weight of importance compared to animals because it is then ok to eat vegetables as a substitutrw to animals. - lesser evil

If people believe in the sanctity of animal life- Why not eat pills and go on a drip etc... etc... and stay alive? If you're body's health will be affetced - that's no excuse. I don't think peoiple's health issues should come into it. We know we can live as non meat eaters and meat-eaters. All because you'll become a little unhealthier does it give you the right to kill living things like plants? Or is it because its impractical to live like that we're going to assume its the lesser evil (somehow)?

[I asked a lot of question that might sound rude-I apologise :redface: if they cause offence. I am not directing them at any particular person simply because I couldn't read through all the posts] :smile:

cragwolf

Apr28-04, 01:55 PM

quddusaliquddus

Apr28-04, 02:46 PM

I would have thought the state of being alive/dead had an effect on the quality of life :D

I see where you're coming from though. You're consistent in that you even support infanticide. But infanticide is a very murky topic.

The sacredness of life isn't essential to what I am arguing (I think)...its more the consistancy of the attitude towards animals and vegetables

How is an animal 'more sacred' than a plant? ... I understand that this is not your position but I'm asking to those who consider it so ... Surely there's no clear line between an animal's sacredness and a plant's.
IMHO I don't think this thing can be argued either way.

Dissident Dan

Apr28-04, 03:26 PM

:smile:
Why does it matter whether the animals feel pain or not? Isn't it enough that you end their life?...I'm hoping were all agreed that they are living beings...

Would killing a guy painlessly make it any better?....ok...cow's not a human....but can't we consider life as sacred?....

The ability to experience pleasure and pain gives value to a life. Being "alive" is not a good criterion. A plant is merely the equivalent of a growing rock.
Killing a creature takes away its ability for future pleasure (and suffering, too), and that is why there are unethical aspects to it. Would there be any ethical difference between killing a person (terminating biological processes like metabolism) and merely making him/her "braindead"? If someone is already braindead, would it matter if you killed the organism? What was once a person is now merely a lump of metabolizing flesh.

Same for veges - you could have let it gro and no doubt some animal would have eaten it and extended its life. So what i meant by 'directiveness' (if you'll please excuse term and possibly let me in on the word im looking for...) is that to kill a cow - is horrible for some because the next step is to eat it. But killing a plant isn't so nasty cos you don't see the poor little rat (again sorry .... ) dying earlier than it should.

Realistically, people aren't going to just starve themselves. The rat may very well find something else to eat. The best situation would be where there would not be the competition between a rat and a human in the first place. It is important to realize that problems resulting from plant agriculture are multiplied by animal agriculture, because we grow crops to feed to factory-farmed animals. About 70% of grain consumed in the USA is fed to farmed animals. Eating only plants is therefore better than eating animals.

As much as non-meat-eaters try and raise the status of animals - they lower the status of humans and vegetables.

That argument is an indicator of the desire to feel superior to someone else--the very desire that leads to racism, sexism, and childhood bullydom. Did it low the status of white people to accept blacks and Asians as their equals?

Humans: because it is said that such a big part of our being human is to do with us having a nervous system that animals should have a share in some of our most basic rights. Sure - we do - but we're more than that otherwise you would have to agree with making lawful a lot of nasty things.

I'm not sure of what you are trying to say here.

BTW, much of what you have said has already been addressed in previous posts of mine.

cragwolf

Apr28-04, 04:16 PM

The sacredness of life isn't essential to what I am arguing (I think)...its more the consistancy of the attitude towards animals and vegetables

I've already addressed that, but to further elaborate, animals are significantly different to plants. These differences, which have been described by others in this thread, are what I appreciate and value in animals. I suspect this is true for just about everyone, including yourself. Why should there be a consistency of attitude towards animals and plants? Should there be a consistency of attitude towards animals and people? Should there be a consistency of attitude towards inanimate matter and life? We discriminate all the time in our attitudes towards objects or classes of objects. You can't simply demand a consistency of attitude towards two particular subsets of objects; you must provide a justification for it. Without that justification, you can't use it to argue against vegetarianism.

Les Sleeth

Apr28-04, 06:40 PM

How is an animal 'more sacred' than a plant? ... I understand that this is not your position but I'm asking to those who consider it so ... Surely there's no clear line between an animal's sacredness and a plant's.
IMHO I don't think this thing can be argued either way.

I don't know about "sacred" (since I don't know what that means), but as far as I can see the major difference between animals and plants is that animal life has a nervous system. If we follow the path of development of the nervous system it leads to humanity and consciousness. If I were to label anything "sacred," I'd have to say it's consciousness.

In any case, putting that in terms of compassion, a living thing with a nervous system is more capable of feeling and being aware than that which has no nervous system. I really don't think plants mind much if you eat them; they just aren't aware enough to notice.

KingNothing

Apr28-04, 07:35 PM

Les Sleeth

Apr28-04, 08:09 PM

To answer some of the inquiries about vegetarianism and weightlidfting as well as overall health, see this link:

http://www.bullz-eye.com/furci/2004/021901.htm

It is responses by professional powerlifter Michael Furci, to vegetarianism and powerlifting. He cited sources, as well.

Well, your link wasn't all that encouraging that meat eaters are the sharpest knives in the drawer. His responses indicated to me at least he might need a little less testoserone, not more ("pie hole"?).

Essential amino acids -- all, every one -- are found in plant foods. One can eat the right combination of plant foods with just a little cerebral application and get what one needs. If someone wants to eat meat to get that, I say go for it. But don't act like it's science to say we all must do the same to get our protein, because that's nonsense.

I would love to challenge Mr. Furci to a of test his assertion that meat eating is healthiest. He would eat meat to get his eight essentials, I would eat non-dead-rotting-flesh to get mine. I say mine is cleaner, easier to digest, results in less risk of cancer, heart disease, etc., and gives me more net energy than meat. Of course, if all he wants to do is beef up like a piece of meat, or pound somebody's head like a Neanderthal, then he might have the correct diet.

turin

Apr28-04, 09:05 PM

... all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.This is not true. Some vegetarians are now dead, even.

- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??No, we should eat the population.

KingNothing

Apr28-04, 11:45 PM

quddusaliquddus

Apr29-04, 03:44 AM

It is a confusing topic...for me anyway. I think it's made more confusing because there is a lot of disagreement about the nature of life.

quddusaliquddus

Apr29-04, 03:52 AM

That argument is an indicator of the desire to feel superior to someone else--the very desire that leads to racism, sexism, and childhood bullydom. Did it low the status of white people to accept blacks and Asians as their equals?

Obviusly, I don't in anyway condone racism, sexism, etc... I didn't mean that by raising the status of plants - you lower that of animals. That's why I split my arguement in the next lines and gave seperate reasons for the raising and lowering of status's. I meant both of these are done - but seperately.

Theoretical question: would a person who becomes a 'rodentarian' so to speak (no offence meant to vegetarians) or eats only very 'simple' animals, would they be more 'right' in what they do than a person who eats larger animals albeit with a larger/complex nervous system?

russ_watters

Apr29-04, 07:52 AM

Level of intelligence is irrelevant. If it can be shown that a creature feels, then it is wrong to harm the creature. I have stated (briefly, at least) at least 3 different ways of coming to the conclusion that non-human animals are sentient (have the ability to experience): This was my point in my last post. You've stated your opinion a number of times (the biological part anyway - you still have yet to explore the larger moral implications). I understand it. It seems reasonable (though I disagree) - but you still need to support it. Obviusly, I don't in anyway condone racism, sexism, etc... Q, don't worry about racism implications: there aren't any. Its a smokescreen because in order to connect this to racism, you have to accept that blacks aren't human or that animals are human.

Les Sleeth

Apr29-04, 09:31 AM

Well, not quite. Just because someone bodybuilds and powerlifts does not make them barbaric, and I am a little offended by that notion.

A professional bodybuilder's testimony is enough to convince me, seeing as he did cite all his references. Maybe you should write to him?

I apologize for my sarcasm. I came here this morning to delete it. It was mostly directed at Mr. Furci's brutish attitude, not you (now, that's logical isn't it! :redface: ).

However, I don't think a bodybuilder's testimony is enough. He is likely going to find information which supports his approach. I would bet you can find those who bodybuild, don't eat meat, and who recommend that diet.

It comes down to tradeoffs. I traded off the intensity of the taste of flesh for feeling better, a stronger immune system (I believe anyway), ease of digestion, and lowered risks of certain diseases. Now my taste is completely dominated by a new set of foods. I am an amatuer chef, and love to cook flavorful foods for my pterodactyl friends :tongue: to hear them say "gee, I don't miss the meat at all."

I don't see Dan's point about the morality of it. Neither can I see how it is the smartest approach to convincing people not to eat meat; people don't want another guilt trip laid on them. I think it would be better to emphasize the health benefits first, and for more compassionate treatment of slaughter animals in the meantime . . . but that's just my opinion.

maximus

Apr29-04, 10:48 PM

in my opinion, these arguements are stupid. obvoiusly we as species were designed by the rigours of evolution to eat meat as well as plants. (you don't believe me? feel those two sharp teeth poking out of your gums) therefore, it must provide certain critical advantages, otherwise nature would have chucked it out. given, we are not designed to be a predominantly meat-eating species like the lion is but it would seem it serves some purpose.
and as to the arguements that we have moral obligations not to hurt the pretty little critters, i submit that it is utter crap. whether or not the cow dies painlessly or with a torturing pain that we can't imagine is irrelevant so long as its meat is still good.

Les Sleeth

Apr30-04, 05:46 PM

in my opinion, these arguements are stupid.

Very logical, well thought out Maximus. I applaud your dedication to contemplation.

. . . and as to the arguements that we have moral obligations not to hurt the pretty little critters . . . i submit that it is utter crap.

I've always wondered about the relationship between compassion and crap.

whether or not the cow dies painless or with a torturing pain that we can't imagine is irrelevant so long as its meat is still good.

You are the guy I want as my doctor, no doubt.

Dissident Dan

May1-04, 11:14 PM

LWSleeth,

As far as approach, it's hard to say what will be the best approach. There are advantages and disadvantages to either approach.

Advantages to talking health/wellness first:
-Gives people a personal benefit
-It's easier to make the argument, since it relies on medical knowledge and not ethics
-Others which I'm not taking the time to think of

Advantages to ethical argument first and foremost:
-Adherence to ethics can be stronger than adherence to a diet, especially when some other diet comes along that can also achieve the desired effects
-Health arguments can lead to people eating more poultry, thereby increasing the number of animals suffering and changing to a type of animal that probably suffers the greatest (although the treatment of pigs gives them a run for their money, so to speak)
-For me, ethics is the main reason, and I don't want to appear disingenuous or make it seem like ethics are less important than personal wellness

Russ,

I should start another thread dealing with the basis of ethics, since it is definitely worthy of its own thread and giving it a separate thread will give these discussions some organizational clarity. Here is my basic argument:

Why can we say that something is good or bad? On what basis? For pretty much everything you say, one can always ask, "Why?" with no end in sight. For example

-"Because they're human"-> "Why does that matter? (So?)"
-"It's not honorable"-> "Why not?"
-"Because it's your own kind"->"Why does that matter?"
-"Because we can reason"->"Why is that relevenat? (So?)"
-"Because god said so"->"Why does that matter?" or "Why did god?" (this is also based on pure faith)

However, there is one stopping point: Experience (pain and pleasure). We all know the goodness of the experience of pleasure and the badness of the experience of pain through experiencing them. This goodness and badness cannot be explained in words, because of the limits on language. Experience cannot be explained; we can only accept or assume a common experience and assign a label to it.

This is not to say that one can know that an event or action is good or bad because an experience "told me so." The experience cannot directly tell you external facts. What you can learn from the experience is the quality of the experience itself. The goodness of pleasure and the badness of pain are qualities of experience. Thus, you can know their goodness and badness.

This is not to say, "Seek out your own pleasure, and worry about nothing else". There is no reason to say that there is necessarily any more value in myself having an experience than some other being having the experience. Therefore, we must, if we are to be ethical (seeking to maximize goodness and minimize badness), consider the interests of all (sentient) beings. This only lays the basis of ethics, and leaves wide open the question of how to consider, protect, or optimize the interests of all, other than the fact that it must be consequentialist (which you could form a deontology with the understanding that the establishment of these deontological rules has positive consequences [how's that for a kick in the pants?]).

KingNothing

May2-04, 09:46 AM

However, I don't think a bodybuilder's testimony is enough. He is likely going to find information which supports his approach. I would bet you can find those who bodybuild, don't eat meat, and who recommend that diet.

Well, yes. There are vegetarian (heretofore vgt.) bodybuilders...but (assuming statistics are not made up by furci) none of them have won a major event.

I found another article about iodine deficiency among vgt's. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/south43.htm

But anyway, as you can see there are plenty of information sources saying that vgt-ism is bad for bodybuilding. I have seen (while researching) a lot of sites that are centered upon an idea like "if you are a vegetarian and trying to bodybuild, try this", or in other words, helping you attain the best results if you already are a vegetarian and won't change. I have yet to see an article with conclusive evidence saying that it is actually better to be vegetarian than not.

cangus

May2-04, 12:38 PM

Anyone hear of the Atkins Diet? People are not fat because they eat a lot of meat, they're fat because of their sedentary lifestyle and they eat a lot of carbohydrates! This is also why we have such a high rate of diabetes in our society!

did u see how fat dr atkins was??

russ_watters

May2-04, 03:28 PM

Russ,

I should start another thread dealing with the basis of ethics, since it is definitely worthy of its own thread and giving it a separate thread will give these discussions some organizational clarity. Maybe. There really are two separate issues here: the biological and philosophical.

In any case, I really think the pleasure vs pain way of looking at morality/rights/etc. is far too simplistic. And I think you see there is a complexity there: This is not to say that one can know that an event or action is good or bad because an experience "told me so." The experience cannot directly tell you external facts. What you can learn from the experience is the quality of the experience itself. The goodness of pleasure and the badness of pain are qualities of experience. Thus, you can know their goodness and badness. My parents' cat used to hate getting in the car because he connected that with going to the vet, which he didn't like. But he didn't understand what was going on at the vet - didn't understand that getting a shot, while painful, would benefit him.

I know you don't want to accept it (but I know you do see it), but our ability to know that an immunization, while painful, is a good thing is a big part of what makes us different from the animals.

hitssquad

May2-04, 03:35 PM

the pleasure vs pain way of looking at morality/rights/etc. is far too simplistic.... didn't understand that getting a shot, while painful, would benefit him.Dan may have covered that aspect with the word consequentialist (http://www.google.com/search?q=consequentialism):

This only lays the basis of ethics, and leaves wide open the question of how to consider, protect, or optimize the interests of all, other than the fact that it must be consequentialist

Dissident Dan

May3-04, 01:27 AM

In any case, I really think the pleasure vs pain way of looking at morality/rights/etc. is far too simplistic.

Well, you know scientists always go with the simplest explanation that works. :) (half-joking)

Let me say that I define pleasure broadly as "positive experience" and pain/suffering/displeasure/whatever-you-want-to-call-it as "negative experience". They can be what we refer to as "physical" or "psychological" (although it's really all psychological), intellectual or simple-minded in nature. Any aspects of an experience that you enjoy are pleasurable. Any aspects that you don't enjoy are negative aspects. This may seem overly simple, but adding any other components seems arbitrary.

My parents' cat used to hate getting in the car because he connected that with going to the vet, which he didn't like. But he didn't understand what was going on at the vet - didn't understand that getting a shot, while painful, would benefit him.

This is the case that there are positive and negative aspects of an occurence. You need to consider more than just the immediate. In this case, getting the shot reduced future pain and/or extended lifespan, allowing for more future pleasure.

I know you don't want to accept it (but I know you do see it), but our ability to know that an immunization, while painful, is a good thing is a big part of what makes us different from the animals.

I fully accept that there is a rather striking contrast between our species and others due to our combination of high intellect (in comparison to other known earth creatures), throats, mouths, and hands. Of course, those fish at the bottom of the ocean that have lights hanging from their heads present a pretty striking contrast of their own.

I don't think that we are the only reasoning creatures or that there is some grand dividing line.

Our enhanced intellectual abilities are why I hope for more from us.

turin

May3-04, 11:06 AM

My parents' cat used to hate getting in the car ...How can you presume to know this. The cat might show signs that indicate a resistance to be placed in the car, but the experiment may have a limited scope. For instance, I've seen my own cat decidedly enter my car without any coaxing or suggestion on my part. This has occured when I have left the windows down, when I have left the door open as I was loading the car for whatever reason, and when I was sitting in the car with the door open.

But this isn't my point, anyway. I do not have a hate meter that I can connect to, or point at, the cat that will beep whenever the cat hates something. All I can do is extrapolate external behavior into a region of mentality that I can only presume to be possessed by the cat in the first place, much less should I declare knowledge of exactly to where in this region of mentality the projection should lead.

... he connected that with going to the vet, ...This is interesting. I wonder if cats can make such complicated connections. I do find it reasonable to assume, if (almost) everytime you put your cat in the car, then you took it to the vet, that the cat would make some (at least) subconscious connection between the two events, perhaps even a causal connection. I was once told by my vet that "cats mave a selective memory. They remember what they think they need to know." This was in response to an inquiry of how to prevent the cat from destroying my furniture with its claws.

(Declawing will never be an option for me. I do not believe that I have the right to alter the cats inherent and essential bodily mechanisms.)

... he didn't understand what was going on at the vet - didn't understand that getting a shot, while painful, would benefit him.Perhaps he understood the event manyfold better than you, the vet, and every other person in the room put together. And, while you and the vet believed to be doing the cat a service (which I admit I also believe), you were actually presenting to the cat an unnatural doom.

I know you don't want to accept it (but I know you do see it), but our ability to know that an immunization, while painful, is a good thing is a big part of what makes us different from the animals.Perhaps this is not the point you were after, but I am curious: how do you know that the immunization is a good thing? I'll go ahead and concede that the doctors/veterinarians have performed tests that adequately and accurately demonstrate the results for the immunization in question, so that there is no doubt of the external results (i.e. the cat lives longer, does not contract certain diseases, etc.). But, what if the cat experiences a side effect that makes it miserable? Furthermore, what if, to be a ("healthy") cat means constant suffering in the first place, and the only reason that they persist in life is that they have some realization that they must pay their due on this earth in order to have a pleasant existence beyond? I doubt that this is the case, but I cannot say with certainty that it is not. I may think that I put the cat in the car and take it to the vet by my own volition, but is my volition my own? One might say, "of course, by definition," but "definition" is just another man-made device in itself.

russ_watters

May3-04, 11:57 AM

How can you presume to know this. You're quite right: I may even be making the same type of mistake I would have accused Dan of. This is interesting. I wonder if cats can make such complicated connections. I don't really know. It may have been a bad example. Too complex.

russ_watters

May3-04, 11:58 AM

THANOS

May3-04, 12:57 PM

did our evoloution intend us to eat meat? yes. But that is not the question, the question is should we eat meat?

Les Sleeth

May3-04, 02:06 PM

did our evoloution intend us to eat meat? yes. But that is not the question, the question is should we eat meat?

I don't you think you can assume evolution intended us to eat meat. If we trace evolution backward for most primates, both on the Prosimian and Anthropoid sides, you find very little meat eating even among the hominoids. Chimps, who share 98% of our protein and DNA identity, only eat flesh occasionally.

We might expect that members of the homo genus started eating more meat during extreme climate changes and migration on prehistoric Earth, and kept at it (advanced species anyway) because of the secondary value skins, bones, etc. provided for nomadic and tribal living.

I still think the best test of what our body primarily evolved to eat is to judge by how our body functions on various diets. What diet helps us live the longest, stay healthy, strengthens the immune system, and so on. There is plenty of evidence which indicates that as a balanced diet includes more whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits and less flesh, the healthier the person eating it gets.

Now that I think about it, even if the body did evolve to eat meat, but now does better without it, that's still a sound reason to reduce or elimiminate meat from the diet. In fact, maybe plant eating is an evolutionary step UP for humanity. OMG, that means we vegetarians are evolutionary harbingers heralding a new age!!!! (sing along, "it's the dawning of the age of asparagus, age of asparagus " :biggrin: )

Dissident Dan

May3-04, 02:49 PM

did our evoloution intend us to eat meat? yes. But that is not the question, the question is should we eat meat?

The second part is true. The first part is not. Evolution is not an entity. It doesn't intend anything. Evolution is just what happens.

I don't know why people accuse me of anthropomorphizing when believing that animals have feelings, yet talk as thoug evolution is some sort of consciousness when defending eating meat.

As for the "we don't know if the cat thinks (or thinks X)" argument: If you apply the same reasoning to other human beings, then you are being consistent (although I think that that's sticking your head in the sand). I don't see any relevant reason to think that other humans are conscious and nonhuman animals are not. If you are going to use the argument that we can't know the if and what of the internal psychology of nonhumans animals, you should also realize that we can't directly know the same for humans. We use the same main criterion of behavior, as well as structure and history (evolution) to ascribe consciousness to other humans. There is no valid, relevant difference between humans and many species of nonhuman animals to suggest that other humans have consciousness and other animals don't.

So, if you are going to say that you can't know that the cat hates going to the vet, in order to be consider, you must say that you can't know that other humans hate anything.

Also, turin, the example with your own cat merely indicates that cats have different personalities. Call me daft, but I don't see what the point was.

THANOS

May3-04, 05:47 PM

Vance

May3-04, 06:05 PM

I like Sushi, sasimi, all sea food, I eat them daily and BEEF I eat about twice a week.
We should eat meat....:)

Vance

May3-04, 06:06 PM

I also like pork :smile:

Dissident Dan

May4-04, 01:37 AM

"our evolution" i said that because our evolution as humans have the teeth needed to chew meat. but of course our main diet is of plants, grains and fruits. Not all our teeth are sharp and big like other meat eating animals.

I did not state that to defend eating meat but to state my opinion. I myself eat little or no meat through out my day and totally avoid red meats.

I hope that you did not feel as though I was attacking you. My point was NOT regarding whether it is "natural" for humans to eat meat. My point was just to say that evolution is a blind process with no intent or purpose.

mooberrymarz

May4-04, 01:43 AM

yes. its yummy. nothing beats the taset of good meat.

turin

May4-04, 10:55 AM

Dissident Dan,
I will assume that the following quotes were in response to my post.

If you are going to use the argument that we can't know the if and what of the internal psychology of nonhumans animals, you should also realize that we can't directly know the same for humans.Did I say somewhere in my post that I knew what you were (or anyone else was) thinking? If I did, or if I said something that seemed like I did, then that was an accident.

However, there is a relevant epistemic distinction between human and non-human. Though I do agree with you that I have no direct knowledge of the internal psychology of humans, I personally feel a much more intimate connection to other humans, especially when it comes to the issue of communication. From where or why I feel this connection, I have no idea. Could I be talking to a bunch of robots, zombies, split personalities in my own mind, etc.? Of course. I have no way of ruling that out. That was not my point, though. And, if you will refer to my first post in this thread, you will see that, being in favor of eating meat, I am also in favor of eating human meat. Call me disgusting, immoral, satanic, or even inhuman, if you will, and you shall hear no disagreement from me. But PLEASE don't call me inconsistent! :smile:

We use the same main criterion of behavior, as well as structure and history (evolution) to ascribe consciousness to other humans.Speak for yourself. I'm actually quite paranoid (on a deep level) of the other possibilities that I mentioned above (I'm probably clinically insane :eek: ). I don't see how I could logically conclude that consciousness exists outside of myself.

There is no valid, relevant difference between humans and many species of nonhuman animals to suggest that other humans have consciousness and other animals don't.Yes, I agree. I hope that you don't think I was trying to argue against that.

So, if you are going to say that you can't know that the cat hates going to the vet, in order to be consider, you must say that you can't know that other humans hate anything.There is a distinction.

As a fellow human, I now that the feeling of hate exists for myself. When someone says the word "hate," I believe I know what they mean. This meaning is further supported by auxiliary context which leaves me with little doubt that other humans are also capable of the same feeling that I call "hate." Every other language that I have studied has a word for this meaning, that I have understood at first by direct translation, and in some cases later by context. This diminishes my doubt that other humans experience hate.

I have never been able to decode a complicated enough vocabulary for cats to conduct a similar analysis. While this does not prove anything, it certainly distinguishes. There is a piece of evidence with which I can make determinations regarding (most) other human psychologies that I cannot apply to the cat.

But again, this was not my point. The only point I was trying to make was that we can only assume the cat hates going to the vet, and then to extend the point further, that we can only assume that the cat is capable of hate.

russ_watters

May4-04, 02:17 PM

So, if you are going to say that you can't know that the cat hates going to the vet, in order to be consider, you must say that you can't know that other humans hate anything. You don't think the fact that you can ask other humans and get an answer is important there?

Even setting that aside, if you could ask the cat, what do you think it would say about killing a mouse for example?

Dissident Dan

May4-04, 04:30 PM

You don't think the fact that you can ask other humans and get an answer is important there?

If I accept that a) other humans are sentient and b) other humans are often honest, then I would conclude that I can determine more specifically what other humans are experiencing than I could what a cat does (If a cat is sentient, and I hold that it is) due to the more-developed human language. Our more complex languages allow me to understand more precisely the range of human experiences, if I accept that they are sentient. However, the more complex language itself is not a difference that logically is used for distinction between sentient and nonsentient in the first place.

Of course, there are times when people do not use words when I can determine pretty precisely what a person is feeling: for example, after hammering one's thumb and letting out a scream, even though the person did not use any words, I can determine that that person hurt his thumb. This is a more direct indicator than any premeditated words that came out of someone's mouth.

Even setting that aside, if you could ask the cat, what do you think it would say about killing a mouse for example?

It doesn't matter. The cat doesn't have to conform to ethical standards to be treated ethically. Ethics is not reciprocal. If the cat has the ability to experience, then the cat is rightfully deserving of ethical behavior. It is irrelevant whether or not the cat is acting in a way such that if a human acted that way, I would consider the human acting unethically, especially since the cat does not have the intelligence to understand the idea of ethicality on the level that a human does. Given that I see widespread unethicality in humans (and I still try to act ethically towards them), how could I ever expect a creature that is as comparatively simple-minded as a cat to conform?

turin

May4-04, 05:30 PM

Of course, there are times when people do not use words when I can determine pretty precisely what a person is feeling: for example, after hammering one's thumb and letting out a scream, even though the person did not use any words, I can determine that that person hurt his thumb. This is a more direct indicator than any premeditated words that came out of someone's mouth.I would agree only if you had hit your own thumb with a hammer once in your life (or had a similar inflicted injury) and you yourself had responded in a similar manner. Otherwise, you would either just think that people who hit themselves with hammers and scream are lunatics that should be locked up in pink padded rooms, or you would have to rely on your father's words of wisdom, "Don't hit your thumb with the hammer; it hurts like hell." But the latter would be relying on the "c" word.

Besides, this is not the same kind of issue, IMO. The pain from the hammer is immediate and superficial. I have very little doubt that my cat would experience a very similar (if not identical) pain if I whacked it's paw with a hammer. Thoughts, emotions, and other manner of meditated motivation are more gradual, permanent and often unrevealed.

0TheSwerve0

May4-04, 06:27 PM

You should eat meat because you want to. My moral code has nothing against meat. In fact, I have nothing against cannibalism either. So let's just have a big meat orgy.

Dissident Dan

May5-04, 12:05 AM

Besides, this is not the same kind of issue, IMO. The pain from the hammer is immediate and superficial. I have very little doubt that my cat would experience a very similar (if not identical) pain if I whacked it's paw with a hammer. Thoughts, emotions, and other manner of meditated motivation are more gradual, permanent and often unrevealed.

Emotion is more permanent? I don't think so.

Can you tell me what the difference is between these "emotions" and mere "pain" is and how it is important?

turin

May6-04, 11:29 AM

Dissident Dan,
I cannot tell you what your own opinion is. If you do not agree that hate is more permanent than the pain from a hammer, then I do not think that there is any way to convince you otherwise. My arguments are based fundamentally on introspection and subordinately on induction. If you tell me that the pain of whacking your thumb with a hammer is no different than the feeling of hate, then I must accept either that this is your truth or that you are lying. The latter is not productive to the analysis. The former is incontrovertible to me.

In short, I consider this issue intransigent.

I feel I should also add that it is not my intention to disparage your own introspection or contribution to the discussion. I am merely conceding your prerogative thereto.

Dissident Dan

May6-04, 12:08 PM

Well, usually the hate feeling subsides once the object of the hate is no longer present. Also, I wasn't referring just to hate or anger, but the range of feelings that we don't call "physical" feelings--for example, the feeling of humor that makes you laugh, which is pretty short-lived.

Obvisously, each experience has its own character, and so hitting your thumb is different from hate is different from humor is different from melancholy is different from a massage. But I have yet to see some great dividing characteristic between the two types that you laid out. From what I can tell, it's merely that we perceive one type as existing in "the body" while one is existing in "the mind". Of course, this is all an illusion, as feelings of all characters reside in the brain (have you ever heard of the "phantom pains" of people who have lost limbs?). All are subjective experiences that require a conscious entity to experience them if they are to exist.

ShawnD

May6-04, 12:40 PM

Last friday there was a rerun of Last Call with Carson Daily and Julia Styles was the guest (April 7, 2004). She said she was a vegan but gave that up because she wasn't feeling healthy and would just faint from time to time :biggrin:.

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

turin

May6-04, 12:44 PM

From what I can tell, it's merely that we perceive one type as existing in "the body" while one is existing in "the mind". Of course, this is all an illusion, ... (have you ever heard of the "phantom pains" of people who have lost limbs?). All are subjective experiences that require a conscious entity to experience them if they are to exist.I totally agree. Thus the impass. Perhaps we have different serotonin mechanisms. I am OCD. But I can't help feel a bit skeptical about the neurophysiological issue.

... feelings of all characters reside in the brain ...I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you equating the mind with the brain? What are "characters?"

motai

May6-04, 02:59 PM

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

It may, it may not. Its like slavery. Slavery was used for thousands of years and even now it is occuring in odd portions of the world even though it is widely condemned by Western society.

Then again, since most animals that are sent to slaughter are penned up, wouldn't they be considered slaves held against their own will?

Dissident Dan

May6-04, 09:16 PM

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you equating the mind with the brain? What are "characters?"

Yes, I am equating mind with brain. (I personally do not believe in any metaphysical mind.) By character, I meant "distinguising feature" (dictionary.com). You can replace "characters" with "types". I was not using a possessive "of", but an "of" that means "composed or made from".

What this all boils down to is that I do not see any significant or relevant difference to the different types of pains and pleasures. They are all subjective experiences that have (positive and/or negative) values, and there is no apparent use in dividing among "physical"/"psychological", complex/simple, or anything of the nature, except to note that it is harder to decipher some experiences than it is to decipher others through observation.

Dissident Dan

May6-04, 09:23 PM

Last friday there was a rerun of Last Call with Carson Daily and Julia Styles was the guest (April 7, 2004). She said she was a vegan but gave that up because she wasn't feeling healthy and would just faint from time to time :biggrin:.

My guess is that she wasn't eating very much at all, vegan or not. It is possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet, but they are not necessarily so, and cases like her are not the norm, judging from my own experience with myself and others whom I know. I have been vegan for 2 years, and I have not had a single problem with it. I eat a varied diet with legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains. I also take a mutlivitamin.

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

1) That question is very hard to answer. None of us know the future.
2) I am concerned with making that hypothetical a reality. As such, I want to address the question of "Should we eat meat?" in the negative in order to help make the answer to the question "Will we stop eating meat?" be positive. Rather than just wondering and waiting, I want to be active in making that future happen.
3) This is a forum for intellectual curiosity, and people will ask what questions interest them.

maximus

May8-04, 12:55 AM

I don't you think you can assume evolution intended us to eat meat. If we trace evolution backward for most primates, both on the Prosimian and Anthropoid sides, you find very little meat eating even among the hominoids. Chimps, who share 98% of our protein and DNA identity, only eat flesh occasionally.

this is true, though misleading. we followed in the footsteps of this typical primate behavious until at a given point of time not known exactly to this day, we strayed from the path of a true primate in the sence of a territorial, gathering herbavour (with the occasional taste of meat) to a carnivorous primate. it was the blending of these two lifestyles (the primates giving intelligence and territorialism and the carnivour line giving social cooperation and hierarchy) that made us who we are. NOTE: this version of the fossil record tale is a highly simplified interpretation.

hitssquad

May8-04, 12:45 PM

Yes, I am equating mind with brain.A fresh corpse may have a brain, but no mind. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the literature and discussion on reification of g (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22reification+of+g%22).

Dissident Dan

May8-04, 05:04 PM

A fresh corpse may have a brain, but no mind. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the literature and discussion on reification of g (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22reification+of+g%22).

I don't know what you are mentioning genetic correlations to intelligence for. By brain, of course I meant functioning brain. Just as a computer does not compute without electricity, neither does a brain (and there are other things, ,of course, besides electricity needed).

Anyway, I think that we are getting off track. This tangent got started when I was referring to the fact that all experiences (feelings) are psychological in nature, and there is no categorization presented that is relevant to valueing different experiences.

The moral issue rests on the ability to experience (feel). A creature with the ability to experience deserves consideration, regardless or race, species, etc. All known methods of determining sentience (not level of cognition, but just plain existence of sentience--ability to experience) do not show a difference between humans and many other animals, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and more.

hitssquad

May8-04, 10:56 PM

One (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=129926&postcount=62) cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.After all, if (http://www.google.com/search?q=if+kipling) is the middle of life.

Vance

May9-04, 04:15 AM

I am so sorry, may i ask a question as to why this thread was created and why has it lasted so long ?

I am honestly not trying spoil your fun or waning your enthusiasm for more inputs on this interesting topic, I just would like to find out a reasonable way of explaining how things are going on and to understand more about what things will get moving on later...

thank you!!!

hitssquad

May9-04, 05:45 AM

I am so sorry, may i ask a question as to why this thread was createdIt was created because of an observation of inconsistency between stated values and values put into action.

how things are going on
Dan summed it up in the contingency, "If (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=189087&postcount=167) humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience."

...And he continued stating this contingency, with:

"Well (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=191502&postcount=174), I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights. As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society. In this case, you would not see the conditional that I stated as applying, since no one really has rights in the first place.

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals."

So, as Dan says (even though he seems to have confused the word "relevant" with the word "discrete"), where we are in this thread is we have all agreed that there is no intrinsic reason not to eat meat.

what things will get moving on later...Later on, Dan will be enlightened as to the differences between adequate and optimal nutrition, and why a society and its most socially responsible members might choose the latter over the spreading of a hedonistic pact as far and as widely as possible.

hitssquad

May9-04, 06:21 AM

The moral issue rests on the ability to experience (feel). A creature with the ability to experience deserves consideration, regardless or race, species, etc.Before (here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=189087&postcount=167) and here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=191502&postcount=174)), you said that this was conditional upon rights also being granted to humans and for the reason of sentience in humans.

[rewording:]Before (here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=189087&postcount=167) and here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=191502&postcount=174)), you said that this was conditional upon rights also being granted, for the reason of their respective sentience, to humans.

All known methods of determining sentience (not level of cognition, but just plain existence of sentience--ability to experience) do not show a difference between humans and many other animals, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and more.There may not be a discrete difference between the sentience of animals and that of plants, regardless of any such being detectable by current instruments combined with current statistical technologies.

Vance

May9-04, 02:49 PM

Thanks hitssquad, :smile:
I think comparison between human and animal only comes into being when there are real technical, scientific problems that need to consider or only when we, human go mad about each other...Thinking so far and hard about this and that actually wont get you any farther than just waste your time and your mind...I love small lovely animals, I have 2 white rabbits...They are my "best friends"...lol but I never say that they are not animals. My grandfather used to raise lots of pigs, I love the black dotted one but oneday, she got sick and were to get killed. I cried the whole night.... Sounds crazie ?? Yes, it might sound crazie to some, but to others it mightnot. Eating meat or not is not a problem really, thefact out there is that Muslim people dont quite eat meat right? But they still live their lives day after day. The only real, pratical problem now is that "Can you put food on your table ? If you can, how and what way ?"
Animals can have rights if you, humans want to give them some rights. You could say animals have rights like humans do, this also means i think you already realize rights that they should have, but since we, human, are upper and highest leveled creatures, we can still get those rights back. That means animals actually have no rights, it is only because you think so, you want to make it fair and good for all animals and such a way of thinking about animal nowadays is really important and really respectable anyway. But Human is human, Animal is Animal...

Dissident Dan

May9-04, 06:55 PM

Dan summed it up in the contingency, "If (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=189087&postcount=167) humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience."

I wasn't saying that other animals having rights depends on human animals having rights. I was saying that if rights exist, both humans and animals have rights for the same reasons.
It's not humans rights->animal rights, but sentience->human rights and sentience->animal rights.
The "if" was to refer to address the fact that some people don't believe in the idea of rights at all. My whole point is that it is arbitrary discrimination to provide consideration (whether in the form of "rights" or not) to consider the interests of human animals and not of other animals.

So, as Dan says (even though he seems to have confused the word "relevant" with the word "discrete"),

No, I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

where we are in this thread is we have all agreed that there is no intrinsic reason not to eat meat.

I would be careful before putting words in others' mouths...
While there may be no intrinsic reason (because the only intrinsic values are those of experience), there are consequential reasons (ethics, health, environment--actually the health one might be considered intrinsic) not to. But that is the case with nearly everything that we don't do.

Later on, Dan will be enlightened as to the differences between adequate and optimal nutrition, and why a society and its most socially responsible members might choose the latter over the spreading of a hedonistic pact as far and as widely as possible.

It appears to me that an animal-inclusive diet cannot reach as healthy a level as a non-animal (mainly plants) diet. Adopting a vegetarian diet will generally cause a person to eat more plant sources that provide a variety of nutrients that are generally lacking in a typical western diet. Vegetarian is more optimal than meat-inclusive.

hitssquad

May9-04, 09:16 PM

It appears to me that an animal-inclusive diet cannot reach as healthy a level as a non-animal (mainly plants) diet. Adopting a vegetarian diet will generally cause a person to eat more plant sources that provide a variety of nutrients that are generally lacking in a typical western diet. Vegetarian is more optimal than meat-inclusive.There are several non-essential amino acids -- generally present in greater amounts in meat than than in vegetarian foods -- that consistently show a health-positive response in experimental animals fed these amino acids in generous quantities.

This (http://morelife.org/personal/health/dietregimen.html) life extensionist says he consumes a largely vegetarian diet in addition to a massive (http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen_text.html) supplement regimen, but that some meat added to the veggies is the best bet he can figure out presently for maximum aging-curve squaring. As you can see, he consumes small amounts of chicken, turkey, sardines, cheese, salmon, "canned meat," eggs, and it looks like probably various meats when he dines out. In addition, he daily consumes 26 grams of (probably 80% or above WPC) whey protein. (Whey protein is a byproduct of the cheese-making industry.)

Most life extensionists seem (http://groups.google.com/groups?group=sci.life-extension) to consume diets similar to that referenced above.

One potential problem with meat may be caloric density vs. non-amino-acid/non-peptide antioxidant density (there are physiologically important antioxidants in meat, such as the peptide carnosine, and the amino acids taurine and glycine). Because of this caloric density, perhaps less veggies, herbs, and spices may be consumable by a heavy meat eater during a typical day.

But, as far as general healthiness of largely meat vs. largely or completely veggie, one factor that may make a veggie diet typically healthier may be that meat is often cooked a lot longer, and hence it has a chance to oxidize and glycate (glycation is protein crosslinking; crosslinked protein is extremely biologically reactive in vivo and a contributor to biological aging, both when that protein that crosslinks is already part of the body and when it is protein consumed). Cooking meat as carefully and gently as possible, and especially in the presence of antioxidants and antiglycation agents such as the typical array of Italian and Indian spices (as well as specialty chemicals such as aminoguanidine, available from chemical supply houses).

Also, part of why meat may be less healthy may be the inexpensive way it is raised. There are specialty farms that try to raise healthier meat. Eating this meat is an option for people who may choose to spend a little more to increase the quality (and/or reduce the cruelty) of the meat they eat (or the eggs or the milk, as there are farms that specialize in healthier, less-cruel eggs and milk).

So, it is not necessarily the meat itself that makes an animal products inclusive diet less healthy, and including some meat may be a cost-effective way (a pure vegetarian could purchase (https://www2.acadia.net/cgi-bin/BAC/web_store.cgi?product=Amino_Acids) separately {though perhaps at greater cost} any chemical-factory-produced amino acids {or any of several other typical meat constituents} he might want want) to get close to an optimum anti-senescence diet/regimen.

Vance

May9-04, 11:09 PM

See the farmers from different parts of the world ?
>>>>http://www.ifap.org/develop.html
I dont like people eating any small lovely animals but if you like rabbits
>>>>http://www.pan-am.uniserve.com/pg000031.htm

Originally posted by hitssquad
Also, part of why meat may be less healthy may be the inexpensive way it is raised. There are specialty farms that try to raise healthier meat. Eating this meat is an option for people who may choose to spend a little more to increase the quality (and/or reduce the cruelty) of the meat they eat (or the eggs or the milk, as there are farms that specialize in healthier, less-cruel eggs and milk).
An example for the above quote is the following file about Chicken
>>>>www.investmongolia.com/p52.pdf

hitssquad

May10-04, 12:13 AM

An example for the above quote is the following file about Chicken (www.investmongolia.com/p52.pdf)That file appears to be an outline of an initiative to introduce ordinary factory farming practices to Mongolia. This (http://www.bunnettfamilyfarm.com/albums/chickens.html) family farm is more like what I had in mind:

We presently raise 350 free range chickens in moveable coops and are hoping to increase the number next year.

We are constantly selling out and turning customers away so if you are interested in fine tasting chicken you need to contact us early to reserve your birds.

Chickens on grass, in coops built with no floor.

Once a day the coop are moved ahead far enough to allow the chickens access to fresh grass and insects. A furniture cart is used to pull the coop ahead and the birds quickly learn to pick up their feet and move along with it.

A second cart at the rear allows the coop to roll easily. You can see the grass is well eaten each day and the birds are healthy.

The birds are put into the coops at 3 weeks and spend the next 7 weeks there. The coops are removed daily. They receive fresh water twice daily as well as non-medicated chicken feed. They average 7 lbs per bird when dressed.

However, it might be noted that "free-range" can mean a variety of different things. The above example looks like a pretty healthy chicken farm, but there reportedly have been examples of farms abusing the term "free-range". Here (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0820/n228/18523873/p1/article.jhtml) is a well-known expose on free-range farming that was published by Vegetarian Times in 1996.

russ_watters

May10-04, 12:19 AM

No, I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection. Are there any relevant differences that affect the kind of or extent of those rights?

Dissident Dan

May10-04, 04:02 AM

Are there any relevant differences that affect the kind of or extent of those rights?

Yes. In our Bill of Rights, there is listed the right to own a firearm. This obviously would not apply to a chicken.

However, the concept that we are to be free from harm as possible applies equally well to a variety of species.

hitssquad

May10-04, 05:12 AM

I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.Was the relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection established?

russ_watters

May10-04, 10:53 AM

Yes. In our Bill of Rights, there is listed the right to own a firearm. This obviously would not apply to a chicken.

However, the concept that we are to be free from harm as possible applies equally well to a variety of species. So there are differences in rights depending on the animal. Have you put any effort into defining precisely what rights apply to what animals and why (and perhaps when)?

honestrosewater

May10-04, 12:38 PM

What this all boils down to is that I do not see any significant or relevant difference to the different types of pains and pleasures. They are all subjective experiences that have (positive and/or negative) values, and there is no apparent use in dividing among "physical"/"psychological", complex/simple, or anything of the nature, except to note that it is harder to decipher some experiences than it is to decipher others through observation.

Are you opposed to vaccinations? I ask for two reasons. First, I think that "pain and pleasure" could be better characterized as "the pain/pleasure scale" or something similar. I think that sensations can be qualitatively ordered; I perceive a difference between a needle prick and a debilitating disease.
Second, there is something that seems to have been overlooked- foresight. Because I percieve a difference between a needle prick and a debilitating disease, and consider the disease to be worse, I would suffer the needle to avoid the disease. Thus I think the qualitative ordering is significant and relevant.
You have already mentioned the subjectivity of pain and pleasure, and the difficulty in inferring them objectively. But I think this difficulty is not a matter of human and nonhuman animals, or of only strict "physical" observation. Animals can have psychological and social reasons for intentionally hiding their pain and pleasure; to avoid embarrasment or save face, for instance. There is also the problem of actually making the observation. Like asking, "Can I ask you a question?", the observation itself may cause pain- how are you to discover? Living is an interaction with your environment, and, if your environment includes other nervous systems, any interaction is possibly a painful one. I don't think a person can live without running the risk of causing pain- their own or another's- that's life. (Don't you hate it when people say that? ;) However, minimizing pain is still an option, and, to me, it is the right option. But what does eating meat have to do with causing pain?
Happy thoughts
Rachel

turin

May10-04, 12:51 PM

There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.This seems to be the popular quote of the day. I will come right out and say that I disagree with this. I will initially coment on the fact that the body delegating such rights happens to be exclusively of the human animal species (as far as I can tell, though I may be a bit suspicious of some of the veggie-eaters on this board :wink: ). That, in itself, I hold to be of the utmost relevance.

I do not allow cockroaches to roam my apartment freely; I have not problem squashing them whenever I see them; I feel no moral confliction; they are not human, and, as most humans, I do not deem them appropriate for apartment life. Perhaps someday the tables will turn and the cockroaches will be squashing people who live in their garbage cans. Or perhaps even the earth is a giant intergalactic garbage can for a superior alien race who will return some day and decide that we have infested it. I don't believe that we could make a good argument to the superior race that we have the right to live in their garbage can. I've never heard a good argument from a cockroach. I would make similar arguments for other "bugs," weeds, and such.

This begs the question (at least in my mind): which other species, then, besides humans, are deserving of indistinquishable rights from humans? All of them? If there are species of life excluded from the list, then there must be a criterion.

Dissident Dan

May10-04, 02:56 PM

Was the relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection established?

Yes. It was established through establishing that they are sentient (having subjective experiences).

The most basic protections apply to every sentient creature:
Except in cases where one's actions would be harmful to others, and must thus be restricted, or in which a somewhat harmful action yields stronger benefits, freedom from bodily and psycholigical harm and inflicted death. These entail in highly mobile or communicative creatures freedom of action.

Rather than sit down and draw out a list of rights for each individual creatures, the most reasonable way to go is to understand that creatures deserve consideration, realize a basic set of interests (and the related considerations) of all or most sentient creatures, and then from there take things on a case-by-case basis where complications arise.

[quote=honestrosewater]Are you opposed to vaccinations?

Of course not, for the very reason that you said that you would suffer the needle prick. It would be dumb to only consider the immediate or first effects of an action, but all the effects, including those 125 years down the road. This is consistent with treating pleasure and pain as the values--pleasure and pain not just now, but also in the future.

This seems to be the popular quote of the day. I will come right out and say that I disagree with this. I will initially coment on the fact that the body delegating such rights happens to be exclusively of the human animal species (as far as I can tell, though I may be a bit suspicious of some of the veggie-eaters on this board :wink: ). That, in itself, I hold to be of the utmost relevance.

All that shows is that we are of superior intelligence and communicating ability, which are irrelevant. The relevant criterion to whether or not an organism deserves protection is whether or not it can experience.

It doesn't matter that we are smarter. Should the Einsteins and Da Vincis be allowed to tread all over those of normal intelligence? No. Should a normal person be allowed to tread all over a mentally-handicapped person? No.

russ_watters

May10-04, 03:07 PM

It doesn't matter that we are smarter. Should the Einsteins and Da Vincis be allowed to tread all over those of normal intelligence? No. Should a normal person be allowed to tread all over a mentally-handicapped person? No. Whoa, back up a sec: does a menally handicapped person have the same rights as a person who isn't? Think about that for a minute.

And that's even setting aside the issue of how do we know what animals (or, say, a person in a coma) experience if we can't communicate with them...

turin

May10-04, 03:10 PM

Dissident Dan,
I did not imply anything regarding the intelligence of the delegating body. The implication was more to the point of immediacy. For instance, I do not hold the members of the US congress to be more intelligent than the members of some Polynesian tribe (and probably I would hold to the contrary, but that's beside the point). However, one could argue that the members of the US congress should be more concerned with American affairs than with Polynesian afairs. For one thing, the members of the US congress are in fact American, so it just seems more appropriate to me. For another thing, the Polynesian tribe has organized itself for its own governmental purposes.

Why am I discussing politics? Because this is where I categorize the issue of whether or not to eat meat. I believe that humanity is a relevant issue for the basis of moral descrimination in the same sense that American citizenship is a relevant issue for the basis of protection under the law, taxation and such.

Dissident Dan

May10-04, 03:11 PM

Whoa, back up a sec: does a menally handicapped person have the same rights as a person who isn't? Think about that for a minute.

And that's even setting aside the issue of how do we know what animals (or, say, a person in a coma) experience if we can't communicate with them...

The smarter ones are afforded different rights and privileges, but that is not to say that the mentally-handicapped have none at all. What I was saying that intelligence doesn't matter in the yes or no question of whether we have rights, not the extent to which those rights exist. Obviously, you do not let a person with the intelligence of a dog drive a car.

I communicate with my dogs often throughout the day. I didn't say that we can't communicate with them. I said that we have greater communication skills.

turin

May10-04, 03:15 PM

Should the Einsteins and Da Vincis be allowed to tread all over those of normal intelligence? No. Should a normal person be allowed to tread all over a mentally-handicapped person? No.Why not? That's your opinion. The only reason that I believe those opinions have ever held up is the strength in numbers, and lesser intelligent beings tend to greatly out-number and thus physically overpower those of greater intelligence.

russ_watters

May10-04, 03:17 PM

The smarter ones are afforded different rights and privileges, but that is not to say that the mentally-handicapped have none at all. What I was saying that intelligence doesn't matter in the yes or no question of whether we have rights, not the extent to which those rights exist. Obviously, you do not let a person with the intelligence of a dog drive a car. So clearly, what rights we and the animals get is a complicated question. Have you worked out yet specifically what rights which animals get and why?

And backing up again... The relevant criterion to whether or not an organism deserves protection is whether or not it can experience. If I kill an animal by shooting it in the head, it will experience nothing out of the ordinary right up until the instant of death. If I give an animal an OD of morphine it will experience intense pleasure until it loses consciousness and dies.

So therefore, giving an animal an OD of morphine is a good thing to do morally and shooting one in the head has no moral implications, positive or negative, whatsoever. Right?

turin

May10-04, 03:25 PM

hitssquad

May10-04, 03:57 PM

Was the relevance of deservingness of consideration and protection established?Yes. It was established through establishing that they are sentient (having subjective experiences).The concept of deservingness (meritoriousness, worthiness) does not have anything intrinsically to do with sentience. This thread revolves around the concept of inalienable deservingness. Was the relevance of the concept of inalienable deservingness established?

Averagesupernova

May10-04, 05:20 PM

russ_waters,
Even if what you do to an organism does not cause negative experience, I believe one could make a swift argument that, by terminating the existence of an entity, and thus probably terminating its ability to experience, you are eliminating any potential future good experience, and that should be weighed together with life-expectancy and such.

Turin, I am not necessarily singling you out, just want to make a point. Isn't it a little rediculous to use the argument of possibly elimintating a potential future good experience here? First of all, 'good experience' is a matter of opinion. And if we all thought that way we wouldn't lock people in prison because we might eliminate a possilbe future 'good experience'.

I place a certain amount of value on life in general, but when we all start thinking like dissident dan we will have to change the laws so that given a choice of hitting a dog or a pedestrian with a vehicle in an accident (it HAS happened) we could choose to hit the human being and save the dog with no consequences.

Dissident Dan

May10-04, 06:04 PM

So clearly, what rights we and the animals get is a complicated question. Have you worked out yet specifically what rights which animals get and why?

So therefore, giving an animal an OD of morphine is a good thing to do morally and shooting one in the head has no moral implications, positive or negative, whatsoever. Right?

Read turin's response.

The concept of deservingness (meritoriousness, worthiness) does not have anything intrinsically to do with sentience. This thread revolves around the concept of inalienable deservingness. Was the relevance of the concept of inalienable deservingness established?

Well, experience is the only the of instrinsic value. To be ethical, one should give consideration to things of value. Because sentient creatures have intrinsic value (indeed, the only intrinsic value), if anything deserves consideration, they do.

If these creatures deserve consideration, then, ethically, we should give them that consideration. If we give them due consideration, we will see that it is unjustified to eat them under normal circumstances.

hitssquad

May10-04, 10:24 PM

Well, experience is the only [thing] of instrinsic value.It seems that we have yet to establish that anything can be intrinsically valuable.

But if sentience (as the readiness to experience) is to be taken as our most valued thing, as with any valued thing in general, we must then decide what balance of quantity and quality of sentience we wish to strive for. To maximize quantity, at one extreme we might maximize the total population of sentient fundaments (individual sentient creatures) without consideration as to quality of that sentience. To do this, we would have to decide where sentience begins and ends. As this author pointed out before, we have yet to establish that a threshold for sentience exists below which plants must surely fall. And if plants instead turn out to possess some rudimentary level of sentience (that cannot be discretely separated from that of animals), then perhaps rocks and astronomical objects also possess some even-more rudimentary -- but, importantly, still existent and not discretely separable from those of plants and animals -- levels of sentience.

And if, at the other extreme, we decided to maximize quality, to effect this we might rank sentience (again, capacity to experience) among classes of sentient fundaments (creatures). For ranking purposes, we might equate sentience with general intelligence, or with the psychological construct known as field independence, or with some general factor of sentience that might be a distillation of intelligence and field independence, the latter two perhaps being its next-most-important primary factors. Maximizing quality of sentience might then involve launching a sentience-amplification campaign, of which Raymond Cattell's Beyondism (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beyondismscience/) might be viewed as an appropriate example. Population strategy would then ultimately follow from the primary goal of producing creatures sentiently higher.

But, on this note, as the philosopher James R. Flynn has observed (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beyondismscience/files/Beyondism%20writings/How%20to%20Defend%20Humane%20Ideals%20--%20Substitutes%20for%20Objectivity/):

If all that matters is producing a higher species, one a quantum leap beyond our own in terms of intelligence and scientific expertise, it should make no difference who they are, or what they are, or where they are. Cattell says we should liquidate our own species in favor of a higher one. If a higher species visited earth and needed our space, would he [Cattell] say we ought to conspire in our own demise? There would be no biological continuity between humanity and them, but surely that is morally irrelevant. They would have done us the favor of providing a short cut to our goal: we could make way for them now rather than wait thousands of years to evolve into something like them.

turin

May11-04, 10:09 AM

Isn't it a little rediculous to use the argument of possibly elimintating a potential future good experience here?No.

... 'good experience' is a matter of opinion.I disagree. There is a difference between opinion and introspection. Good experience is a matter of introspection. There is no distinction between subjectivity and objectivity in this case because it is inherently self-contained and not subject to empiricism of any kind that I can think of.

And if we all thought that way we wouldn't lock people in prison because we might eliminate a possilbe future 'good experience'.You are oversimplifying. I believe incarceration supports the argument that I posted. It may eliminate a certain amount of future good experience for the prisoner, but the idea is to prevent future bad experience for the rest of society. It's a trade-off, and that is the basis for the system.

... when we all start thinking like dissident dan we will have to change the laws so that given a choice of hitting a dog or a pedestrian with a vehicle in an accident (it HAS happened) we could choose to hit the human being and save the dog with no consequences.I'm not so sure this should be linked to Dissident Dan, but, at any rate, so what? Why should a human always receive preferential treatment? I don't think that I would ever chose to hit a person with my car for the simple reason of avoiding a dog, but I can think of reasons that I would want to hit a person with my car. I don't believe I would ever want to hit a dog with my car.

pace

May11-04, 12:53 PM

Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1823 :

The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor.* It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

Also animals have to eat 21kg(42 pounds) of proteins to get 1kg proteins in their meat. So 90% of the world's protein are lost in this way. (from Frances Moore's Diet for a small planet p. 4-11)

The cruelty are admitted only when the profitability is over. - Ruth Harrison

russ_watters

May11-04, 02:57 PM

Read turin's response.
russ_waters,
Even if what you do to an organism does not cause negative experience, I believe one could make a swift argument that, by terminating the existence of an entity, and thus probably terminating its ability to experience, you are eliminating any potential future good experience, and that should be weighed together with life-expectancy and such. So in order to decide if a living thing has a right to life, we have to weigh the potential for good/bad experiences? Well, ok - in the animal kingdom, animals typically have short lives with brutal deaths...

For humans, Americans and westerners have far and away a higher standard of living than those in Africa, middle east, and Asia. So you're saying that an American has more of a right to life than an African?

Heck, even if you want to argue the nebulous concept of "experiences," humans far and away have more/better than the animals for obvious reasons (my cat will never earn enough money to buy a decent car, nor even get to read Shakespeare).

Dan, this is the theory of rights you buy into? That's pretty sick. You guys think that giving rights to animals brings them up to the level of humans. In reality, your line of reasoning is reducing humans to the level of animals. We are better and you guys (even if you don't want to admit it) know it.

Guys, you really need to read some theory of rights. Humans don't have rights subjectively based on the value others measure in their lives (actually, Dan, now I'm starting to realize why you think slavery is relevant here: that's part of its justification).

Humans have rights because they are human.

That's the fundamental axiom on which human rights are based. Good experience is a matter of introspection. Which animals have this capacity? I thought we already covered the fact that a housecat does not have the capacity to understand that an immunization is a good thing. Children don't have the same rights as adults for precisely this reason. Why should a human always receive preferential treatment? I don't think that I would ever chose to hit a person with my car for the simple reason of avoiding a dog, but I can think of reasons that I would want to hit a person with my car. I don't believe I would ever want to hit a dog with my car. Wow. That's pretty sick. Now you're saying that animals are better than humans. Again, humans are different/better than animals and you guys know it.

This question remains unanswered: Have you worked out yet specifically what rights which animals get and why? You have directly acknowledged that different humans get different rights: Extend it to animals.

For example, would any animals get the right to vote? (btw, driving is a privelege, not a right). A dolphin can punch a ballot sheet and a chimp can do sign language. Should they get the right to vote? Why or why not?

russ_watters

May11-04, 03:30 PM

Its much needed, so I'm going to start linking this thread to the philosophy of rights as seen by those who created our modern version. Its important and I don't think you guys have ever seen it (and I need a refresher).

What you guys are describing is actually very similar to Hobbes idea in Leviathan, the first major, modern, western work on rights (1651). HERE (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/242/242-sup-hobbes.htm) is a synopsis. Everyone in the state of nature has the right to anything that they take to be beneficial to them. This sounds like it is the driving concept behind the ideas expressed in this thread. Problem: the "state of nature" is anarchy. From Leviathan: ...the life of man [in the state of nature would be] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. As a matter of fact, that is very much like life in the animal kingdom is and very much the way life was for humans before civilizations arose.

Hobbes believed that the way to get out of the "state of nature" was through a "social contract" - constitutions of democratic nations are a form of this. Here's where Hobbes starts to differ from more modern interpretations - he says natural rights only exist in the "state of nature" - When people entered into a social contract, they gave up almost all natural rights in exchange for the security offered by the sovereign [ruler]. To some extent, rights are given up in exchange for security in modern goverments, however what Hobbes doesn't include is the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of the citizens or that humans fundamentally have rights. The only right he identifies as a requirement to keep is the right to defend your life (notice: that is not the same as the right to life itself).

Again, Hobbes is the earliest form of modern rights and our theories have evolved somewhat since then, but I think this is enough for now.

Dissident Dan

May11-04, 07:33 PM

I have read enough Hobbes, Locke, and the like. I am challenging the traditional view, so why would I necessarily accept what some prejudiced person from centuries ago said?

I do not buy into the "Humans have rights because they are human." line. It is still subject to the question, "Why?", as I mentioned in a previous post.

Not only would it be cumbersome to determine the value of individuals' lives, but in most cases impossible, and it would inevitably result in resentment. The only viable solution is to afford equality of treatment when the differences are not too great or not known or when acknowledging differences would result in resentment or other negative consequences.

Equality of consideration is key.

russ_watters

May12-04, 03:38 PM

I have read enough Hobbes, Locke, and the like. I am challenging the traditional view, so why would I necessarily accept what some prejudiced person from centuries ago said? Fair enough. In that case you really have a whole ton of work to do if you want to invent a new branch of philosophy. If you ever write a book though, I'll buy it.I do not buy into the "Humans have rights because they are human." line. It is still subject to the question, "Why?", as I mentioned in a previous post. I tend to agree, but... Not only would it be cumbersome to determine the value of individuals' lives, but in most cases impossible...

The only viable solution is to afford equality of treatment when the differences are not too great or not known or when acknowledging differences would result in resentment or other negative consequences. You just answered your own question: Since clearly we cannot judge quality of life, we must assume that life itself is sacrosanct. That is precisely why "humans have rights because they are human." The U.S. Declaration of Independence (more a philosophical statement than anything else) says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "Self-evident."

What I am trying to impress upon you is that the differences between animals and humans make it not self-evident that the same rights should apply to them. Just saying the differences are irrelevant isn't enough: you could seriously fill a book with an analysis of the differences between humans and chimps that affect the way rights could be applied assuming we wanted to apply them.

jimmy p

May12-04, 07:45 PM

I'm voting yes to meat. Handy now that in today's society it is such a big debate. The only reason we dont eat meat is because we have developed substitutes. Take technology back 150 years or so and I doubt anyone would debate this. We should eat meat because there are some chemicals that substitutes wont provide. Besides, our ancestors ate meat, they HUNTED for meat. But yes they also ate their greens as well, basically anything they can find. We arent omnivores because we dont eat detritus and stuff. I just think that meat IS an important part of the diet. If not then we would be herbivorous.

Dissident Dan

May12-04, 11:09 PM

You just answered your own question: Since clearly we cannot judge quality of life, we must assume that life itself is sacrosanct. That is precisely why "humans have rights because they are human."

But being alive does not mean anything of moral significance. A bacterium is alive, but there is no moral signficance to what happens to it, precisely because it is not sentient. If we are going to make generalizations, it should be at the level of sentience, not life.

You made no justification for your leap from life being the criterion to being human being the criterion.

What I am trying to impress upon you is that the differences between animals and humans make it not self-evident that the same rights should apply to them. Just saying the differences are irrelevant isn't enough: you could seriously fill a book with an analysis of the differences between humans and chimps that affect the way rights could be applied assuming we wanted to apply them.

And you can fill a book with the differences between a man and his father. I have made my point several times. While the rights deemed appropriate for humans and chimpanzees might differ, the most basic protections--right to not have suffering unnecessarily inflicted or pleasure unnecessarily restricted--apply to both. As both have the ability to experience, both should have these protections.

Dissident Dan

May14-04, 03:32 AM

Even without the idea of rights, the ethical argument against eating meat is sound.

1. Animals have the capacities for joy and for suffering
2. Modern animal production causes the animals great suffering
3. Suffering has negative value which is in proportion to the degree of suffering
4. Ethically, one should not knowingly cause conditions of large negative value
5. Therefore, it is not ethical to eat meat.

hitssquad

May14-04, 03:58 AM

3. Suffering has negative value which is in proportion to the degree of sufferingThis might be the case in a given system of ethics. Since any given thing might be commanded to have negative value in any given system of ethics, commanding it so, as part of a syllogism, does not make that syllogism a sound ethical argument for anything -- it just makes it a tautology.

4. Ethically, one should not knowingly cause conditions of large negative valueNegative ethical value, within any given system of ethics, is -- by definition -- unethical. Therefore, #4 is a tautology by itself.

Dissident Dan

May14-04, 04:41 AM

This might be the case in a given system of ethics. Since any given thing might be commanded to have negative value in any given system of ethics, commanding it so, as part of a syllogism, does not make that syllogism a sound ethical argument for anything -- it just makes it a tautology.

Perhaps you hadn't joined the threat when I earlier made the case:

From post #228 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201181&postcount=228) on page 12
Why can we say that something is good or bad? On what basis? For pretty much everything you say, one can always ask, "Why?" with no end in sight. For example

-"Because they're human"-> "Why does that matter? (So?)"
-"It's not honorable"-> "Why not?"
-"Because it's your own kind"->"Why does that matter?"
-"Because we can reason"->"Why is that relevenat? (So?)"
-"Because god said so"->"Why does that matter?" or "Why did god?" (this is also based on pure faith)

However, there is one stopping point: Experience (pain and pleasure). We all know the goodness of the experience of pleasure and the badness of the experience of pain through experiencing them. This goodness and badness cannot be explained in words, because of the limits on language. Experience cannot be explained; we can only accept or assume a common experience and assign a label to it.

This is not to say that one can know that an event or action is good or bad because an experience "told me so." The experience cannot directly tell you external facts. What you can learn from the experience is the quality of the experience itself. The goodness of pleasure and the badness of pain are qualities of experience. Thus, you can know their goodness and badness.

This is not to say, "Seek out your own pleasure, and worry about nothing else". There is no reason to say that there is necessarily any more value in myself having an experience than some other being having the experience. Therefore, we must, if we are to be ethical (seeking to maximize goodness and minimize badness), consider the interests of all (sentient) beings. This only lays the basis of ethics, and leaves wide open the question of how to consider, protect, or optimize the interests of all, other than the fact that it must be consequentialist (which you could form a deontology with the understanding that the establishment of these deontological rules has positive consequences [how's that for a kick in the pants?]).

Negative ethical value, within any given system of ethics, is -- by definition -- unethical. Therefore, #4 is a tautology by itself.

I was just trying to be pretty explicit and clear. Having a million tautologies doesn't make an argument unsound (it would just make it exceedingly long).

hitssquad

May14-04, 05:37 AM

This might be the case in a given system of ethics.Perhaps you hadn't joined the threatI have read the entire thread.

when I earlier made the case:What you made sounded like the Utilitarian hypothesis. That is why I labelled one of my posts (and it was one you replied to; #263 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=206027&postcount=263)) Interspecies hedonics.

From post #228 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=201181&postcount=228) on page 12Which page it is on depends upon the posts-per-page display settings in your user control panel. Post #228 of this thread is on page 6, for me.

Why can we say that something is good or bad?... there is one stopping point: Experience (pain and pleasure).And if you could not think of any other answers, the one answer you thought of must be the one, universal Right Answer. There are world-class puzzle inventors who have been regularly shown alternate solutions to puzzles they had previously advertized as having only one solution. I have spent some time reading through the classic puzzle books, and have noticed quite a few of these "a reader informs me that in fact" cases.

Therefore, we must, if we are to be ethicalYou failed to demonstrate that within the science of Ethics -- as opposed to within all other hard sciences -- there can be only one viable system in all possible milieus. Does the following make sense?:

"Therefore, we must, if we are to be physical, assume that acceleration from gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared in all places and at all times."
Or

"Therefore, we must, if we are to be chemical, assume that hydrogen dioxide is a liquid in all places and at all times."

Dissident Dan

May14-04, 07:33 PM

What you made sounded like the Utilitarian hypothesis. That is why I labelled one of my posts (and it was one you replied to; #263 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=206027&postcount=263)) Interspecies hedonics.

My case was to establish what real values are, not to establish an entire framework within which to protect those values (which is where utilitarianism, deontology, and non-utilitarian consequentialism fall). As specific as I got was to say that the system must be consequentialist, which may be utilitarian or not. Utilitarian rests on the ability to trade values. I made no claim regarding whether trading should be done. I also don't see the close relationship between utilitarianism and hedonism that your post relies on.

And if you could not think of any other answers, the one answer you thought of must be the one, universal Right Answer. There are world-class puzzle inventors who have been regularly shown alternate solutions to puzzles they had previously advertized as having only one solution.

My claim was not just that there is no known other value, but that there cannot be, because anything other than relying on knowledge of experience logically leads to an ad infinitum, which means that there is no basis upon which the truth of the claim could rest.

At the very least, even if one doesn't accept experience as the sole value, accepting it as a value should be enough to warrant not eating meat. The intense negative experience inflicted upon billions of animals at any given time is unjustifiable, ethically.

You failed to demonstrate that within the science of Ethics -- as opposed to within all other hard sciences -- there can be only one viable system in all possible milieus.

What I said follows from the definition of ethics and the establishment of the value of experience.

jimmy p

May15-04, 07:02 PM

i read somewhere that cows enjoy being slaughtered.

ShawnD

May15-04, 07:16 PM

I also heard that all animals are against humans, and that a cow will kill a man the first chance it gets! (Simpsons)

Dissident Dan

May17-04, 03:09 PM

Seriously, I think that I've made the case rather well. There are several reasons why it is better to not eat meat: better health, ethical behavior towards animals, and environmental concerns.

russ_watters

May17-04, 11:59 PM

Seriously, I think that I've made the case rather well. There are several reasons why it is better to not eat meat: better health, ethical behavior towards animals, and environmental concerns. Either way, not a lot of people are buying it.

Your argument isn't bad, but I think its flawed. And the total omission of practical concerns (do monkeys get the right to vote? Cats...?) is a big issue.

Dissident Dan

May18-04, 03:59 AM

Well, this title isn't entitled "animal rights", so I was trying to stick to food.
As far as practical concerns go, rules that restrict the suffering and killing of animals are good. No one, human or otherwise, should have to go through what animals go through in most of US animal agriculture or animal experiments.

What are the argument's flaws?

pace

May29-04, 09:44 PM

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=chew_on_this

Växan

May30-04, 02:18 PM

i've been a vegetarian since birth, originally a lacto-vegetarian (milk products) and now a vegan for 7 years, ever since reasonable substitute soya products were made available in Sweden

the range of soya products is quite impressive now, with meat substitutes that look like the real thing, although i have no idea what meat tastes like, im told it's quite close, and milk, icecream and cheese substitutes that are almost like the real thing, but more like a different thing that is just as good

i think it's a waste of time trying to convert meat eaters into vegans

most meat eaters are as addicted to meat as heroin addicts are addicted to heroin

so the effort is futile

also no one likes being preached at

how many vegans would tolerate someone trying to convert them into becoming meat eaters?

the fact that arable land is disapearing at a rate of 1 Hectare every 7 seconds
due to world population growth increasing at 2,74 persons per second

means that it's now more expensive to feed grain to wildstock for meat
than to consume the grain directly - and this situation is only getting worse every second

with 6 379 557 400 humans on the planet and only 1,7 Hectares of arable land availabe per person worldwide

it's only a matter of time before the cost of producing meat becomes commercially unviable,
fish populations are declining due to over-fishing
and soon many speces will become commercially unviable

so in the end... the majority of humans will become vegetarians by default
(whether they like it or not) since only hunters and fishermen will have access to meat (yes fish is meat)

so, philosophy and ethics aside - the question is academic

jeffceth

May30-04, 03:11 PM

I'm a meat-eater and I'm hardly addicted to meat. For purely health concerns I eat much less of it than other people(I can do with less animal fats in my diet), but it's also a good source of protein and many other good things. In my mind, as long as the slaughtering is done humanely, there's no philosophical problems. What, after all, would be the difference between an animal that lives and dies for my benefit and a plant that does? What about small organisms such as bacteria? My body kills those all the time in order to survive. How about insects? Every time a drive a car I'm taking out thousands of them. Everything in nature kills other organisms of one form or another. The animals I eat have no demonstrated sentience or consciousness. Although I have no problems with anyone who chooses to be a vegetarian or a vegan, I'm personally convinced that death is a part of life.

sincerely,
jeffceth

Dissident Dan

May30-04, 08:01 PM

Växan

May31-04, 09:21 AM

there is no evidence against all life being sentient

how can anyone know if insects, micro organisms and plant life are sentient or not? they communicate in ways very different from humans

i have no doubt that all animals are sentient

anyone who has ever tried to catch a fly is aware that they think and react as a sentient being

everything that lives seems to operate with a purpose, and also are aware of their own existence since they work very hard to defend it

plants 'seem' to be inanimate, however if you view them in time-lapse photography they are quite animated - they just move slower than we do

they derive their nutrition from sunlight and nitrogen in the soil (thanks to bacteria) so they don't need to run around on legs to find food like hysterical animals do

there are living trees that are 1000's of years old!
have they become wise? it's impossible to know

it's true that death is a part of life (nature's way of preventing overpopulation)

some geneticists are desparately trying to find the elusive 'death gene', hoping to switch it off in humans

most humans view themselves as above all other life
somehow more worthy of life than others

i wonder if this view would hold - if humans had a better understanding of non-human intelligence

what if Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales (for example) are more intelligent than humans?

i think they're very aware of our intelligence

Tom McCurdy

May31-04, 09:58 AM

I am too mad at the idea of becomming vegan to type out a logical response that would not insult the people who want to become vegans, so let me say this. I agree with SelfAdjoint... I don't care if people don't want to eat meat, thats fine with me if you want to deprive yourself of needed foods and natural insticts. However don't instill your beliefs on an entire community.

Ah screw trying to be nice
Here are some reasons
1. Natural Instict --
2. Jobs--
3. Meat just tastes so Damn good
4. You obviously have never had Makani
5. Over population of Animals
6. I imagine some natrualist could come up with some study saying it would have devesating effects on the plant kingdom
7. (see number 3)
8. What would we do with massive corperations who sell meat
9. Certain people need meat in their diet to survive becasue of a medical condition
10. Try telling the world they can't eat meat
11. Try telling me you can't eat meat
12. What would hunters do with the prey they catch.
13. What will i do without the occational Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger
14. What the hell tastes good by itself that is just plants....
15. Ahhhh no meat

Tom McCurdy

May31-04, 10:03 AM

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=chew_on_this

watched it was predictable
tryed to play off emotions

hmm I think i will go eat a hamburger with bacon

pace

May31-04, 11:42 AM

If america would eat 10% less meat per year it would give 12 million tons more grain to feed 60 million hungry people, because domestic animals need to eat much more protein in form of grain and soya-beans etc. That's just one reason in itself alone.

Växan

May31-04, 04:41 PM

Americans eat far too much protein (http://www.notmilk.com/forum/979.html) < read the hyperlink

in fact 175% the recommended amount

even worse: animal protein is by far the most unhealthy protein a human can eat, containing massive amounts of saturated fats and cholesterol
which cause heart disease and death for millions of meat eaters

soya protein is the most healthy, with absolutely zero cholesterol
and zero saturated fat

an average adult needs only 30 grams of protein per day
equal to 1 liter of milk

soya beans contain more protein by weight than meat

1 liter of milk contains 34 grams of protein
1 liter of soya milk contains 37 grams of protein (vegetable protein)

a recent study has found that the thinnest and healthiest people in the world eat the least protein and the most carbohydrates

the same study found that the fattest people in the world ate the most protein and the least carbohydrates

many people in the west live under the myth that a high protein diet is best
and that only meat can provide protein

both of which are completely untrue

energia

May31-04, 05:24 PM

Ah screw trying to be nice
Here are some reasons
1. Natural Instict --

the natural instinct to be fat?

it seems to be a Natural Instinct for humans to kill each other as well
so why not hunt humans for food?

2. Jobs--

you mean the death industries?
if people stopped using crack, crack dealers would be out of a job as well

3. Meat just tastes so Damn good

soy meat tastes the same, so what's the difference?

4. You obviously have never had Makani

Makani is a location in Hawaii

5. Over population of Animals

there is no over population of animals, if anything there is an under population
of most species, however there is a huge over population of humans

there are 6400 Million humans on a planet that can only support 2000 Million

6. I imagine some natrualist could come up with some study saying it would have devesating effects on the plant kingdom

on the contrary, more plant life is consumed by animals which are slaughtered for meat than by any other animals

if these animals were no longer over bred for meat, the amount of plant life consumed would be reduced dramatically

7. (see number 3)

see answer number 3

8. What would we do with massive corperations who sell meat

I assume you mean Corporations (not corperations)
meat industries could easily become soy industries

9. Certain people need meat in their diet to survive becasue of a medical condition
meat causes critical medical conditions, it's does not prevent them

10. Try telling the world they can't eat meat

a huge percentage of the world already does not eat meat

11. Try telling me you can't eat meat

why should anyone bother?

12. What would hunters do with the prey they catch.

the same thing they do with it now, stuff it and hang it on the wall

13. What will i do without the occational Jr. Bacon Cheeseburger

..become more healthy

14. What the hell tastes good by itself that is just plants....

bread, fruit, rice, beans, pasta, vegetables
and soy meat tastes the same as real meat

15. Ahhhh no meat

you have meat, so what's the problem?
keep eating meat if that's what makes you happy

jeffceth

Jun1-04, 11:05 AM

The difference is sentience. I'm curious why you would say that animals don't exhibit any sort of sentience. As an animal myself, I attest to my own sentience. [;)] In all my dealings with animals, all my knowledge of their bioloical systems and how they compare to my own, and all my knowledge of evolution, I have seen/read/heard nothing but evidence for their sentience.

I think you need a better understanding of what sentience is. It's not the ability to live or to move around. It's not the existence of a central nervous system. It's the state of being aware. Animals are not aware. They're just one big stimulus-response mechanism. They are incapable of communicating with humans(compare this with the very small amount of time it takes humans from a newly-discovered tribe with a new language to learn to communicate). They don't exhibit any form of self-expression that would compare to our writing or art. They don't advance (do things no other of their species hasn't done before) on their own. These are all things that would be required of, say, a computer before it would be considered sentient and even then there would be no guarantee since these things can be mimicked. However, in animals we don't even see mimicking of these types of things to any real degree. Animals are not sentient unless you re-define it to your own ends.

That doesn't mean we should abuse them or anything, but it does mean we should have no qualms about eating them.

sincerely,
jeffceth

jeffceth

Jun1-04, 11:21 AM

there is no evidence against all life being sentient

You realise this statement is false if there is even one iota of evidence against all life being sentient? If you wanted a position you had a chance of supporting, you should have said that there was insufficient evidence against all life being sentient. You've shown that you're less interested in coming to a logical conclusion than simply being right.

how can anyone know if insects, micro organisms and plant life are sentient or not? they communicate in ways very different from humans

Humans in Papua New Guinea communicate very differently from humans in North America, but when a new tribe is discovered with a new language the lines of communciation are established very, very quickly.

i have no doubt that all animals are sentient

anyone who has ever tried to catch a fly is aware that they think and react as a sentient being

Anyone who reads this statement is aware that you don't understand what sentient means. A robot can react as efficiently or more efficiently than a fly. I can write a computer program in a matter of minutes that would mimick any insect alive. Having an instinct for evasion is no basis for sentience.

everything that lives seems to operate with a purpose, and also are aware of their own existence since they work very hard to defend it

Working to defend one's existence does not show awareness either. As robotics become more and more complex, they will almost definitely be programmed to defend their existence at least to a certain extent, so that they last longer and thus are more efficient at what they do. From an evolutionary point of view, basically everything that is alive today had to by definition work to defend its existence or it wouldn't be around. Self-preservation is not any reason for sentience.

plants 'seem' to be inanimate, however if you view them in time-lapse photography they are quite animated - they just move slower than we do

they derive their nutrition from sunlight and nitrogen in the soil (thanks to bacteria) so they don't need to run around on legs to find food like hysterical animals do

there are living trees that are 1000's of years old!
have they become wise? it's impossible to know

This is a point for me, not for you. If you eat plants even though you think they could be aware, why not eat animals? The logical gap in your thinking is astounding.

it's true that death is a part of life (nature's way of preventing overpopulation)

some geneticists are desparately trying to find the elusive 'death gene', hoping to switch it off in humans

There need not be any 'death gene.' Things naturally tend toward corruption and aging over the course of their existence due to the law of entropy.

most humans view themselves as above all other life
somehow more worthy of life than others

Or just as sentient, and science seems to back us up on that one.

i wonder if this view would hold - if humans had a better understanding of non-human intelligence

what if Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales (for example) are more intelligent than humans?

Then you'd think they'd figure out a way to defeat the whalers and fishermen who hunt them. Even a basic manoeuvre like getting a big group together and attacking one of the boats, pushing on one side and tipping it over or something. But no, they don't.

i think they're very aware of our intelligence
Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, of course.

Everything I pointed out in my reply to Dissident Dan applies equally here. The basic 'symptoms' that would be required to demonstrate the sentience of any computer or robot are lacking in animals. Even if you claim that's only a tiny iota of evidence, your original position that there is no evience whatsoever against all life being sentient has been disproven.

Also, even if all life were sentient, there are many, many animals who eat other animals. Why shouldn't we? Take bears, for example. Their anatomy is such that they could survive only on vegetable matter. But they choose to eat meat(if we believe they are sentient). So does every other carnivorous animal in the world. If they, as sentient beings, could justify it to themselves, why can't we as sentient beings do the same thing?

sincerely,
jeffceth

Dissident Dan

Jun1-04, 11:35 AM

jeffceth

Jun1-04, 11:50 AM

By sentient, I mean having the ability for subjective experience (feeling, emotion). All the animals that we generally think of can experience and are aware. There is no relevant difference between humans and other animals when looking for evidence of the basic quality of sentience. Our emotions are more related to the "lower" parts of our brains (such as the hypothalamus and the rest of the limbic system) that all animals from fish to reptiles to amphibians to birds to mammals have, rather than our enlarged neocortexes.

The emotions have never been isolated to a specific part of the brain, and even more importantly, people who have had these parts of their brain lost or damaged, ie through hydroencephalopathy, have still exhibited emotions, communication, etc.

I do not understand why you say that other species cannot communicate with us, have no forms of self-expression, and don't advance. I communicate with my dogs on a regular basis.

Has your 'communication' ever branched into discussing something you'd never discussed before through the dog's initiation? If not, it's more than likely you've just conditioned one specific type of stimulus-response.

Apes have been taught sign language.

Sure they have. I've seen the 'communication' of koko the gorrila and others. The vast majority of the scientific community is of the opinion that the communication lies in the sign-language interpreter. Have you read any of the transcripts? Sometimes koko says something like 'nipple' and the interpetery says she's thinking of the rhyming word 'people' and ould like to welcome everyone. It's just wishful thinking.

Those who research apes in the wild have discovered technological differences between different groups of the same species (advancement).

I have never heard of any species acting different in a technological sense except by environmental constraints, ie can't use straws to catch termites when you lack either straws or termites, etc. If you have any actual information other than this vague assertion, feel free to post it and I'll consider it. However, it seems to me that this type of thing would have been groundbreaking enough that I would have heard about it.

Everything animals that I have had contact with do is evidence of their awareness. They have understanding of what is pleasant and painful to them, and they protect themselves. They have understanding of their environment. They react to different people and different situations in different ways.

There is no evidence that they have understandings of these things simply because they do them. I can create a computer program which would mimick the behaviour of any of the simpler animals or even an entirely new species of my own creation which would respond differently or positive and negative stimulus, adapt to its environment, protect itself and its progeny, etc. Yet most people would agree that such a computer program would not be sentient.

Intelligence is not the important criterion. The ability to experience (sentience) is the important criterion. Sure, humans are obviously able to learn faster, but that is not relevant. If it was, then we should not care about severely mentally-handicapped people, right?
Severely mentally-handicapped people still exhibit a much higher level of intelligence than animals. They learn to communicate with language, learn new things, express themselves, etc. You'd be surprised at the depth and abilities of the severely handicapped. They're much more advanced than animals.

sincerely,
jeffceth

Växan

Jun1-04, 01:56 PM

You realise this statement is false if there is even one iota of evidence against all life being sentient? If you wanted a position you had a chance of supporting, you should have said that there was insufficient evidence against all life being sentient. You've shown that you're less interested in coming to a logical conclusion than simply being right.

you seem to be more concerned with winning an argument than i am

i would rather raise some good questions, than claim to have all the answers

Humans in Papua New Guinea communicate very differently from humans in North America, but when a new tribe is discovered with a new language the lines of communciation are established very, very quickly.

this is an illiogical analogy, of course humans can adapt to other languages
humans are designed to use language for communication

other lifeforms may use chemical changes to communicate
or ultrasound, or complex low frequency oscillations, the possibilities are endless

Anyone who reads this statement is aware that you don't understand what sentient means.

im quite aware of what sentient means

here is the definition:

sentient

adj 1: endowed with feeling and consciousness, self awareness

so what part don't you understand?

A robot can react as efficiently or more efficiently than a fly. I can write a computer program in a matter of minutes that would mimick any insect alive. .

no, you can't... and you insult our intelligence by claiming that you can

robotics are not up to the level of the most retarded insect
even the robotics group at MIT can't match the abilities of a common housefly

Working to defend one's existence does not show awareness either.

prove it

This is a point for me, not for you. If you eat plants even though you think they could be aware, why not eat animals? The logical gap in your thinking is astounding.

i am not a vegetarian for philosophical reasons
animal protein is unhealthy and vegetable protein is not

it's also possible to live on fruit and fruit vegetables without killing plants

There need not be any 'death gene.' Things naturally tend toward corruption and aging over the course of their existence due to the law of entropy.

the population inversion of energy states in a laser violates entropy, therefore entropy is not a law

Or just as sentient, and science seems to back us up on that one.
what science are you refering to specifically?

Then you'd think they'd figure out a way to defeat the whalers and fishermen who hunt them. Even a basic manoeuvre like getting a big group together and attacking one of the boats, pushing on one side and tipping it over or something. But no, they don't.

you obviously have never studied the history of whaling
whales have capsized ships

and dolphins are not an agressive species
humans are *******s by nature

i think they're very aware of our intelligence
Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, of course.

what evidence? post the scientific evidence to the contrary here

Everything I pointed out in my reply to Dissident Dan applies equally here. The basic 'symptoms' that would be required to demonstrate the sentience of any computer or robot are lacking in animals.

the most powerful computer on the planet does not even approach 1% the potential brain power of a rat

Also, even if all life were sentient, there are many, many animals who eat other animals. Why shouldn't we? Take bears, for example. Their anatomy is such that they could survive only on vegetable matter. But they choose to eat meat(if we believe they are sentient). So does every other carnivorous animal in the world. If they, as sentient beings, could justify it to themselves, why can't we as sentient beings do the same thing?

animals play, as humans play, and the act of playing clearly demonstrates that they are indeed sentient

humans measure everything by their own standards
but humans in truth are neither capable of self understanding
nor mutual understanding of their fellow humans

your case for justifying the exploitation of animals as food
is based on the statement - if it's ok for animals to eat other animals
and animals are sentient, therefore it's ok for humans to eat animals

humans are the only animal which hunts to extinction
and especially just for sport
the only animal which force breeds and genetically modifies other species
for profit (cash)
the only animal which conducts cruel experiments on other species to satisfy it's own lack of real knowledge and pseudo-scientific sadism
the only animal that taunts, tortures and mutilates other animals for the sake of sadistic pleasure
the only animal that pretends to be wise, respectable, intelligent, knowledgable, and even devine and godlike in the face of it's own ignorance
and depravity

i believe that animal inteligence excedes human intelligence
humans are just too stupid to interpret the language

brain size has been used as an argument for human superiority
but there are several species with larger brains than humans

humans are the only animal that cannot thrive or even survive without artificial means

a naked human is no match in battle against 90% of the world's species
humans are weak and vulnerable, and make up for this insecurity with an inflated ego and big guns

the most pathetic animal of all

Dissident Dan

Jun1-04, 11:38 PM

The emotions have never been isolated to a specific part of the brain, and even more importantly, people who have had these parts of their brain lost or damaged, ie through hydroencephalopathy, have still exhibited emotions, communication, etc.

I didn't say that specifically, the hypothalamus, or any other such specific region is solely responsible. Mentioned the limbic system, which is composed of many different such parts. Researchers have done much work that strongly shows the correlations between different brain regions and different emotional states. The brain regions most involved are those of the hindbrain and midbrain.

Has your 'communication' ever branched into discussing something you'd never discussed before through the dog's initiation? If not, it's more than likely you've just conditioned one specific type of stimulus-response.

One example: When my dog is hungry or thirsty, she will scratch her bowl. I did not teach her to do this. She started doing it completely on her own. If I do not respond soon enough, she will start barking, or perhaps walk over to me to gain my attention, and then perhaps return to her bowl. There are many subleties and variations that tell me that she is trying to gain my attention. While these activities are surely reinforced by my behavior, just as my behavior reinforces the behavior of other humans, these actions were not in any way induced in me in the first place. I did not inspire any of the various tactics used.

I have never heard of any species acting different in a technological sense except by environmental constraints, ie can't use straws to catch termites when you lack either straws or termites, etc. If you have any actual information other than this vague assertion, feel free to post it and I'll consider it. However, it seems to me that this type of thing would have been groundbreaking enough that I would have heard about it.

This is the best I could find for now:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-05/gwu-ajr051602.php
http://wvwv.essortment.com/primatesmammal_rrtr.htm

There is no evidence that they have understandings of these things simply because they do them. I can create a computer program which would mimick the behaviour of any of the simpler animals or even an entirely new species of my own creation which would respond differently or positive and negative stimulus, adapt to its environment, protect itself and its progeny, etc. Yet most people would agree that such a computer program would not be sentient.

As vaxan said.

Severely mentally-handicapped people still exhibit a much higher level of intelligence than animals. They learn to communicate with language, learn new things, express themselves, etc. You'd be surprised at the depth and abilities of the severely handicapped. They're much more advanced than animals.

I am talking about severely mentally-handicapped people, such as one girl I remember from way back in my elementary school cafeteria who would just rock back and forth, back and forth...Would you say that someone so simple as that, who cannot even form sentences, does not deserve protection? What about babies?

Tom McCurdy

Jun1-04, 11:49 PM

the natural instinct to be fat?

it seems to be a Natural Instinct for humans to kill each other as well
so why not hunt humans for food?

you mean the death industries?
if people stopped using crack, crack dealers would be out of a job as well

soy meat tastes the same, so what's the difference?

Makani is a location in Hawaii

there is no over population of animals, if anything there is an under population
of most species, however there is a huge over population of humans

there are 6400 Million humans on a planet that can only support 2000 Million

on the contrary, more plant life is consumed by animals which are slaughtered for meat than by any other animals

if these animals were no longer over bred for meat, the amount of plant life consumed would be reduced dramatically

see answer number 3

I assume you mean Corporations (not corperations)
meat industries could easily become soy industries

meat causes critical medical conditions, it's does not prevent them

a huge percentage of the world already does not eat meat

why should anyone bother?

the same thing they do with it now, stuff it and hang it on the wall

..become more healthy

bread, fruit, rice, beans, pasta, vegetables
and soy meat tastes the same as real meat

you have meat, so what's the problem?
keep eating meat if that's what makes you happy

first of all

soy meat does not remotly taste like real meat
makani is a paki dish
and the rest of your stuff was just made up bull****

the whole point people who want to eat meat should and people who don't ... then fine... but don't try to prevent people from eating meat... its just not realistic...

energia

Jun3-04, 01:08 PM

first of all soy meat does not remotly taste like real meat

have you ever actually tried it?

it's quite nice.. but every brand is different
it takes some experimentation to seperate the good from the not so good
but then not all meat is equal quality either

and the rest of your stuff was just made up bull****

uh, no, it's not made up bull****

I only stated facts, if you refuse to accept the facts, then there's nothing more to be said

hey, don't be angry with me, I'm not against you, this topic is just asking a question: should we eat meat, for you the answer is obviously yes
for others it's a definate no

you can deny the evidence that meat is unhealthy for humans, you can deny that killing animals is wrong, the animals being slaughtered have no say in the matter, so their fate is in the hands of profit hungry meat industries (greed has no mercy) who are counting on people like you to keep lusting for meat, not unlike the tabacco industries who are counting on people lusting for cigaretts, do you think they care how many die from lung disease? hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars are all they care about, and all they will ever care about

the whole point people who want to eat meat should and people who don't ... then fine... but don't try to prevent people from eating meat... its just not realistic...

who's trying to prevent anyone from eating meat?
you're free to do as you wish

russ_watters

Jun3-04, 03:05 PM

I am talking about severely mentally-handicapped people, such as one girl I remember from way back in my elementary school cafeteria who would just rock back and forth, back and forth...Would you say that someone so simple as that, who cannot even form sentences, does not deserve protection? What about babies? They do get protection of course. But then answer this: do they get the same protection and rights as fully-functional adults?

jimmy p

Jun3-04, 06:46 PM

Have you read the article in New Scientist about the man who survived solely on meat. Dont the Inuits survive on mainly meat?? A lot of them manage to stay healthy.

energia

Jun4-04, 12:53 PM

Inuits become quite fat on their meat diet, which is how they survive the cold

most people do not need to survive in the arctic circle

Växan

Jun4-04, 12:59 PM

As vaxan said.

Quote:
Severely mentally-handicapped people still exhibit a much higher level of intelligence than animals. They learn to communicate with language, learn new things, express themselves, etc. You'd be surprised at the depth and abilities of the severely handicapped. They're much more advanced than animals.

you are quoting the wrong person (this is a quote of a quote)

and the statement is false

also isn't it interesting that there are so many mentally handicapped people
and so few mentally handicapped animals

jimmy p

Jun4-04, 07:54 PM

Inuits become quite fat on their meat diet, which is how they survive the cold

most people do not need to survive in the arctic circle

Well there was a scientist that proved that he could stay healthy on a meat diet and managed quite successfully. He was ill for the first few days but after that he was fine and showed better signs of health than people who aint balanced diets. The doctors didnt think that he would last more than a few days. But then this was the early 1900s or 1930s i think... gotta find the copy of the magazine...

jammieg

Jun4-04, 08:21 PM

Why don't we eat each other?

Växan

Jun6-04, 08:03 PM

humans are omnivores, we can survive on anything

survival does not equal good health

and there is an ethical question

is it right to kill for cash?

paid assassins kill for cash, is there an ethical problem here?

the meat industries kill for cash, is there a difference?

meat farmers raise whole herds (or flocks) of animals for the purpose of exploiting them and killing them for cash

carnivores do not kill for cash, they kill to survive, and typically only ONE of the weakest individuals they can find, no animal (except humans) hunts to extinction

several species have been hunted (by humans) to extinction, or near extinction (buffalo for example), many fish species face extinction from over fishing, humans kill with impunity, like a virus

animals are not being killed by the hundreds or thousands or even millions

they are being killed EVERY DAY, DAY AFTER DAY by the BILLIONS!!!!!! (GIGADEATH)

how in the world can human beings do this, without conscience
and still sleep at night?

and yet people have the hypocracy to be outraged when dogs and cats are abused, skinned alive for fur, and eaten (in some asian countries)
as well as horses - because these are "domesticated animals"

people are outraged if 1 single person is murdered!

yet don't give a sh*te if 100's of Billions of Cows, Pigs, Baby Lambs, Chickens, Turkeys, Fish and countless other animals are murdered every day

this is HYPOCRACY!!!

Dissident Dan

Jun7-04, 01:18 AM

They do get protection of course. But then answer this: do they get the same protection and rights as fully-functional adults?

They do not get all the priveleges of more intelligent people, but they still should be afforded basic protection from harm and not be confined (except where it is necessary for their safety), as should be for nonhuman animals.

russ_watters

Jun7-04, 09:44 PM

They do not get all the priveleges... More to the point, they do not get all the rights of other people.

Dissident Dan

Jun8-04, 10:59 PM

I think that nonhuman animals have just as much right to noninterference as any human. What this specifically turns out to differes by species, humans have a wider array of possible actions than most species, so we need a larger list of specific rights (free speech, for example).

Regardless of such rights as freedom of speech, freedom to work, etc., mentally-handicapped humans and nonhuman animals still should be afforded basic protection from harm and not be confined (except where it is necessary for their safety), just as should be for human animals.

russ_watters

Jun9-04, 12:17 AM

I think that nonhuman animals have just as much right to noninterference as any human. Non-interference is a good word for it, and it is the category of rights that an infant (fetus?), elderly, retarded person, or incapacitated person loses. The most extreme of course, is that a person in a coma does not have the right to decide if they live or die.

And of course, criminals, depending on the crime, do not have the right to "not be confined" and in some cases do not even have the right to life.

And: human animals Is that a Freudian slip? Wow. I think I said it once tongue-in-cheek (animals are people too...), but...wow.

robert Ihnot

Jun9-04, 01:16 AM

Should we eat meat?

Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!!

Maybe we should all stop eating meat!
It's not unhealthy or lacking enough essentials
because all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

Now the main problem is:
- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??
- Or should we stop eating meat and everyone changes to
become a vegetarian?
(since it's considered to be
cruel to kill other life forms)

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:

Freedom for all farm animals!
Eating less unhealthy food
No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess
Eating more healthy food!
No more interference with the animals' life and death.
Increase in animal population!
More animals to conduct researches on.
No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!
and many more!!!

Pure vegetarianism has its problems. I have known very few of them who can or will strictly live that way. But, one that did, managed to fall down and break her leg and had to use a crutch for five years. After that, she was carefull about calcium supplements.

I think it very unhealthy to get glowing ideas about how healthy such a diet is, especially if forced on kids. For the very young, I have been told it is extremely unhealthy. There is nothing "natural" about such a diet. Don't imagine there is.

Mahatma Gandhi, remarks that when he was very sick they forced cow's milk on him and said it was from a goat, which would have been less objectional. He recovered because of this, and so this very famous saint that went on long fasts and avoided killing any animal was not convinced that vegetarianism was completely life-supporting.

jimmy p

Jun9-04, 11:52 AM

humans are omnivores, we can survive on anything

No we arent. We dont eat detritus and rotting leaf litter. There are many things humans dont eat.

Växan

Jun10-04, 04:15 PM

i have never broken a bone (at 33 years of age)
after long years of heavy lifting and other physical exertions, hard falls, motorbike accidents, etc...

and all this on a 100% vegan diet

soya milk is as high in calcium as cows milk, and has zero cholesterol
(unlike milk, which is cholesterol death)

and too much calcium is dangerous

the calcium premise is a strawman argument

the only nutrient a vegan diet has less of than a meat diet is Omega 3 (an amino acid) vegan diets contain all amino acids, including Omega 3, but not as much
(fish oil is the most abundant source, and fish oil is quite unhealthy)

Dissident Dan

Jun10-04, 09:50 PM

Non-interference is a good word for it, and it is the category of rights that an infant (fetus?), elderly, retarded person, or incapacitated person loses. The most extreme of course, is that a person in a coma does not have the right to decide if they live or die.

And of course, criminals, depending on the crime, do not have the right to "not be confined" and in some cases do not even have the right to life.

The only time that one's right to noninterference should be compromised is when one's actions are detrimental to someone. This is most often not the case. Unethical interference includes most instances of the caging of animals that don't pose threats and beating.

The right to not be beaten is a right of noninterference, and the elderly and the retarded both retain those rights.

There are times when we need to interfere with humans, too, including those with the utmost intelligence. Instances in which nonhuman animals need to be constrained or otherwise interfered with are not arguments against animal rights, for they would apply against human rights, too. I was hoping that I wouldn't have to explicitly say it, but there are cases of necessary interference and cases of unnecessary interference. The food industry unnecessarily interferes with the happiness of animals a staggering amount.

I am against the unneccesary, unpleasant restriction of any creatures and any preventable conditions that make unpleasant restriction necessary.

And: Is that a Freudian slip? Wow. I think I said it once tongue-in-cheek (animals are people too...), but...wow.

It is not. It was completely intentional. Humans are animals. I am an animal. You are an animal.

Dissident Dan

Jun10-04, 09:54 PM

Pure vegetarianism has its problems. I have known very few of them who can or will strictly live that way. But, one that did, managed to fall down and break her leg and had to use a crutch for five years. After that, she was carefull about calcium supplements.

I think it very unhealthy to get glowing ideas about how healthy such a diet is, especially if forced on kids. For the very young, I have been told it is extremely unhealthy. There is nothing "natural" about such a diet. Don't imagine there is.

Mahatma Gandhi.....

The idea that the vegan diet results in weak people is falsity of our prejudiced societies. I have been vegan for over two years (and I know many who have been for decades, including bodybuilders), and I still have not broken any bones, and I bench press at least 80 lbs over my bodyweight. I frequently do strenuous exercise that requires strength and agility.

I feel great. I do not feel tired or weak or anything of that sort.

Loren Booda

Jun11-04, 12:23 AM

More delicious vegetarian options at the supermarket, more nutritional education including, e. g., preparation of whole foods, instruction in growing my own food, and changing the ascetic or righteous reputation of vegetarianism would influence me to eat less meat.

Just think if vegetarianism itself got the press that the "low carb" diet has!

Dissident Dan

Jun11-04, 12:44 PM

Why are you concerned with the image of vegetarians? Is it because you don't want to be stigmatized, or because you don't like those who currently are stigmatized?

There are more vegetarian specialty items today than any time that I can remember. In all grocery stores, you have veggie burgers of some sort. Many stores carry many types. Pubix and Target carry an excellent line of products called Amy's. The produce, refrigerated, and frozen sections contain a lot of these items.

If you happen to visit a "natural foods" store such as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods, you might be surprised at the options available.

And there are always traditional foods-spaghetti, rice&beans, cereal, fruit, veggies, nuts, etc. Ethnic restaurants often offer more vegetarian options than most restaurants.

There is good list of links for nutritional information available at:
http://www.barcdontbite.org/health/vegnutrition.htm

Loren Booda

Jun11-04, 05:02 PM

The image of vegetarians bothers me less than lack of access. I work at a Nature Center, where many have followed a non-meat diet, and are educated in working closely with animals. People like Gary Null (on the radio), though, with their whining and righteousness, turn me off.

Arlington actually has more options, such as restaurants, than most localities. We had a natural food co-op here (now out of business) that expected me to travel a ten mile (automobile?) trip for inflated prices. Tonight I have Basmati rice pilaf, from Safeway. I gave up on organic milk because it cost nearly three times the store brand, although it did taste better.

What can one get to eat at Pubix [sic] anyway? :wink:

Dissident Dan

Jun11-04, 06:01 PM

I'm still not sure whether you are saying that you dislike some vegetarians, and your dislike for them turns you away from vegetarianism, or it's that you don't want to have the image yourself.

At Publix, you can get:

-Silk (and other brands of) soymilk
-Many types of veggie burgers
-Other veggie meat replacers
-Many of Amy's line of vegetarian products (http://www.amys.com/)
-Different types of tofu (although I rarely eat tofu, myself)
-Veggie cheese (I am not a big fan)
-Smart Balance Light spread (no animal ingredients)
-Normal, non-specialty vegetarian foods

There are many things in the produce section, the frozen section, the refrigerated section, and their "Greenwise" isle.

Loren Booda

Jun12-04, 01:47 AM

I like to cook simple. Like a 6 oz. slice of extra firm tofu sauteed in olive oil, served with soy sauce. Or 2 Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie Patties. 2nd(?) Continent soy milk. At least, almost always, 2 servings of dark green or dark yellow vegetables at dinner. Cutting back a bit on generous servings of 100% fruit juice due to sugar. Cheap protein includes animals.

mee

Jun24-04, 02:05 PM

Einstein was a vegetarian and said that we would halt our progress by not progressing to a vegetarian diet. Smart fellow.

Gokul43201

Jun24-04, 03:07 PM

Pure vegetarianism has its problems. I have known very few of them who can or will strictly live that way. But, one that did, managed to fall down and break her leg and had to use a crutch for five years. After that, she was carefull about calcium supplements.
...

Mahatma Gandhi, remarks that when he was very sick they forced cow's milk on him and said it was from a goat, which would have been less objectional. He recovered because of this, and so this very famous saint that went on long fasts and avoided killing any animal was not convinced that vegetarianism was completely life-supporting.

There are about as many vegetarians in India as there are people in the United States. Also, I don't see the connection between goat's milk and vegetarianism.

vacuum

Jun24-04, 05:16 PM

I believe meat can't be excluded as a food source, simply because there isn't anything that can be a substitution for it for a larger part of the Humanity.

Anyway, even if there wouldn't be global famine, we would probably witness accelerated destruction of forests/ green surfaces in order to turn it into farmland. This would in turn manifest itself negatively on all other life forms.
I really don't understand people who care so much about animals, while neglecting trees, grass, carrots, cabbage, etc. In my opinion we are all equal(meaning that we live). To put it another way: if you feel sorry for the meet you're eating, then what about salad?

digiflux

Jun24-04, 09:08 PM

With 6 billion people on this planet, vegetable protein is far more environmentally friendly. It takes several acres to raise one cow. That land could grow soy beans and yield much more protein.

I have decided to cause as little pain and suffering as is reasonable possible while I am on this most imperfect planet and therefore eschew meat. Humans have to little respect for their fellow earthlings. We are they and they are us.

It is not unreasonable to assume that a much more advanced race could come to earth and use our justifications of animal abuse to abuse us.

digiflux

Jun24-04, 09:14 PM

"I really don't understand people who care so much about animals, while neglecting trees, grass, carrots, cabbage, etc. In my opinion we are all equal(meaning that we live). To put it another way: if you feel sorry for the meet you're eating, then what about salad?"

Vacuum: Your argument is bogus. Science nerds use it to justify animal abuse and mistreatment. Tell me this and please be honest; Could you hold a tourch to a living dogs eye as easily as you could to the eye of a potatoe?

digiflux

Jun24-04, 09:15 PM

Darn I pulled a Dan Quale: Make that "potato"

Loren Booda

Jun24-04, 09:15 PM

Like I say, better to eschew meat than chew meat!

Why do you think aliens don't show up on our planet? Maybe they're bovine.

avemt1

Jun25-04, 02:39 AM

I think we should use this oportunity to state the duality of the situation. Humans were made to be omnivores, but we are also ment to empathise and rationalize. We are doing this now. We can argue about it and make logical standpoints, or we can do the right thing.
IF ANYBODY IS WORRIED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EATING A STEAK AND EAT ING A SHARK FIN THERE IS ONLY PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT. WE CAN SAY THAT ALL ANIMALS (INCLUDING HUMANS) NOW BELONG EQUALLY IN THE MEAGER AND PATHETIC EXISTENCE WE LIVE IN. THEREFORE, WE SHOULD TREAT ALL SPECIES AS IF THEY ARE KIN, FRIENDS, ETC.

I am not a vegitarian, but a philosipher with pasion.

vacuum

Jun29-04, 12:20 PM

All right digiflux, I'll accept the first argument (economy of eating vegs). However, I consider myself a part of the food chain (or whatever it is in English). In the end bacteria will feast on my dead body, so I don't care. I consider dead cow (steak) to be food. I do not have a problem with a shark considering me to be food ( as long as I can avoid it catching me:). This is justifiable to me even if there isn' t smthg more to life than physical self.

I just want to be attuned to Nature's way, meaning not to take more from her than it is possible for her to bear. And ceasing to cause unnecessary pain (the reason I stopped fishing). So, to conclude, if being vegetarian would improve situation in the whole system (of life, Earth, space, choose...) I would become one.

vacuum

Jun29-04, 12:26 PM

Dissident Dan

Jun29-04, 10:04 PM

The economics argument is a bit suspicious because there are countries that completely depend on the meat industry. Shutting the meat produce off would bring famine for them. So, turning larger amount of people to vegans will have to wait a long while.

Maybe in nomadic countries, but that has no relevance to us. Animal agriculture is devastating the countryside and using resources at a highly unacceptable rate. Read up on the fecal lagoons from pig factories: http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_1_84/ai_53501840

Averagesupernova

Jul2-04, 08:26 PM

the only animal that taunts, tortures and mutilates other animals for the sake of sadistic pleasure

You are wrong. I have seen first hand where a group of pigs literally tore to pieces another pig. I don't know why they do it but they will. Once the pig has been singled out the group will pick on them until they die. Also, a group will not accept a significantly smaller group turned in with them. If 2 groups of equal number and size are turned together they will learn to get along. If it is lopsided, the smaller and weaker side loses. Is it sadistic pleasure? I don't know and I'm betting you don't either. Some of you claim to know an awful lot about animals in general but are making some obvious (to me at least) false statements and Växan I am not singling you out, many others are doing it also.

i believe that animal inteligence excedes human intelligence
humans are just too stupid to interpret the language

That's interesting. If they were so smart I guess they'd find a way to keep us humans from confining them and murdering them. Maybe they're ok with it?

humans are the only animal that cannot thrive or even survive without artificial means

Artificial means? So we were just dropped here on this planet out of some galactic laboratory? We didn't survive in nature and evolve into what we are today?

a naked human is no match in battle against 90% of the world's species
humans are weak and vulnerable, and make up for this insecurity with an inflated ego and big guns

You are right about this one. But regardless of the means by which we survive don't we have just as much right to be here as any other animal? Some of the things you stated in the last quote are EXACTLY why humans feel superior to other animals. You have to prove why that is wrong before it holds any water with me.

hitssquad

Jul2-04, 09:05 PM

the only nutrient a vegan diet has less of than a meat diet is Omega 3 (an amino acid)Omega 3 is a class of fatty acids. It is not an amino acid.

Main Entry: do·co·sa·hex·a·e·no·ic acid
Pronunciation: ,dOkOsð,heksð,E¦nOik-[/b]
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary docosa- (as in docosanoic acid) + hexa- + -ene + -oic

: an omega-3 fatty acid found especially in cold-water fish — abbreviation DHA

(fish oil is the most abundant source, and fish oil is quite unhealthy)Fish oil generally contains astaxanthin (https://www2.acadia.net/cgi-bin/BAC/web_store.cgi?product=Vitamins), a powerful lipophilic (fat soluble) antioxidant which seems ([url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=pubmed&term=astaxanthin) to be health-promoting. DHA, a long-chain Omega 3 fatty acid found in fish oil, is available from microalgae (http://www.iherb.com/neuromins1.html).

Dissident Dan

Jul2-04, 09:58 PM

Fish oil generally contains astaxanthin (https://www2.acadia.net/cgi-bin/BAC/web_store.cgi?product=Vitamins), a powerful lipophilic (fat soluble) antioxidant which seems ([url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=pubmed&term=astaxanthin) to be health-promoting. DHA, a long-chain Omega 3 fatty acid found in fish oil, is available from microalgae (http://www.iherb.com/neuromins1.html).

Fish oil also contains high levels of heavy metals such as mercury and is more subject to rotting than plant oils. I can pretty much guarantee you that any plant oil has more antioxidants than any animal fat.

The richest source of Omega-3 fats is actually flax, according to Michael Greger, MD. However, flax Omega-3s are not in DHA form, so they can have to compete with Omega-6s to use an enzyme that is used to turn them into DHA. DHA can be obtained from capsules made from the oils from microorganisms.

BTW, I do not agree with the outlandish things that Vaxan has said. Please do not discount us all because of what Vaxan stated.

hitssquad

Jul3-04, 01:50 AM

Fish oil also contains high levels of heavy metals such as mercuryYet, low intake of fish is a risk factor (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15208005) for heart disease. Supplementation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10051379) with lipoic acid protects against mercury toxicity, by the way.

and is more subject to rotting than plant oils.What do you mean by "subject to rotting"? DHA is more subject to oxidation than alpha linolenic acid, but DHA is a more desirable fatty acid, also, from a health standpoint. Do you mean fish oils are more subject to "rotting" due to their having fatty acids with more points of unsaturation? Algae-derived DHA should be just as subject to "rotting" as fish-derived DHA, if you are talking about proneness to oxidation.

Since DHA is delicate, I keep mine in my freezer and purchase it from a mail-order company that promises it is kept cold (http://www.iherb.com/benefits1.html) in its warehouse.

I can pretty much guarantee you that any plant oil has more antioxidants than any animal fat.Do you mean a higher ORAC value? Since flax does not have astaxanthin, and astaxanthin is one of the most powerful (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed&term=astaxanthin) plant-derived lipophilic antioxidants known, it is doubtful that flax oil has a higher ORAC value than fish oil. (Not that ORAC value is wholly indicative of health effect on humans -- ORAC value is roughly to human nutrition what BogoMips (http://www.google.com/search?&q=bogomips+bogus) and gigaflops (http://www.google.com/search?q=gigaflops+bogus) are to computing performance)

The richest source of Omega-3 fats is actually flax.Concentrated fish oil capsules and algae oil capsules are fairly rich sources.

DHA, a long-chain Omega 3 fatty acid found in fish oil, is available from microalgae (http://www.iherb.com/neuromins1.html).DHA can be obtained from capsules made from the oils from microorganisms.Algae. The algae URL you quoted me citing links to a webpage listing four different vegan DHA products for sale. Michael Greger, MD, notes similarly (http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20031006/007812.html):

consider getting ... DHA the same place that the fish get it from--DHA rich algae. There are now vegan algae-derived DHA supplements available at http://www.VeganEssentials.com.

dave19903652

Jul9-04, 05:28 PM

"More animals to conduct researches on."

From the first post. Wouldn't this be defeating the object? Personally I would prefer to see better conditions for all captive animals first. Also, research is actually more cruel than the food industry. That is vivisection not anything else.

theriddler876

Jul12-04, 12:23 AM

if you stop thinking about vitamins and protein and all that shtuff and get back to basics and nature, we are built for eating meat, it is natural, such as a lion eats meat, hence the term herbivore we eat both, we have the teeth for both, you know the sharp pointy ones for tearing I mean when have you seen a lion debate weather it should kill an animal for food or not, hmnn anyways we should definately eat meat, and vegetables, not doing so would be messing with gods creation and such, and for those who don't believe in god, the earth has been around for 4.6 billon years, who are you to mess with millions of years of evolution, plus the animals that are grown in farms have that purpose in life, and chickens eggs are not fertilized, most of them anyways, so there is no chicken, hmnnn

plants have feelings too

digiflux

Jul12-04, 08:29 AM

Thousands of humans may already be infected with mad cow disease as the incubation period for the disease can be very long. Finding one infected cow means that there are many.

If you need iron drink well water or take a simple pill.

Most people would be vegetarians if THEY had to do the slaughtering.

Living in the TexAss country I have seen many instances of severe animal abuse on local farms. Ranchers are an evil bunch. I know, they are my neighbors.

I keep hearing over and over the benefits of soy. Eat tofu and live longer.

Treat other animals like they are your relatives, because THEY ARE.

digiflux

Jul12-04, 08:38 AM

averagesupernova:

"You are right about this one. But regardless of the means by which we survive don't we have just as much right to be here as any other animal?"

It's not about survival anymore. Most people eat animals because they like the way that they taste. We do have a right to be here but our non-human cousins have rights too. Humans are over populated and are threatening to destroy the entire planet. If I were an alien and landed on Earth I would seriously consider thinning out the human population for the good of the planet.

russ_watters

Jul12-04, 11:23 AM

Humans are over populated and are threatening to destroy the entire planet. Oh, the arrogance. As said in Jurassic Park, we really only have the power to destroy ourselves. The earth will do just fine either way.

loseyourname

Jul13-04, 02:25 AM

While it is doubtful that we have the capability to irreversibly end all life on the planet, and we certainly cannot destroy the entire planet, we have caused the extinction of countless species. They will not do just fine.

Averagesupernova

Jul13-04, 12:17 PM

Humans are over populated and are threatening to destroy the entire planet. If I were an alien and landed on Earth I would seriously consider thinning out the human population for the good of the planet.

That is the most arrogant thing I have ever heard. You are obviously quite disassociated with animals based on previous comments yet you have the balls to tell those of us who live and work around them what is best for them. And then you go on to say that you'd kill off half the people on the planet for the good of the planet. In other words, you'd kill us off if it wouldn't affect you. Being alien and leaving right away would guarantee your own safety. Would you do the same thing now living on earth? Would you do something like this with a guarantee you wouldn't get caught and your own well being would not be threatened? Who is the moral one here? You sound like a dangerous person. Some of the comments you have made would be enough evidence in court to cause serious questions to your mental stability. While you are contemplating and thinking of ways to reduce the human numbers, someone else may very well be looking your way and thinking the same thing about folks with your own views.

Dissident Dan

Jul15-04, 11:17 AM

if you stop thinking about vitamins and protein and all that shtuff and get back to basics and nature, we are built for eating meat,

Not really. We have some adaptations for eating meat, such as the appendix, but we are better suited to eating plants than to eating meat. This statement is supported by the fact that eating meat is strongly, positively correlated with high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Our digestive tracts are much longer than those of carnivores (although also shorter than some herbivores, such as ruminants, but I'm not claiming that we're ruminants). If you look at our closest relatives, bonobos and chimps, they eat much less meat than we do.

Canines have nothing to do with it. Our canines are so small as to be pretty useless for tearing flesh. We do not have several-inch-faings like lions. Also, gorillas have rather large, sharp teeth, but they are mainly used for intimidation, as they are herbivorous, with very sparse exceptions, such as consuming the insects on plant matter they are eating.

Anyway, our we do not need to follow our old ways. We do not need to be locked into the way of the past. Modern diets are already very little like they were before agriculture. We must progress. Evolution isn't about stagnation. It's about change.

We know the health benefits of vegetarian diets, so the "we shouldn't mess with evolution" argument, even if it was factual, wouldn't apply because scienctific evidence supports the claim that vegetarian diets are healthier.

plants have feelings too

No, they don't. They lack nervous systems.

Overdose

Jul15-04, 12:41 PM

I havent read any of this thread but im guessing the argument for eating meat didnt stretch beyond 'because we're designed to'. The implication being that nature in its infinite wisdom knows better than us mear humans and who are we to question it?
Ok fine if thats what you believe i dont have a problem with that, and im sure when you catch a hideous desease your be more than willing to accept it as just part of nature.
right?

mee

Jul20-04, 08:31 AM

Not really. We have some adaptations for eating meat, such as the appendix, but we are better suited to eating plants than to eating meat. This statement is supported by the fact that eating meat is strongly, positively correlated with high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Our digestive tracts are much longer than those of carnivores (although also shorter than some herbivores, such as ruminants, but I'm not claiming that we're ruminants). If you look at our closest relatives, bonobos and chimps, they eat much less meat than we do.

Canines have nothing to do with it. Our canines are so small as to be pretty useless for tearing flesh. We do not have several-inch-faings like lions. Also, gorillas have rather large, sharp teeth, but they are mainly used for intimidation, as they are herbivorous, with very sparse exceptions, such as consuming the insects on plant matter they are eating.

Anyway, our we do not need to follow our old ways. We do not need to be locked into the way of the past. Modern diets are already very little like they were before agriculture. We must progress. Evolution isn't about stagnation. It's about change.

We know the health benefits of vegetarian diets, so the "we shouldn't mess with evolution" argument, even if it was factual, wouldn't apply because scienctific evidence supports the claim that vegetarian diets are healthier.

No, they don't. They lack nervous systems.

Go Dan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Crumbles

Jul20-04, 09:51 AM

I think we should definitely eat meat. I mean look at this world, global warming is on the doorstep and what are people doing? Everybody is turning vegetarian and eating all the green that helps us turn carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into oxygen. This is insane! We should eat meat. This way, not only the green plants can contribute more to reducing the carbon dioxide level but we will also decrease the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the cows and other animals will not steal so much oxygen and puff out as much carbon dioxide!! :biggrin:

Jul20-04, 10:53 AM

Meat is absolutely delicious if the animal has been reared properly, with due respect and attention. I fail to see how it is in any way unethical or improper. I wouldn't personally eat primates, cats, dogs etc, however.
Would the Green movement (political activity rather than bowel(?)) be happy if humans became extinct so that cows could fart in peace?

Jul20-04, 10:55 AM

No, they don't. They lack nervous systems.

A work colleague of mine is a vegetarian and often jokes about her inability to concentrate because of the lack of substance in her diet.
We need the extra nutrients provided by our balanced diets to check her output.
Why do vegetarians feel the need to announce the tedious fact at every possible juncture? Just do it - no-one is interested in hearing about it.

Jul20-04, 11:14 AM

If you need iron drink well water or take a simple pill.

Yes, because its so much better to fill your system with pills than eat a balanced diet.

Living in the TexAss country I have seen many instances of severe animal abuse on local farms. Ranchers are an evil bunch. I know, they are my neighbors.

There may be specific instances where this is true but many animal rearers care deeply about their livestock.

I keep hearing over and over the benefits of soy. Eat tofu and live longer.

Soy sauce is particularly nice in a chicken stir-fry.
There are, however, health risks associated with soy (a Google search will inform)
If you run out of Tofu you could always eat cardboard. It's about as interesting.

Treat other animals like they are your relatives, because THEY ARE.

Well I suppose that would depend on how you treat your relatives.
But animals should have a good life, there is no argument about that.

Dissident Dan

Jul20-04, 03:33 PM

A work colleague of mine is a vegetarian and often jokes about her inability to concentrate because of the lack of substance in her diet.
We need the extra nutrients provided by our balanced diets to check her output.
Why do vegetarians feel the need to announce the tedious fact at every possible juncture? Just do it - no-one is interested in hearing about it.

Well, no offense, but I can understand why someone wouldn't be able to follow things like what you just posted. I don't see any continuity. What is "her output" that you are talking about?

Anyway, the idea that vegetarians have problems thinking, are frail, etc. are all bunk. They're myths. I have not had any problems being vegan. I'm sure if you do not eat a sufficiently-varied diet, vegetarian or omnivorous, you will have problems, but it NOT hard at all to eat a well-balanced vegan diet.

There may be specific instances where this is true but many animal rearers care deeply about their livestock.

I'm sorry, but you may not be aware of the current situation. Even before modern, industrialized animal factories, there was cruelty--branding, herding, etc. But, today, over 90% of birds and pigs, as well as a a lot of dairy and beef cows, are kept in concentration camp-like conditions. Go to www.factoryfarming.org for more information on that.

Jul21-04, 02:26 AM

Well, no offense, but I can understand why someone wouldn't be able to follow things like what you just posted. I don't see any continuity. What is "her output" that you are talking about?

No offence taken but no-one else has any difficulty.
Output as in work output, the results of energy input.

Anyway, the idea that vegetarians have problems thinking, are frail, etc. are all bunk. They're myths. I have not had any problems being vegan. I'm sure if you do not eat a sufficiently-varied diet, vegetarian or omnivorous, you will have problems, but it NOT hard at all to eat a well-balanced vegan diet.

I can accept that Dan - you're probably right.
In my colleague's instance however it isn't bunk - her concentration is not great and she puts it down to her vegetarian diet. I suppose the reason could be something else though.
I do think that people should eat what they want and stop trying to convert each other, however. It is up to each individual to inform themselves (if they wish - here's another choice) of the origin of their food.

I'm sorry, but you may not be aware of the current situation. Even before modern, industrialized animal factories, there was cruelty--branding, herding, etc. But, today, over 90% of birds and pigs, as well as a a lot of dairy and beef cows, are kept in concentration camp-like conditions. Go to www.factoryfarming.org for more information on that.

I'm sorry, but patronising me won't strengthen your argument.

I think you will find that most animal rearers care deeply about their livestock Dan. You are talking about the USA and I'm talking about the UK. Battery farming goes on, and I don't like it one bit. But then I wouldn't buy eggs laid by hens kept in that way.

I knew exactly how the Factory Farming website would appear before I looked at it - a cow on its knees and an emotional tagline 'The truth hurts' was so predictable. How about just presenting the facts without all this? It is an attempt to sway its viewers before they have even read the content. Why not let the facts speak for themselves? It bears a certain resemblance to terrorist websites.

Dissident Dan

Jul21-04, 12:21 PM

I do think that people should eat what they want and stop trying to convert each other, however. It is up to each individual to inform themselves (if they wish - here's another choice) of the origin of their food.

I disagree. I want people to know where their food comes from, and I want to reduce the suffering of these animals. I don't think that it is too great an intrusion into people's lives to try to persuade them given what's going on at the other end (in the animal factories and slaughterhouses).

I think you will find that most animal rearers care deeply about their livestock Dan. You are talking about the USA and I'm talking about the UK. Battery farming goes on, and I don't like it one bit. But then I wouldn't buy eggs laid by hens kept in that way.

The UK (and the rest of Europe) are generally better than the USA in this regard, but that does not mean that they are anywhere near acceptable. If the egg carton does not have explicit notification that the eggs are not from battery cages, then you can be assured that they are. Even when the eggs have labels like "free range", that is no guarantee of humane treatment or even adequate access to the outdoors. In the USA, our most highly-regulated term, "Organic", provides birds with the necessary humane safeguards. Some places have been certified by the government as "Organic" even when they obviously did not meet standards.

I know that in the EU, there was a proposed banning of battery cages, but that keeps being pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. Given the opposition to the ban on battery cages, it is easy to infer that most hens are kept in these deplorable contraptions.

I knew exactly how the Factory Farming website would appear before I looked at it - a cow on its knees and an emotional tagline 'The truth hurts' was so predictable. How about just presenting the facts without all this? It is an attempt to sway its viewers before they have even read the content. Why not let the facts speak for themselves? It bears a certain resemblance to terrorist websites.

Perhaps this site might be more to your approval: http://www.factoryfarm.org/

You can also do your own research on government websites and whereever else you deem to contain valuable information.

Of course the site is appealing to the viewer's sense of compassion. The site does contain facts, in addition to the rhetoric. I do not see why you use the existence of language that will cause the reader to think about whether or not current practices are acceptable as a reason to dismiss the facts contained in the site.

mee

Jul21-04, 02:15 PM

balkan

Jul21-04, 05:48 PM

I think one reason some vegetarians are frail is that they don't get enough fats and oil in their diet. They are trying to eat food which does not sustain them out of some fat phobia developed for meat eaters, not vegetarians.

... it would be more like a lack of important proteins and healthy fatty acids (from e.g. fish) they lack... and often calcium... fat doesn't really do much other than being an energy supply... a not very easily accessible energy supply, that is...

balkan

Jul21-04, 05:51 PM

Oh, the arrogance. As said in Jurassic Park, we really only have the power to destroy ourselves. The earth will do just fine either way.

oh, the naivety...
nuclear weapons can definitely destroy the planet... that's not even a question... you're in a physics forum for christs sake... no organism yet, have shown to be capable of surviving high radiation...

... and as long as we're only hurting ourselves, it's allright or what?

Jul22-04, 02:33 AM

I disagree. I want people to know where their food comes from, and I want to reduce the suffering of these animals. I don't think that it is too great an intrusion into people's lives to try to persuade them given what's going on at the other end (in the animal factories and slaughterhouses).

Fair play Dan. So if a given individual is aware of this, but still refuses to change, what then? Are you going to somehow force people to adopt different habits? Bear in mind that many individuals are careful about how they source their meat. To the best of their knowledge, these people will be obtaining meat from properly reared animals. These, I should hope, you have no qualms with.

The UK (and the rest of Europe) are generally better than the USA in this regard, but that does not mean that they are anywhere near acceptable. If the egg carton does not have explicit notification that the eggs are not from battery cages, then you can be assured that they are. Even when the eggs have labels like "free range", that is no guarantee of humane treatment or even adequate access to the outdoors. In the USA, our most highly-regulated term, "Organic", provides birds with the necessary humane safeguards. Some places have been certified by the government as "Organic" even when they obviously did not meet standards.

I know that in the EU, there was a proposed banning of battery cages, but that keeps being pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. Given the opposition to the ban on battery cages, it is easy to infer that most hens are kept in these deplorable contraptions.

Can you identify the reasons given by those who oppose the ban?

Of course the site is appealing to the viewer's sense of compassion. The site does contain facts, in addition to the rhetoric. I do not see why you use the existence of language that will cause the reader to think about whether or not current practices are acceptable as a reason to dismiss the facts contained in the site.

No - as I said quite clearly 'Why not let the facts speak for themselves?'
I haven't mentioned dismissing any facts - you have missed the point I was making.

If kinder methods were adopted across the board, with their corresponding hike in costs - and hence prices - would you be concerned about poorer individuals - perhaps those living on the breadline - being priced out?

You would need to become the government to stand any real chance of attaining this - do you think tax payers would be happy to have their burden increased to subsidise/convert animal rearers? Or would you take money away from another area?

Jul22-04, 02:38 AM

oh, the naivety...
nuclear weapons can definitely destroy the planet... that's not even a question... you're in a physics forum for christs sake... no organism yet, have shown to be capable of surviving high radiation...

... and as long as we're only hurting ourselves, it's allright or what?

I believe that the Green movement would be delighted if humans were wiped off the surface of the earth. Then they could stand up and say "I told you so..........excuse me, I said I told you so......hello......anyone there?....".
Oh no, hang on, they wouldn't be able to.

balkan

Jul22-04, 05:23 AM

now, if every human except the green movement...

Jul22-04, 05:48 AM

now, if every human except the green movement...

Well of course but that would take quite some cunning. Keep an eye on Ronald McDonald for signs.

Overdose

Jul22-04, 12:30 PM

I cant believe people have the cheek to make ethical lifestyle choices, i mean seriously
when will people just grow up?

nevagil

Jul22-04, 10:28 PM

I quit eating animals 14 years ago to lower cholesterol levels at age 40. IT helped and didn't hurt my fighting ability, I still box and jujitsu for fitness. I quit dairy 2 years ago and starting eating fish about twice a week. Its a hassle getting protein without driving thru a easy fast food place though. Most my friends eat meat and it doesn't matter to me and my diet doesn't bother them. I'm a old marine with PTSD so the killing of animals or people is not a big deal to me but I don't like abuse to em.

Dissident Dan

Jul22-04, 10:52 PM

I think one reason some vegetarians are frail is that they don't get enough fats and oil in their diet. They are trying to eat food which does not sustain them out of some fat phobia developed for meat eaters, not vegetarians.

Once again, vegetarians are not generally frail. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim.

mee

Jul23-04, 11:23 AM

... it would be more like a lack of important proteins and healthy fatty acids (from e.g. fish) they lack... and often calcium... fat doesn't really do much other than being an energy supply... a not very easily accessible energy supply, that is...

Actually, aren't all of our hormones derived from fat in our diet?

mee

Jul23-04, 11:32 AM

Once again, vegetarians are not generally frail. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim.

I did not say generally frail, I said "some" vegetarians. Balanced meals for vegetarians are often hard to come by if not made for ones self. Sometimes perhaps leading to "frailty."

balkan

Jul23-04, 02:10 PM

Actually, aren't all of our hormones derived from fat in our diet?

you can't avoid fat... i was talking "fat"...

TheBestOfMe

Jul25-04, 09:23 PM

This will never end. Many facts and opinons, but all in all, its your choice. Freedom, isn't it great. The only part we can really change now, is the abuse to animals. As for the diet and health of a vegetarian lifestyle, I believe a vegetarian lifestyle is much healthier. But you have to take into consideration of the differences of others, and how their body reacts to a no-meat diet. Everything is not black and white.

digiflux

Jul27-04, 08:57 AM

Humans have no "self-restraint". They are to self-absorbed.

Kerrie: Just take some iron pills or drink some well-water.

The evil human creature pollutes it’s own world and supports unimaginable horrors for self gratification. The earth will not tolerate this arrogance for much longer.

simulaskk

Jul28-04, 08:08 AM

It actually doesnt matter what you eat. so what if the species becomes extinct? well that is the purpose of evolution, the survival of the fittest? and it is actually natural to eat meat. it is humans who artificially brought in the "vegetarian thing". and a general argument given is that vegetarians are fit and fine. this is just compromise. i want to eat good food. i shall eat whatever i want. if it is tasty then why do i bother to ignore it ? by the way i am a vegetarian. that was because i was brought up that way. i am from a very orthodox hindu family. but i cannot stay this for long for sure!

Dissident Dan

Jul28-04, 09:27 PM

simulaskk, I encourage you read some of the other posts in this thread. You may gain an appreciation for the pro-vegitarian arguments.

Why do you consider it "just compromise"?

Jul29-04, 02:38 AM

simulaskk, I encourage you read some of the other posts in this thread. You may gain an appreciation for the pro-vegitarian arguments.

Why do you consider it "just compromise"?

I think the thing is, Dan, that if you eat meat, then you probably aren't that interested in pro-vegetarian arguments. You just eat meat. Some meat eaters are careful about sourcing, some aren't. That you eat meat doesn't mean that you don't care about animals. Some people who eat meat don't care about animals. Some people who don't eat meat think the world would be a better place without humans. Indeed the world, so we are told by doomsayers, has been ending since it began.

So, the point is, enjoy, celebrate even, what you enjoy and leave other people to enjoy what they enjoy. If it conflicts with what you enjoy, too bad - you are no-one other than yourself and so have little or no right to tell other people how they should live their lives, regardless of the 'ethical sustainability' of your argument, or whichever set of quack words you wish to employ.

Jul29-04, 02:45 AM

The evil human creature pollutes it’s own world and supports unimaginable horrors for self gratification. The earth will not tolerate this arrogance for much longer.

Now, when is that on general release?

pace

Jul29-04, 06:30 AM

I think the thing is, Dan, that if you eat meat, then you probably aren't that interested in pro-vegetarian arguments. You just eat meat. Some meat eaters are careful about sourcing, some aren't. That you eat meat doesn't mean that you don't care about animals. Some people who eat meat don't care about animals. Some people who don't eat meat think the world would be a better place without humans. Indeed the world, so we are told by doomsayers, has been ending since it began.

So, the point is, enjoy, celebrate even, what you enjoy and leave other people to enjoy what they enjoy. If it conflicts with what you enjoy, too bad - you are no-one other than yourself and so have little or no right to tell other people how they should live their lives, regardless of the 'ethical sustainability' of your argument, or whichever set of quack words you wish to employ.

What you are suggesting is that everyone that see the possibilties of a better world should just shut up? That's silly. :yuck:

Jul29-04, 07:35 AM

What you are suggesting is that everyone that see the possibilties of a better world should just shut up? That's silly. :yuck:

Not at all no. You can say anything you like. Nothing to stop you seeing any possibilities you like. If you want to change your own life then do it. Just don't assume that everyone is going to stand around looking impressed when you are talking about how wonderful your view of the world is and how everyone else should subscribe to it. Anyone can see possibilities (it's rather like talking about what you are going to do) - realising them (doing something) is what counts.

My point was not that people should shut up (who am I to say that?) but that, if people made choices and justified them based on the positive aspects then that would be great. But what seems to happen is that a significant proportion of the justification is negative - arguing that others are wrong.
I would be just as misled if I said 'What you are suggesting is that everyone should see everything from your point of view because you're right'

Averagesupernova

Jul29-04, 11:51 AM

What you are suggesting is that everyone that see the possibilties of a better world should just shut up? That's silly. :yuck:

That seems to be what SOME of the people on the pro-veg side are suggesting from there viewpoint. Remember, what a 'better world' actually is is just an opinion.

digiflux

Jul29-04, 02:45 PM

physicsisphirst

Jul29-04, 02:51 PM

what seems to happen is that a significant proportion of the justification is negative - arguing that others are wrong.

There seems to be plenty of justification for the view that "others" are indeed wrong, in this situation.

For starters,

1) from a health perspective, vegetarian diets are considerably healthier (rather significant reduction in the heart attacks, the cancer, the osteoporosis, mad cow disease, the samonella, the cow pus etc)
2) from an environmental perspective, vegetarian diets are far easier on the planet (rather significant reduction in pollution, water consumption, deforestation etc)
3) from an ethical perspective, vegetarian diets are kinder to 27 billion animals that are killed every year, as well as to the people who have to do the actual dirty work which can have profound effects on them (for instance, look at the recent KFC Supplier Cruelty expose in the NY Times that I have quoted below)

It is often the case when a significant societal change is proposed to dismiss it with things like

"it is actually natural to eat meat" (which it really isn't) or
"a 'better world' actually is is just an opinion" (which seems to suggest that all opinions are created equal)

However, if one does a bit of research, one may find that 'holding on' to status quo may be more a matter of inertia than common sense.

I do think that the research should take place, rather than blindly following dictums such as you should be vegetarian because Einstein said, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

While Einstein's opinion may have enormous sway, the only way to really be convinced, is to convince yourself.

In friendship,
prad

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/business/20chicken.html
KFC Supplier Accused of Animal Cruelty
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

An animal rights group involved in a long legal dispute with Kentucky Fried Chicken about the treatment of the 700 million chickens it buys each year is to release a videotape today showing slaughterhouse workers for one supplier jumping up and down on live chickens, drop-kicking them like footballs and slamming them into walls, apparently for fun.

After officials of the KFC Corporation saw the videotape yesterday, they said they would seek dismissal of the workers, inspect the slaughterhouse more often and end their relationship if the cruelty was repeated. The company that owns the slaughterhouse, the Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, the country's second-largest poultry processor, said it was "appalled" by the tape.

Animal rights groups have long complained that sheer malicious behavior - on top of the expected confinement and bloodletting - goes on in slaughter plants, but this is the first time such graphic proof has been produced. The tape was taken surreptitiously by an investigator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals who worked from October 2003 to May 2004 at a Pilgrim's Pride plant in Moorefield, W.Va., that won KFC's "Supplier of the Year" award in 1997.

KFC and its parent, Yum Brands, have repeatedly committed themselves to a promise that all suppliers would treat animals humanely. Yesterday, a spokeswoman for KFC said the company "wouldn't tolerate the type of behavior in the video."

KFC "will require that the employee or employees responsible be terminated," said Bonnie Warschauer, director of public relations, and further violations will "result in termination of our relationship."

Prominent veterinarians, including those on the company's animal welfare advisory board, called for shutting the plant and dismissing or prosecuting its managers. Dr. Ian J. H. Duncan, an animal and poultry science professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, who is a KFC adviser, said the tape "contains some of the worst scenes of animal cruelty that I have ever witnessed."

A Pilgrim's Pride spokesman said the company had an anonymous report about poultry mistreatment at the plant in April and had made it clear to its workers that "any such behavior would result in immediate termination." In light of the tape, the company said, it will reopen its investigation.

The tape includes loud music the workers listen to, the screeching of the birds and the sound of each hitting the wall. When released, it will be on a Web site of the animal-rights group, which is known as PETA, at kentuckyfriedcruelty.com.

The undercover investigator, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared retaliation and still does undercover work for the group, said in a telephone interview that he saw "hundreds" of acts of cruelty, including workers tearing beaks off, ripping a bird's head off to write graffiti in blood, spitting tobacco juice into birds' mouths, plucking feathers to "make it snow," suffocating a chicken by tying a latex glove over its head, and squeezing birds like water balloons to spray feces over other birds.

He said the behavior was "to alleviate boredom or vent frustrations," especially when so many birds were coming in that they would have to work late.

On April 6, one day he filmed, workers made a game of throwing chickens against a wall; 114 were thrown in seven minutes. A supervisor walking past the pile of birds on the floor said, "Hold your fire," and, once out of the way, told the crew to "carry on."

On another day, he said, the supervisor told the crew to kill correctly because inspectors were visiting. To document cruelty and position his tiny camera, he said, he spent eight months working in the "hang pen," where workers attach newly arrived chickens by their feet to a conveyor that carries them upside-down through an electrified "stun bath" and then into the whirling blades of the throat-cutting machine.

KFC says all its suppliers train their workers in animal welfare, but the investigator said Pilgrim's Pride had nothing on the topic in its orientation manual and the only instruction he received was after five months, and then only in how to wring a chicken's neck by hand. The Web site of Pilgrim's Pride does not note any animal welfare policy.

Last year, PETA sued Kentucky Fried Chicken and called for a boycott, demanding that it require its suppliers to give chickens more room in factory barns, stop forcing growth so rapid that it cripples birds, and to gas birds before hanging them so they feel no pain.

The group has won similar concessions from Burger King, McDonald's and Wendy's.

Yum Brands did not do as PETA requested, but its KFC Web site says the company is "committed to the humane treatment of animals." It describes steps taken to assure such treatment, including creating an advisory council and promising to "only deal with suppliers who provide an environment that is free from cruelty, abuse and neglect."

Dr. Temple Grandin, a well-known veterinary scientist who designs plants for humane slaughter, called the behavior shown on the videotape "absolutely atrocious."

Dr. Grandin is on KFC's animal welfare advisory board, but said PETA had not told her when it sent her the tape this month where it had been taken. "They need to fire the plant manager," she said.

Both Ms. Warschauer of KFC and a spokesman for Pilgrim's Pride said they would ask Dr. Grandin to visit the plant.

PETA said it planned to ask a West Virginia prosecutor to prosecute plant employees and managers under state laws that make torture or malicious killing of animals a felony. It has also written to KFC and Pilgrim's Pride, asking them to use gas to knock the animals out before they are killed and to mount video cameras to forestall employee cruelty.

The PETA investigator said he would testify, calling it "the right thing to do."

Several American and British veterinary experts to whom PETA sent the videotape expressed disgust.

"I have visited many poultry slaughterhouses but I have never seen cruelty to chickens to the extent shown in this video," said Dr. Donald M. Broom, professor of animal welfare at Cambridge University and chairman of the European Union's animal welfare scientific committee. "It would be grounds for a successful prosecution for cruelty to animals in most countries."

flash33773

Jul29-04, 03:19 PM

yesicanread

Jul29-04, 03:42 PM

I like KFC, Burgerking, Steakhouses, Pig bacon, chicken type birds.
I also eat pasta.
I eat cheese whiz, and ketchup, and spice.
I eat fruits like citrus, apples, bananas, potatoes, squash, even pumpkin.
I eat chips, chocolate, pop, sports drinks, ice creams, a variety of penny candies, and pie such as apple and cherry etc, cookies, and pastry.
I drink a lot of water. More than eight cups a day, and so use the bathroom a lot. I drink juice every now and then. And coffee and tea every now and then.

I'm 20 pounds over my body weight index. Maybe less now.
My heart rate is considered excellent, and I really don't exercise.

I don't suffer agressiveness caused by my diet.

I limit my meals to one full plate each, with a nice big cup of water.

So, yes. I eat meat.

mee

Jul29-04, 04:21 PM

mee

Jul29-04, 04:25 PM

I think the thing is, Dan, that if you eat meat, then you probably aren't that interested in pro-vegetarian arguments. You just eat meat. Some meat eaters are careful about sourcing, some aren't. That you eat meat doesn't mean that you don't care about animals. Some people who eat meat don't care about animals. Some people who don't eat meat think the world would be a better place without humans. Indeed the world, so we are told by doomsayers, has been ending since it began.

So, the point is, enjoy, celebrate even, what you enjoy and leave other people to enjoy what they enjoy. If it conflicts with what you enjoy, too bad - you are no-one other than yourself and so have little or no right to tell other people how they should live their lives, regardless of the 'ethical sustainability' of your argument, or whichever set of quack words you wish to employ.

Ethical sustainability is a lovely set of words, descriptive and succinct. Not quack words. We tell people that they cannot kill ones mother with an ax or eat ones children, it is a small leap to tell them that they shouldn't abuse other creatures as well.

mee

Jul29-04, 05:53 PM

Interesting study showing that eating beef results in less killing of animals than eating vegan.

http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm

This is if it is seen as 1 mouse life = 1 cow/ lamb life. Not only that, cow population, with careful peaceful management, will not spiral out of control due to birthrate, ease of husbandry etc, while mice breed practically like cockroaches and if all of them survived, as sad as it may be, we would be overrun with them like a plague. I think this mouse plague has happened in australia. Mice would have to be all captured and kept alive in captivity for their population to be controlled without death. Cows and lambs are already captured and can thus can be guided to a sustainable population. I think we should eat milk products from these animals to help pay for the land on which they live. I just don't think we should kill them.

Dissident Dan

Jul29-04, 09:02 PM

Humans are made to eat meat, that is why we have canine teeth, which are teeth specifically designed to tear meat, they would serve no purpose if we were all vegetarians. Even down to how we process protiens and feed our muscles, we are made to eat meat!!! Why deny our nature? Everyone is all about natural food, and nature, cow, pig, and chicken meat is all very natural and a lot of things in nature live very well primarily by eating just meat. So if you are all about nature, don't go against it by not eating meat!!

Our canines are puny. They are not designed for tearing through the flesh of an animal like a cat's or a dog's. A gorilla has huge, sharp teeth, but they are mainly used for intimidation. If you look at the human digestive system, it is much better suited to eat plant matter than eating animal matter.

Humans have evolved to include some animals in their diets and have some adaptations to that end. But we can evolve again--psychologically. Let us not be stuck in the ways of the past. Just because we have certain adaptations for eating animals does not mean that we should stick to it or that it is even healthy for us. When our species was diverging, most did not live past the early 30s (it appears that way from the evidence, anyway). They did not have time for heart or artery failure or strokes to develop.

Any adaptations that we have for eating animal matter are a result of evolution. There is no reason to think that we should stop evolving, that we have reached some golden pinnacle of physical form and habits. At times in our evolutionary history, we were probably completely herbivorous. At other times, we weren't.

BTW, no typical diet today resembles that of early man. So no diet that you or I will eat is very "natural". Saying that we should stick to what early man ate, even though we are in completely different environments, doesn't make much sense.

physicsisphirst

Jul30-04, 01:30 AM

Our canines are puny.

ya get a magnifying glass! it is unlikely they will impress any true carnivore or even omnivore. strangely enough, those little doohickies of ours are still upheld by some as nature's blessing for ripping apart the flesh of animals :surprise:

Here is a bit from a chess site (of all places), that summaries a few of these ideas rather well:

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs), nor do we possess the short digestive tracts through which consumed flesh passes through quickly. Instead, humans have teeth that are suitable for grinding and a long digestive tract in which vegetable material can be processed (in fact, when meat winds up here it putrifies leading to a host of physical problems).

Our digestive system is not capable of properly breaking down large animal proteins which wind up in the blood stream resulting in protein antigeneity (the production of antibodies to attack the large proteins) leading to inflammatory conditions such as eczema, asthma and arthritis. Nor can it handle the high cholestrol fat that animal products contain leading to obesity and clogged arteries resulting in heart problems. When an autopsy is done of a heart attack victim one can pull out the cylinders of fat that constricted blood flow. Never, ever has it been found that the flow of blood was stopped by pieces of apples, brocoli or tofu!

Even our psychology isn't designed for an animal consumptive lifestyle: when you see a squirrel do you think 'how cute!' or do you start salivating?

The truth is that we don't 'eat meat' (we don't go out and take down a wild gazelle with our claws and teeth) - we have meat fed to us (someone has to do the dirty work, prepare, tenderize, dress, cook etc). Eating meat is really a most unnatural thing to do - but then, meat these days isn't particularly natural either with all the 'bonuses' you get thrown in.

It is evident that more and more people are figuring all this out since the vegetarian movement seems to be an ever increasing one. The thread poll above in itself is most interesting because it presently shows a 37% veg population - unthinkable even 2 decades ago when it would be unlikely that veg pop would reach even 5%.

in friendship,
prad

emortis9

Jul30-04, 04:38 AM

You cant tell an eskimo not to eat meat. What else would they eat? But we are not eskimos(I apologize to all eskimos online right now!). There is plenty of food that is vegetarian and it is most likely more healthy for you than eating meat. Just try it. You will feel better. Look at the size of a carnivores intestine. Very short. Now look at ours. Very long. Of course we are omnivores and CAN eat anything we chose to eat but the average red meat eater dies with 5-10 pounds of undigested meat in their intestine. We simply cannot digest meat as well as vegetables. What if we were raised from birth in closed quarters and only allowed to become more fat and delicious to satisfy the taste buds of some superior being. Would you condone that?
Animals also have feelings, mabye not as complex, but feelings none the less.

allanpatrick

Jul30-04, 04:49 AM

physicsisphirst

Jul30-04, 02:13 PM

I don't think animals have feelings. They may only be influenced by positive or negative reinforcement.

Believe it or not, at one time some people even thought that animals couldn't feel pain. Rene Descartes, of the "I think therefore I am (but refuse to budge much further)" fame considered animals to be insensitive automatons. Under this pretense, vivisectors nailed down their victims and cut them open refusing to acknowledge that they were causing pain even though the poor creature was screaming and writhing right in front of them:

During the 18th Century, the "mechanicism" of Descartes´rationality set the standard. His cogito ergo sum convinced him that animals did not really "exist", that they were machines reacting to instincts, or even mere reflexes. As Orlans states, "according to his thinking, the cries of animals are like the ticking of a clock, no more" (Orlans 4). Decartes himself used to tap with nails the dogs´ legs to a wooden board to work on a live dog without anesthetics.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:F_ZTvfyG2ygJ:www2.uah.es/iuen/friends_of_thoreau/documents_pdf/Animal%2520Rights%2520Paper.pdf+Decartes+%2B+Volta ire+%2B+animal&hl=en

The reality is that animals share some very similar physiologies and as Voltaire said in response to Descartes' absurdity that the mechanisms of a nervous system wouldn't be there if it were not to feel pain:

People must have renounced, it seems to me, all natural intelligence to dare to advance that animals are but animated machines.... It appears to me, besides, that [such people] can never have observed with attention the character of animals, not to have distinguished among them the different voices of need, of suffering, of joy, of pain, of love, of anger, and of all their affections. It would be very strange that they should express so well what they could not feel. ~Voltaire, Trate sur la tolerance

Some people like to deny animal feelings so they can do horrific things to them. After that wall is breached and it is no longer possible to propagandize the non-existence of animal feelings, one turns to the 'animals are stupid' claim. Now if we can put aside the astute observation that a cow can't do calculus (neither can most humans, from what I've seen, but it doesn't mean they are stupid), we can perhaps see that how we treat another being shouldn't depend upon our presumption (after all a cow probably does do cowlculus) of that being's intelligence. Or as Jeremy Bentham put it

The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

Finally, there is the great bastion "animals are not self-conscious"! How one comes to that conclusion regarding a being who is aware of her environment in which she lives, her companions with whom she co-exists and her offspring whom she protects, is a remarkable achievement of curiousity. Fortunately, research into this area over the past 3 decades by people such as Goodall, Savage-Rumbaugh, Griffin, Masson (and many others) is slowly eroding even this Mordorian fortress.

Why is there such resistance to acknowledge that other creatures share many of the same capacities that we have?

Some of it relates to the EGOcentric theory of the universe which is just an extension of the old GEOcentric theory - it seemed as though if man were not placed at the center of the universe, then "Ichabod! Ichabod! The glory will be departed from us!"

Much of it has to do with the rationalization for oppression. If you are going to argue slavery, then it seems necessary to consider the negro as being subhuman. If you are going to deny equal opportunity to women, then it seems necessary to regard the female as less competent or mindless or even as a 'non-person'. If you are going to factory farm, then it seems necessary to deny that the creatures have feelings or even the capacity to suffer the pain and horrors they are routinely put through.

What people do to animals and even each other is indeed cruel. However, the fact that these atrocities must be justified within their own minds with so much effort, proves that the conscience is still alive, desperately and eternally making its poignant plea.

In friendship,
prad

Locrian

Jul30-04, 04:34 PM

Fantastic post physicsisphirst.

emortis9

Jul31-04, 12:39 AM

I don't think animals have feelings. They may only be influenced by positive or negative reinforcement. We should eat meat becuase not only is it healthy for us to do so, it also tastes good. Meat+vegetables=a hearty, healthy, delicious meal.

What kind of evidence do you have to support that first statment!? Do they not have brains and nervous systems? Is there somthing I dont know about the anatomy of animals that you could clue me in on? I mean last time I checked WE were members of the animal kingdom, and I happen to have some feelings about this subject. Or mabye Im just being influenced by your negative reinforcement. And as far as meat tasting good: I heard crack makes you feel good. Is that good enough reason for you to smoke it? Cause it sure as hell is the same twisted logic. So, from my dog (who most likely has more personality and better arguments than you do) and I, we beg you to spend ten minutes with a chimp and then tell me if you still think animals dont have feelings.(that is as long as you dont try to eat the chimp)

simulaskk

Jul31-04, 08:28 AM

Unfortunately there are to many self absorbed people like “simulaskk” who don’t care about species extinction. The earth will be a less precious place without whales, elephants, rhinos, gorillas, et......

Somebody educate simulaskk on the unprecedented increase in species extinctions within the last century.

The people on Easter Island didn’t care either. They cut down all the trees and now it’s a desert. They didn’t care about extinction until it happened to them....

ok.
do we agree on this thing. breeding animals for the purpose of eating is ok, coz they wouldn't be here otherwise. now consider yourself in a situation where you have not seen animals like whales, monkeys to name a few. then you wouldn't complain or attach yourself emotionally with these. and you havent addressed my point of survival of the fittest. and that eating meat is natural and you dont if you are told so, just as in my case. please reply and i am listening.

Dissident Dan

Jul31-04, 04:41 PM

ok.
do we agree on this thing. breeding animals for the purpose of eating is ok, coz they wouldn't be here otherwise. now consider yourself in a situation where you have not seen animals like whales, monkeys to name a few. then you wouldn't complain or attach yourself emotionally with these. and you havent addressed my point of survival of the fittest. and that eating meat is natural and you dont if you are told so, just as in my case. please reply and i am listening.

"Survival of the fittest" describes how things have been, not how they should be. Also, not eating animals would actually be better for our survival, because we'd be healthier and have more resource longevity (animal agriculture is disgustingly inefficient).

I don't agree that breeding animals for food is justified for species preservation. They serve no helpful ecological function. I do not condone the continuation of great suffering so we can have a particular genetic strain out there. The "eating meat is natural" argument ignores the fact that nature isn't static. The animals (humans are animals) that have been our ancestors have had different eating habits at different times. Also, just because something is natural does not make it good or even necessarily acceptable.

physicsisphirst

Aug1-04, 12:12 AM

"Survival of the fittest" describes how things have been, not how they should be. Also, not eating animals would actually be better for our survival, because we'd be healthier and have more resource longevity (animal agriculture is disgustingly inefficient).

agreed! we aren't proving our 'survival of the fittest' capabilities by slaughtering 27 billion animals a year.

I don't agree that breeding animals for food is justified for species preservation.
i don't either. the animals aren't bred for the preservation of that species, they are bred to fatten up humans. if species preservation were really the concern, then it would be very easy to set up cow, pig or chicken sanctuaries where people could get to see just what their ancestors weren't missing.

besides, these sanctuaries are already in existence (eg http://farmsanctuary.org/) where they do a much better job of preservation than the factory farms.

in friendship,
prad

Aug2-04, 06:43 AM

Ethical sustainability is a lovely set of words, descriptive and succinct. Not quack words. We tell people that they cannot kill ones mother with an ax or eat ones children, it is a small leap to tell them that they shouldn't abuse other creatures as well.

I suppose it would rather depend on the circumstances. You confuse killing with abuse. There are situations where killing may be deemed necessary for one's own survival.

I don't recall ever having told someone that they can't kill their mother with an axe.

Aug2-04, 06:48 AM

The "eating meat is natural" argument ignores the fact that nature isn't static.

As we are part of nature, then how can eating meat not be natural for those amongst us who eat it?

Aug2-04, 07:06 AM

"Survival of the fittest" describes how things have been, not how they should be. Also, not eating animals would actually be better for our survival, because we'd be healthier and have more resource longevity (animal agriculture is disgustingly inefficient).

I don't agree that breeding animals for food is justified for species preservation. They serve no helpful ecological function. I do not condone the continuation of great suffering so we can have a particular genetic strain out there. The "eating meat is natural" argument ignores the fact that nature isn't static. The animals (humans are animals) that have been our ancestors have had different eating habits at different times. Also, just because something is natural does not make it good or even necessarily acceptable.

I think that survival of the fittest describes how things actually are.

Tell me - how much energy goes into recycling procedures when compared with the amount of energy used to produce those same products from raw materials?

"Good"? "Acceptable?" From whose perspective exactly? Are these not relative concepts rather than absolutes?

russ_watters

Aug2-04, 12:06 PM

"Survival of the fittest" describes how things have been, not how they should be. I would agree with that in that humans have evolved into beings which can on their own change the evolution equation for themselves and a large number of other species. But you have argued in the past that we are just like the animals and should respect them as equals at least insofar as rights and morals are concerned. We can make the choice not to eat deer - a lion cannot. So either we're equals or we're well above them. You can't have it both ways.

Dissident Dan

Aug2-04, 12:30 PM

I think that survival of the fittest describes how things actually are.

It is that way in many cases, but in many cases, people help out those without strong survival abilities. For example, we take care of the handicapped in this society. Either, my point was not the distinction between past and present, but is and should.

Tell me - how much energy goes into recycling procedures when compared with the amount of energy used to produce those same products from raw materials?

I don't know what this has to do with the thread, but recycling saves a tremendous amount of energy. Just do a google search.

"Good"? "Acceptable?" From whose perspective exactly? Are these not relative concepts rather than absolutes?

Of course, it's from my perspective. I don't think that "good" necessarily subjective. The statement containing the word "acceptable" was without a specific context...acceptable to any given individual.

Dissident Dan

Aug2-04, 12:32 PM

I would agree with that in that humans have evolved into beings which can on their own change the evolution equation for themselves and a large number of other species. But you have argued in the past that we are just like the animals and should respect them as equals at least insofar as rights and morals are concerned. We can make the choice not to eat deer - a lion cannot. So either we're equals or we're well above them. You can't have it both ways.

We are superior in our ability to consider (being grammatical subject), but for many creatures (humans included), there is no reason to say that a particular sentient species is necessarily more worthy of being considered (being grammatical object) .

physicsisphirst

Aug2-04, 12:57 PM

I think that survival of the fittest describes how things actually are.
just who are we competing against?
what exactly is this 'survival of the fittest' chant?
if only the fittest survived, all species would surely be reduced to 1 male and 1 female. in any case, far more than the fittest do very well in all species. if one really wants to argue 'survival of the fittest species' instead, then we are looking at one species extinctifying all the others and enjoying the somewhat dubious fruits of their labour.

additionally, there seems to be some disagreement as to the validity of this chant that some seem to accept at a moments notice. below i have quoted an article about Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis who is just one of those who don't sing along and respectfully suggests that it may actually be nice to be nice.

Tell me - how much energy goes into recycling procedures when compared with the amount of energy used to produce those same products from raw materials?
i would have thought that the calculations are pretty obvious, though i haven't done them myself. surely, it would be far less energy intensive to work with recycled 'pre-refined' materials that start from scratch with raw materials? for instance, according to this document:

No, you don't need to throw your aluminum cans in the furnace! Here's the reason why: it takes less energy to make new products out of recycled materials than from non-recycled (or 'virgin') feedstock. Your used steel, aluminum, plastic, and paper products have already been refined, smelted, pulped, and so on. So when you recycle them, manufacturers save energy. In the case of aluminum cans, it takes 95 percent less energy to make a new can from old cans than from virgin bauxite ore.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:7lstdJsD8DcJ:www.recycleminnesota.o rg/Recycling%2520Equals%2520Energy%2520Security.rtf+r ecycling+energy+consumption&hl=en

still, this being a physics forum and all that, it would be very interesting to see some of the calculations actually worked out. anyone have any links to these?

in friendship,
prad

http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/902.html
Survival of the fittest? Anthropologist suggests the nicest prevail ? not just the selfish
By Terri McClain

June 9, 2004 - Are altruism and morality artificial outgrowths of culture, created by humans to maintain social order? Or is there, instead, a biological foundation to ethical behavior?

In other words, are we inherently good?

The prevailing view in popular and scientific literature is that humans and animals are genetically driven to compete for survival, thus making all social interaction inherently selfish. According to this line of reasoning, known as sociobiology, even seemingly unselfish acts of altruism merely represent a species' strategy to survive and preserve its genes.

But Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, argues that this is a narrow and simplistic view of evolutionary theory that fails to explain many aspects of sociality among mammals in general and primates in particular.

"The 'selfish gene' hypothesis is inadequate," he says.

Sussman is a consultant to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion (DoSER), which brings together scholars from various disciplines - including anthropology, biology, psychology, genetics and ethics, among others - to explore the biological roots of human nature from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Sussman and Audrey R. Chapman, Ph.D., director of AAAS' Science and Human Rights Program, co-edited the first book developed from DoSER's workshops and symposia.

Titled "The Origins and Nature of Sociality," the recently released book presents a new paradigm for understanding sociality that seeks to synthesize data from a variety of disciplines.

"We believe that, instead of being genetically predisposed to competition and aggression, humans - and perhaps other animals as well - have a biological foundation for unselfish social interaction," Sussman says.

"There are many examples of nonselfish altruism," he adds. "How do you explain firefighters running into a burning building to save strangers at the possible expense of their own lives? There's no biological imperative for that."

Sussman mentions the many examples of courage and cooperative and altruistic behavior in response to Sept. 11. "The predominant theories in ethology concerning cooperative and altruistic behavior, claim that social animals, including human and nonhuman primates, are cooperative and altruistic only if they have something to gain from their actions," says Sussman.

"However, the reaction of millions of people to the Sept. 11 event does not fit this paradigm. As The New York Times reported: 'Hearing of the tragedy whose dimensions cannot be charted or absorbed, tens of thousands of people across the nation storm their local hospitals and blood banks, begging for the chance to give blood, something of themselves to the hearts of the wounded.'

"We are social animals," he continues. "We derive pleasure from positive social interaction. It's part of our brain chemistry. And far from being inherently violent, humans demonstrate a natural abhorrence of violence and conflict. We have to train soldiers to kill. It's not instinctive."

Sussman's study of primates has shown that aggressive behavior is extremely rare, even among baboons, which have a reputation for aggression.

We are horrified by terrorism, he says, because violence, particularly indiscriminate murder, is a social aberration.

Rethinking natural selection

Most of the current discussion of evolutionary theory focuses on individual selection or, as it is sometimes phrased, survival of the fittest. Only the most successful individuals will pass on their genes to further generations, thus weeding out over time (or selecting "against") genetic traits that do not enhance an individual's chances of survival.

This sociobiological view explains "selfish" altruism, which generates reciprocal acts or otherwise facilitates survival within a group.
Robert Sussman (left) works with a student.

"But sociobiology and individual selection do not explain 'unselfish' unselfish behavior. By this I mean behavior that benefits others but potentially leaves the individual no opportunity to pass on his own genetic legacy," says Sussman. "To explain that, we must give more consideration to group selection and the benefits of sociality."

Charles Darwin himself believed that morality plays a role in human evolution by natural selection. A high standard of morality may give the individual and his children no advantage over other group members, Darwin wrote, yet it works to give his tribe an advantage over other tribes.

Thus, over time, groups whose members value morality or practice unselfish altruism are more likely to survive and thrive, passing on the genetic traits that encourage ethical behavior such as empathy, fairness and generosity.

Brain scans have shown this genetic legacy in humans, Sussman says, and it's probably present in other mammals as well. Unselfish behavior stimulates pleasure centers in the brain sensitive to dopamine, which is associated with addictive behavior, and oxytocin, which is associated with mother-child bonding.

"It feels good to be nice," he says.

russ_watters

Aug3-04, 12:23 AM

We are superior in our ability to consider (being grammatical subject), but for many creatures (humans included), there is no reason to say that a particular sentient species is necessarily more worthy of being considered (being grammatical object) . We're superior, but our superiority is irrelevant?

pace

Aug3-04, 05:48 AM

Aug3-04, 06:38 AM

It's logical and simple really. We're superior in certain things, which would make me choose killing a cow than a human if I Had to choose. But this isn't the situation, it's really about necessity and that we can do so much better.

I'm superior to a baby in many ways, this doesn't mean I can use it purely as a means to whatever I want. This is what these animals are, totally innocent animals that's being used and mistreated by us.
Are you willing to defend this?

I think we need to be a little careful here - a distinction needs to be made between those animals reared in unnaceptable conditions (which is not, of course, acceptable) and those reared in acceptable conditions. Not all animals are, of course, reared badly.

Is it the practice of rearing any animals that you disagree with?

digiflux

Aug3-04, 07:50 AM

BULL. You cannot live on the planet without killing animals unintentionally but the premise that a vegan diet kills more animals than a diet in which one eats meat is absurd. The ranchers too plow and mow and cultivate their fields & raise animals for slaughter on huge tracts of land. This land could yield much more plant protein per acre. Also, ranchers shoot just about everything that moves that isn't a cow. They have wiped out bear, wolves, and other animals that threaten their precious cows. They shoot armadillos, dogs, cats, deer (because they eat the grass meant for cows) wild pigs, coyotes et. I know, I am surrounded by evil ranchers. They are not only evil to animals but to other humans as well. They are the scourge of the earth.

russ_watters

Aug3-04, 07:53 AM

I'm superior to a baby in many ways, this doesn't mean I can use it purely as a means to whatever I want. But it does mean you and a baby have different rights.

digiflux

Aug3-04, 07:53 AM

Aug3-04, 07:54 AM

Aug3-04, 07:56 AM

This land could yield much more plant protein per acre.

But you fail to comprehend that not everyone wants your diet. Stop ramming it down our throats (in a manner of speaking).

Put quite simply, I have a right to eat meat, you have a right to not eat meat. I have no right to make you eat meat and you have no right to make me not eat meat.

digiflux

Aug3-04, 08:10 AM

Aug3-04, 08:13 AM

just who are we competing against?
what exactly is this 'survival of the fittest' chant?
if only the fittest survived, all species would surely be reduced to 1 male and 1 female. in any case, far more than the fittest do very well in all species. if one really wants to argue 'survival of the fittest species' instead, then we are looking at one species extinctifying all the others and enjoying the somewhat dubious fruits of their labour.

If you accept evolution, the concept of species is rather odd (as in any population, DNA will differ from individual to individual) Why would a "species" reduce to just one male and one female? Consider geographical spread, relative availablilty of nutrients etc. So, then, perhaps there is only one male and one female of each species.

Aug3-04, 08:17 AM

Yes, but we don't have the right to murder babies, or experiment on or eat retarded people.

Saying that we are "superior" to all other creatures on the planet is arrogance. How is it superior that, in the relatively short span of time, humans threaten the entire planet with pollution and weapons of mass destruction. I don't see that as "superior". If I had the ability to choose my desired life form (in a world without humans) I'd be a blue whale or elephant. They lived in harmony with their surroundings for millions of years. I call that "superior".

Eating animals because you enjoy the taste of their flesh is an indefensible position. It's really very simple. Cause as little pain and suffering as is reasonably possible.

I've put spaces so you can have a good whinge. :wink:

I think that sounds pretty sensible. I'm not sure that whether individuals regard themselves as superior or not has much impact on this argument. Of course, every species is special and superior in some way. I suppose its what you do with it.

I want to know who is doing all this consumption of retarded people.
I will continue to eat meat however. It is a combination of taste and texture, in addition to the nutritional value. The icing on the cake really - wonderful nature.

Would you propose that those of us who enjoy meat should kill it ourselves? Perhaps we should run around with blood and bits of flesh hanging out of our mouths - now, THAT would be progress - far more civilised old bean.
Who is next on your list of animals which need "correcting"? Tigers? I'm not sure that a handful of nuts would suffice. Unless they were yours of course.

Of course, there is so little suffering in nature. Tell the next cat you see that the mouse it is thumping around is gratifying to its warped sense of reality because it has a protein imbalance.

You certainly enjoy your extreme examples - why not deal with the topic in hand without getting all excited? No-one here eats babies or retarded people, or experiments on them in their lunch hour.

If animals are raised with attention and kindness, and slaughtered quickly, and the meat eaten locally, where exactly is the problem?

Dissident Dan

Aug3-04, 10:41 AM

We're superior, but our superiority is irrelevant?

I didn't say superior, in general. I said that we are superior at a particular task. We have the greatest intelligence on this planet. Of course, there are man other creatures that are superior according to different criterion.

The big equalizer is that we all have feelings.
-------------------------------------

JD,

Digiflux was comparing animals of other species to babies and mentally-handicapped people. All about sentient beings with inferior cognitive abilities comapared to ourselves. I believe that what he's saying is that as we don't perceive that we have a right to eat babies or the handicapped, we shouldn't perceive that we have a right to eat animals. But you'll probably want to wait for him/her to clarify.

Aug3-04, 10:44 AM

JD,

Digiflux was comparing animals of other species to babies and mentally-handicapped people. All about sentient beings with inferior cognitive abilities comapared to ourselves. I believe that what he's saying is that as we don't perceive that we have a right to eat babies or the handicapped, we shouldn't perceive that we have a right to eat animals. But you'll probably want to wait for him/her to clarify.

I see. That's a pretty odd comparison to draw. The kind of person who would eat a baby is not the same kind of person who would eat a piece of beef (unless they happened to eat both which would be unusual).

Aug3-04, 11:02 AM

With those 'inferior cognitive abilities' (sounds a bit superior to me) they won't know what's happening to them when they are quickly slaughtered after a good life. I can't argue on behalf of animal rearers who don't look after their animals because they need to change. But then, I'm not talking about them.

Aug3-04, 11:11 AM

Here's a thing. For some people, life is really crap. But it's a temporary state. We understand who we are and what we are to a certain extent but our need to know outstretches our ability to comprehend. Who knows where the universe is, how big it is, whether there are more than one, whether we actually exist etc.

I've lost myself slightly here.

Ah yes, given all this, if I decide to eat a piece of chicken and you don't like the fact that I am doing that, you could pretend that the chicken is a mushroom and then we'll all be happy.

I mean to say, we have to eat living things to survive and why should eating a lettuce be any different from eating a cow? Are cows of greater importance than lettuces? Surely its all important. Oh no, lettuces aren't cuddly. They could be though with a little pair of glasses and a dress.

Aug3-04, 11:26 AM

A question to all the vegetarians here.

Have you ever eaten meat or a product containing meat at any point in your lifetime?

Aug3-04, 11:39 AM

What it comes down to is that you should enjoy your life as much as possible while you are here. You'll come across people that you don't agree with. In that case, unless they are harming you personally, move on. Don't think you have some right to tell other people how they should live their lives. Your life works for you. If I tried to apply your life to me, I would have two, or none, or a scramble. You'd have the same. We'd get a bit lost. Then I'd fall into a hole. You wouldn't recognise me. I would have trouble recognising myself.
Don't run along trying to trip others up, trying to convert them for their own good. Let people live their own lives.

russ_watters

Aug3-04, 12:34 PM

I didn't say superior, in general. I said that we are superior at a particular task. We have the greatest intelligence on this planet. Of course, there are man other creatures that are superior according to different criterion. Fair enough. The big equalizer is that we all have feelings. Is there any evidence that a lion feels remorse when killing a deer?

Les Sleeth

Aug3-04, 12:46 PM

i am not a vetge, but i know one, my gf's aunt is a real vetge, she told she never tastes anyhting have meat, she doesn't like to have sex too, who knows if she lies. so, your qwestion is a bit meaningless, isn't uit ? :smile:

For my 1000th post I'd like to point out that all vegetarians are liars.

balkan

Aug3-04, 05:59 PM

did vegans get breastfed by their mother when they were kids?

Dissident Dan

Aug3-04, 08:41 PM

Fair enough. Is there any evidence that a lion feels remorse when killing a deer?

Not that I know of, but just because the creature doesn't feel remorse (a particular emotion) when killing prey (a specific context) doesn't mean that it doesn't feel at all. Do you feel remorse when eating a chicken sandwich? Does that mean that you do not feel at all?

For my 1000th post I'd like to point out that all vegetarians are liars.

Come again?

did vegans get breastfed by their mother when they were kids?

Are you serious, or are you just being childish?

Averagesupernova

Aug3-04, 09:49 PM

Les Sleeth

Aug4-04, 12:17 AM

Come again?

I said, all vegetarians are liars. Now I'd like to add . . . especially Jkowski's aunt. Of course, I am a vegetarian, so can you believe me when I say all vegetarians are liars? :tongue2:

Aug4-04, 02:28 AM

All this talk is making me hungry - beef stroganoff anyone?

Aug4-04, 02:39 AM

Or perhaps some Doberman chicken.

Aug4-04, 06:55 AM

Doberman Chicken being a nice piece of roast chicken that someone's Doberman has eaten and is standing looking guiltily in your direction. The dog therefore owes you dinner.

What's up with all the winking JFruit?

Dissident Dan

Aug4-04, 11:04 AM

I said, all vegetarians are liars. Now I'd like to add . . . especially Jkowski's aunt. Of course, I am a vegetarian, so can you believe me when I say all vegetarians are liars? :tongue2:

I doubt that a 6-month old vegetarian is a liar, seeing as how the child can't speak yet.

If you mean that all adult vegetarians have lied before, you are probably correct, because probably all adults have lied before....but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

If you are saying that people who say they are vegetarians really aren't, then you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about or are just interrupting the conversation because you get a kick out of it.

Aug4-04, 11:21 AM

I believe that the point being made by Les is that you cannot tell whether he is lying or not. That seems to be the focus rather than what is (potentially) being lied about.

If I say that I am a liar, can you tell whether I am lying about being a liar?

Raven

Aug4-04, 03:00 PM

Should we eat meat?

Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!!

Maybe we should all stop eating meat!
It's not unhealthy or lacking enough essentials
because all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

Now the main problem is:
- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??
- Or should we stop eating meat and everyone changes to
become a vegetarian?
(since it's considered to be
cruel to kill other life forms)

[/list]

I thought I’d repost the original question by Physicskid, because to me the question being asked based on the body of the post is not “Should we eat meat?” but “Should we mistreat/torture animals?”

Although I agree that animals are mistreated and tortured in order to feed billions of people on this planet, I do not believe it answers the question “Should we eat meat?” Sure, one could argue that eating meat leads to the mistreatment and torture of animals, but in truth these are two issues that can be separated?

Maybe our methods of farming animals should be changed? Maybe people should eat more vegetation and less meat? Nevertheless, to answer the question directly, I think it’s not that we should eat meat, but that it’s perfectly OK to eat meat. Humans, after all, are omnivores and as such we have the option to choose meat or not.

So, I would like to re-direct the question a little bit. If we didn’t torture animals, would eating meat be okay? For instance, is farming mollusks (clams, oysters, mussels) a form of torture? If not would it be okay to eat these sources of meat?

In short, I believe nature has provided a balance that allows and maybe even necessitates the existence of carnivores and omnivores. However, I also believe that the ability of human intervention to promote its own existence has tipped the scales out of whack.

Dissident Dan

Aug5-04, 12:35 AM

Although I agree that animals are mistreated and tortured in order to feed billions of people on this planet, I do not believe it answers the question “Should we eat meat?” Sure, one could argue that eating meat leads to the mistreatment and torture of animals, but in truth these are two issues that can be separated?

With today's systems, I don't think that it can...and, even if an animal is raised humanely, there is still the matter of the slaughterhouse, which is not exactly a happy place. I doubt that you could give them lethal injections. Would you want to eat meat with poisons designed to kill in it?

I think it’s not that we should eat meat, but that it’s perfectly OK to eat meat. Humans, after all, are omnivores and as such we have the option to choose meat or not.

We have lots of choices...to rape or not to rape...to go to work or watch T.V. Sometimes there are right and wrong choices.

So, I would like to re-direct the question a little bit. If we didn’t torture animals, would eating meat be okay? For instance, is farming mollusks (clams, oysters, mussels) a form of torture? If not would it be okay to eat these sources of meat?

Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments. As far as the farmed-animal concerns, they do not appear to be sentient creatures, so I do not see the harm in that category. I'd have to double-check on their nervous system structures before being completely sure.

Aug5-04, 02:09 AM

To Dan

Sorry - they're all living things Dan. As are plants. As are bacteria. (etc)
What on earth are 'today's systems'? You expect to be treated as an individual yet you tar an enourmous sector in many countries with the same brush.
The slaughterhouse is not a happy place, no. How about if we waited for the animals to die of natural causes and then ate them? Or how about hunting?
You say 'sometimes there are right and wrong choices' Yes, there are, but morality is personal. My right choice could be your wrong one, and vice versa. My freedom may not be to your liking but I'm not living my life through your eyes am I?
You appear to find niggling faults with everything presented to you, every question asked. But you don't provide any solutions that meat eaters would find acceptable.
You say 'I'd have to double check on their nervous system structures before being completely sure' Why not check before posting your response?
When you say 'Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments.', with all due respect, so what? Again, picking holes. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves the health issues - we're adults so let us worry about that one. I have to say that you may not be aware of how mean this makes you sound. I don't know you of course but the world is full of people who operate under the guise of caring deeply about the earth, and not only drain the energy of the people they talk with, with half-baked theories of how the world should be, but also really regard people as being of little importance.

Dissident Dan

Aug5-04, 12:51 PM

To Dan
Sorry - they're all living things Dan. As are plants. As are bacteria. (etc)

I have never used being alive (by the scientific definition) as being a correct criterion for determining whether or not to give consideration to something. It is sentience, the capacity for feeling.

What on earth are 'today's systems'? You expect to be treated as an individual yet you tar an enourmous sector in many countries with the same brush.

I am talking about industrialized agriculture. If you look at the way animals are grown and slaughtered, there is over 90% uniformity, and incredibly cruel, at least in the USA. A majority of agriculture is done this way in many other 1st-world nations, as well, but I do not know if the saturation is as high in the USA.

The slaughterhouse is not a happy place, no. How about if we waited for the animals to die of natural causes and then ate them? Or how about hunting?

I was saying that I do not know of any completely humane way of killing.

You say 'sometimes there are right and wrong choices' Yes, there are, but morality is personal. My right choice could be your wrong one, and vice versa. My freedom may not be to your liking but I'm not living my life through your eyes am I?

If a choice is something that should be personal, I'm not quite sure that it would fall uner the category of morality. I believe that there are things that are definitely right or wrong, regardless of who's doing them. For example, it should not be a person's perogative to rape another person. The criterion that makes this a concrete mroal issue that should not just be left to personal choice is the same criterion for the vegetarian argument that I am presenting-the choice adversely affects others a great deal. A person does not have the right to force his will upon a woman and rape her. Likewise, a person does not have a right to force his/her will upon an animal and imprison and tortue him/her.

You appear to find niggling faults with everything presented to you, every question asked. But you don't provide any solutions that meat eaters would find acceptable.

I can't help it if you don't find the solutions I present acceptable. Sometimes it is hard for people to accept the correct course of action.

When you say 'Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments.', with all due respect, so what? Again, picking holes. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves the health issues - we're adults so let us worry about that one.

I am merely pointing out important flaws in given situations. To neglect these would be irresponsible. These are not minor side-issues. They are very important issues. Arguably, the health issue is a personal choice, but the environmental issue affects us all.

I have to say that you may not be aware of how mean this makes you sound.

Well, I'm sorry if I sounded mean. Please let me know specifically what sounded mean so I can be aware of that in the future. My main purpose for posting in this thread is to try to spread kindness, so I do not want to sound mean.

donnie

Aug5-04, 03:22 PM

I guess the real issue is to save the species which are about to be wiped out (like whales, sharks, panda bears, Bengal tigers, and many others)
Last time I checked nor cows, nor chickens were on the brink of extinction......
So that would be the difference between eating a steak and eating a shark. Also when you eat shark you eat only one fin, while from a cow you can get a larger number of steaks...

But who's to say it's the cow we'll be trying to save in 50 years' time? Don't we cause our own problems? But I guess it's in our nature to be omnivores - being at the top of the food chain and stuff. What makes all this suck though is when we ABUSE our post as meat-eaters and lose respect for what we're eating.

Raven

Aug5-04, 10:36 PM

We have lots of choices...to rape or not to rape...to go to work or watch T.V. Sometimes there are right and wrong choices.

The suggestion you're making is that choosing to eat meat is ethically/morally wrong. I beg to differ. I think carnivores and omnivores are making an ethically correct choice to eat meat. It is all part of creating a balance in nature. Obviously carnivores and omnivores serve as control factors to keeping the population of herbivores down. In my point of view eating meat is a principle of correct conduct in act of preserving nature. We all survive through the process of life and death (like it or not, humane or inhumane). It is simply the way the "system" of nature works.

However, I will also argue that nothing is controlling the overpopulation of humans on this planet to prevent us from abusing the planet's resources (plants, animals, space, energy, you name it). In my opinion, the demands and needs of 6 billion people (and growing) is a huge cause to many of our evironmental problems -- the mistreatment and torture of animals included.

Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments. As far as the farmed-animal concerns, they do not appear to be sentient creatures, so I do not see the harm in that category. I'd have to double-check on their nervous system structures before being completely sure.

I missed what you meant about "resource conservation argument" -- please explain.

It seems, however, that in your opinion mullusks may be acceptable forms of meat if the nervous system thing you have to check is cleared. How about eating eggs? Certainly eggs are not sentient, but also a form of meat. Would escargo be okay? I'm not too sure about their sentience, but again a possibility?

I think we will probably disagree on whether eating meat is "right" or "wrong" (as you put it), but I have to wonder what sentient beings would be okay to kill and eat based on your point of view. The general definition of sentient is something having the faculty of sense or perception. In that case, would it be wrong to kill ants, flies, crickets, maggots, whiteworms, scorpions, etc.. I do know that some cultures do eat bugs. Heck, I even know a restaurant called "Typhoon" near LAX airport that serves some of the bugs I named. Do you object to killing bugs for food? They are sentient by definition.

Aug6-04, 02:30 AM

I have never used being alive (by the scientific definition) as being a correct criterion for determining whether or not to give consideration to something. It is sentience, the capacity for feeling.

But how can you (or anyone else for that matter) differentiate? Plants react to stimuli. If you're concerned about suffering, you shouldn't eat anything that once lived.

I am talking about industrialized agriculture. If you look at the way animals are grown and slaughtered, there is over 90% uniformity, and incredibly cruel, at least in the USA. A majority of agriculture is done this way in many other 1st-world nations, as well, but I do not know if the saturation is as high in the USA.

You keep coming back to this. I keep saying that if people source their meat correctly from stock where animals are reared properly, where is the problem?

I was saying that I do not know of any completely humane way of killing.

Are there any ways of dying which are "acceptable"?

If a choice is something that should be personal, I'm not quite sure that it would fall uner the category of morality. I believe that there are things that are definitely right or wrong, regardless of who's doing them. For example, it should not be a person's perogative to rape another person. The criterion that makes this a concrete mroal issue that should not just be left to personal choice is the same criterion for the vegetarian argument that I am presenting-the choice adversely affects others a great deal. A person does not have the right to force his will upon a woman and rape her. Likewise, a person does not have a right to force his/her will upon an animal and imprison and tortue him/her.

But how can morality not be personal? You see the world through your own eyes, not through those of anyone else. Do you consider intention and context?

I can't help it if you don't find the solutions I present acceptable. Sometimes it is hard for people to accept the correct course of action.

Oh how I wish I was up on as high a pedestal as you. The view must be breathtaking. How can one live with such misguided idiots combing the surface of the earth?

I am merely pointing out important flaws in given situations. To neglect these would be irresponsible. These are not minor side-issues. They are very important issues. Arguably, the health issue is a personal choice, but the environmental issue affects us all.

Well in that case you had better request that a large number of activities cease henceforth. Nuclear power generation, passenger air flights, the use of the internal combustion engine, rock concerts, televisions, x-ray machines...

Well, I'm sorry if I sounded mean. Please let me know specifically what sounded mean so I can be aware of that in the future. My main purpose for posting in this thread is to try to spread kindness, so I do not want to sound mean.

You seem to want to control how people behave, yet your title would tend to suggest that you hate being controlled yourself.

Aug6-04, 02:50 AM

Don't get me wrong - I do not like to see animals raised in poor conditions. They need a good environment with a sound diet. They need to feel as little stress as possible (a little keeps us all alive) and, to provide humans with meat, they need to be slaughtered as quickly, cleanly and painlessly as possible. Death is not something that any of us look at with any great glee.

What I do not accept, however, is vegetarians and vegans using the conditions in which some animals are raised as an argument for trying to stop people eating meat. It doesn't wash.

Les Sleeth

Aug6-04, 11:34 AM

I doubt that a 6-month old vegetarian is a liar, seeing as how the child can't speak yet.

Well, I said ALL vegetarians are liars, so that would include 6 month old little veggie brats.

If you mean that all adult vegetarians have lied before, you are probably correct, because probably all adults have lied before....but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

HA! That's shows how much you know. Vegetarians are more apt to lie at any age because studies have shown their low protein diet suppresses an area of the brain responsible for truthfulness.

If you are saying that people who say they are vegetarians really aren't, then you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about or are just interrupting the conversation because you get a kick out of it.

I would never do that, c'mon. My point is that Jkowski's GF's aunt has to be a liar because she says she ain't having sex, and besides being liars vegetarians are reknown horndogs.

Averagesupernova

Aug6-04, 12:18 PM

OMG. I'm already a horndog and I eat alot of meat. Would becoming a veg make me even worse?

Les Sleeth

Aug6-04, 01:50 PM

OMG. I'm already a horndog and I eat alot of meat. Would becoming a veg make me even worse?

See, what is happening is all that dead rotting flesh in your gut is interfering with your sexual appetite. So get rid of that crap and look out! :surprise:

Also, if you think about it, that gives the veggies a reproductive advantage, which make them more attractive to natural selection, and means one day veggies will rule the world.

KnowledgeIsPower

Aug6-04, 03:05 PM

Animals eat animals. Why on earth shouldn't humans?
Being a vegeterian is simply politically correctness gone mad.

Rader

Aug6-04, 03:18 PM

Animals eat animals. Why on earth shouldn't humans?
Being a vegeterian is simply politically correctness gone mad.

I could give you a reason if you like. They just announced on CNN Europe that they think mad cow disease, has now has mutated to a human form. In case you do not know it eats your brains. The last thing we need on this forum is posters with no brains. :smile: Just kidding the news is true though, long life to you. :wink:

kerri

Aug6-04, 07:12 PM

Realistic vegetarian logic:

If we stop eating domestic pigs, cows, and chickens they won't be suddenly "free and happy", they will cease to exist, probably heaved into a big pile and incinerated. What farmer is going to feed and house thousands of large, smelly and completely dependant animals as *pets*?

Animal husbandry has no place in a vegetarian world (unless you are a hindu.) Therefore advocating universal vegetarianism is tantamount to advocating the extinction of all animals bred to serve no other purpose than to become food for humans.

This effectively rules out arguing for vegetarianism from an animal rights perspective. A more sensible position for animal rights activists would be; "we should be very nice to farm animals and try to ensure their lives are as free from institutionalized torture and abuse as can possibly be acheived, then we should slaughter them (humanely) and eat them (with reverence)."

Secondly, wild animals do not frolic about in an utopian garden until they die peacefully of old age. They spend each day constantly on guard and ready to flee from predators until they are too old or lame to outpace or outsmart whatever bobcat, killer whale, hyena or pack of wolves has been chasing them. Then they die deaths too horrible to describe. The predators themselves struggle along until they are too old to hunt and then die of starvation. If I were a seal or a polar bear I would prefer a bullet to the head to most of the alternatives. And, having had my lights put out in such a fashion, it wouldn't matter to me, personally, whether I was completely devoured or left to rot. So we can't argue that we are doing the cute little animals of the forest some kind of favour by not eating them.

Therefore, going vegetarian "for the animals" doesn't make much sense. The only sound logic one can use to support choosing a vegetarian diet, then, is a selfish one. What benefit can humans gain from a meatless diet?

The obvious answer is, there would be more food to go around, because the cows wouldn't be using up all the arable land (ie. simply put, arable land can yield ten times as much food for humans if used as crop land instead of grazing land).

Anyway, if the question "should we be vegetarians" means "does it make more sense in terms of the sustainability of our *human* habitat and the longevity of our *human* species" then, yes, we should, because eating meat uses up our food resources 10 times faster than not eating meat.

But human beings generally think of their own quality of life in terms of a big juicy tantalising steak sitting on a plate right in front of them - not in terms of what kind of rubbish their present enjoyment of an extravagent waste of resources is going to force their great-great-great-great-grandchildren to make do with. So if the question is "should we be vegetarians to enhance our own experience of life", then, no, we shouldn't, because what individual is overwhelmed with concern for his or her distant descendants when the hot dog guy at the baseball game comes by?

(Personal note: I've been a vegetarian for fifteen years. Always been suspicious of soy. I have the sniffles but am otherwise as healthy as my carnivorous friends. I don't think there should be any such thing as cows or chickens.)

Les Sleeth

Aug6-04, 08:29 PM

If we stop eating domestic pigs, cows, and chickens they won't be suddenly "free and happy", they will cease to exist, probably heaved into a big pile and incinerated. What farmer is going to feed and house thousands of large, smelly and completely dependant animals as *pets*? . . .

(Personal note: I've been a vegetarian for fifteen years. Always been suspicious of soy. I have the sniffles but am otherwise as healthy as my carnivorous friends. I don't think there should be any such thing as cows or chickens.)

I think it's pretty funny when we vegetarians stand up for the rights of flesh eaters.

Fliption

Aug6-04, 11:50 PM

Wow. Thirty two pages and I just now feel like answering the question.

Should we eat meat?

Yes, when we are hungry. :approve:

RoyBlizzard3rd

Aug7-04, 01:55 PM

as for the effects of soy, the research is now in that shows the damage soy can do. The medical community has finished many years of study on thousands of men who have died of aids and have found that the estrogens in soy products prevented the development of the anterior portion of the pituitary which is found in all heterosexual males but not in homosexual males. So if you want to know why there are so many homosexuals now as compared to earlier times all you have to do is look no further than the stupid anti meat crusaders who all want us to eat soy. roy blizzard

Les Sleeth

Aug7-04, 03:00 PM

Averagesupernova

Aug7-04, 07:43 PM

You know it is really funny how U.S. farmers are constantly told by the USDA that there is a surplus of grain and yet people talk about how many more people we could feed if we eliminated the animals. But that is a whole other thread, I won't drag it into this.

Zantra

Aug8-04, 05:08 AM

There's no way I'm reading 32 pages about meat :tongue2: So if I'm repeating what's been said, you know why!

I don't know if it was this thread or another, but a reference was made to the hitchiker's guide to the galaxy series and the part about the cow asking him not to eat him.

I guess the bottom line is that We've evolved from a society that eats meat out of necessity and for survival, to one that eats it out of a sense of habit. It's no longer as justifiable as it once was. So when we eat meat, we have to consider that the consumption is more for convenience and self gratification then for survival.

That said, I'm going to go grab a burger :wink:

digiflux

Aug10-04, 09:49 AM

“I mean to say, we have to eat living things to survive and why should eating a lettuce be any different from eating a cow? Are cows of greater importance than lettuces? Surely its all important. Oh no, lettuces aren't cuddly. They could be though with a little pair of glasses and a dress.”

JD: I responded to this in an earlier post but here goes again: Could you burn to death a dog or a cat or a horse, chicken, pig et... as easily as you could a virus? “They are all life forms”.

So come on, JD. Don’t just argue for the sake of argument. Going over covered ground is tiring.

“but morality is personal.”

JD: Tell that to your local district attorney.

“ Is there any evidence that a lion feels remorse when killing a deer?”

No, and they don't post on the net either. So what's the point?

“Not only are your so-called facts pretty well wacked, I would suspect you are skating on pretty thin ice concerning your privledges on this board based on the comments on the above quote.”

Averagesupernova I stand by my comment on ranchers. I know them. I have lived among them for over 17 years and have personally witnessed their brutality and cruelty.

Dissident Dan: GOOD JOB! JD is trying the old “we are all life forms” argument that I have heard a million times before. It’s really not a very thoughtful position and I applaud you for your patience in answering him.

“what makes all this suck though is when we ABUSE our post as meat-eaters and lose respect for what we're eating.”

donnie: I agree but humans have lost their respect for nature in general. This is the crux of the problem. The Native Americans had a good natural balance that lasted for 10’s of thousands of years. White-man’s religious beliefs are at odds with Nature. It separates humans from all other life forms. The reality is exactly the opposite.

avemt1

Aug17-04, 09:48 AM

"everything has to take life to keep life"
Is this a fundamental rule of existence?
It seems so in my point of veiw.

My feelings on this thread are that all the quotes, taking thirty two pages, have been a total waste to the point. We need to stick to the scientific method even in the most confusing moments of a subject's conjecture.

I have also seen things being repeated many times over. If we read all the information in this thread i believe you would fall asleep after 10 minutes. This is highly inefficient and costs the sponsors more to run the site.

thank you for reading this I hope you are enlightened to the world.

russ_watters

Aug17-04, 03:04 PM

I've argued this one before: Could you burn to death a dog or a cat or a horse, chicken, pig et... as easily as you could a virus? “They are all life forms”. I'll concede that there is a difference betwen a pig and a head of lettuce that makes a different morality apply if you concede there is a difference between a human and a pig that makes a different morality apply.

Or, if you prefer, you could concede instead that there is a similarity between a lion and a human that makes the same morality apply when dealing with the pig.

Mazuz

Aug17-04, 05:07 PM

We know through first hand experience the type of suffering that exists for animals, we are animals. We have a brain, and awareness.. and so can suffer.

Plants don't have brains or awareness any more than rocks do. They don't have a capacity for suffering in our sense of the word. If you want to say plants can some how suffer you can equally say that the sun can suffer, that mountains can suffer... have fun.

What is particularly wrong with eating meat is that by doing so we are generally supporting the meat industry which endorses suffering. I'm sure this has been covered somewhere in the last 100 pages :P

And perhaps even worse is that the meat industry is destroying the environment at a rate much faster than the agricultural industry. If for no other reason imagine all the pounds of "plant life" that goes into one pound of "animal life". In fact this is a good argument against someone who wants to say that eating plants causes suffering too, meat eaters kill more plants! :P

I don't so much have a problem with eating meat. I have a problem with causing animals to suffer, and I have a problem with destroying our planet. Anyone who doesn't care about these things needs a reality check ;)

pace

Aug17-04, 07:16 PM

russ_watters, then how about we say it's a similarity between what you say, and how black people was treated through racism before? Does it make it anything better or more right ? No.
Lions are bound to the same principles of freedom and social necessity as we are. It doesn't make any sense that we have to copy them. Your argument ends up to: because someone does something, it makes it right for others to do the same, which is bs of course. Besides Lions has it much tougher than us, so it's uncomparable situations anyways.
The situation we're into isn't an argument for continuing our actions. It's a poor excuse to how we've become. But it's something we can stop easily.The essence of the question isn't how things is, it's about what we can do.

russ_watters

Aug17-04, 11:50 PM

russ_watters, then how about we say it's a similarity between what you say, and how black people was treated through racism before? Does it make it anything better or more right ? No. That argument has been used before and its a straw-man. Blacks are clearly not pigs or heads of lettuce. The fact that uneducated bigots used to think different is irrelevant.Lions are bound to the same principles of freedom and social necessity as we are. It doesn't make any sense that we have to copy them. We're bound to the same principles but we can't have the same actions (copied or otherwise)? Isn't that a contradiction?Your argument ends up to: because someone does something, it makes it right for others to do the same, which is bs of course. I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply pointing out that it is contradictory to say that we should apply our morality to animals because we are the same, yet not apply our actions because we are different. Besides Lions has it much tougher than us, so it's uncomparable situations anyways. And "tougher" matters to morality how? The situation we're into isn't an argument for continuing our actions. It's a poor excuse to how we've become. How we've become? When in human history were the majority of humans ever not meat eaters? It seems to me that vegitarians are trying to change human behavior from what has been normal throughout human history (not to mention evolution). To me, that requires a pretty clear and profound justification.But it's something we can stop easily. Quite right - but like I said, I'll need a pretty strong reason why we should suddenly alter our behavior after 5 billion years of evolution.

Polemotheos

Aug18-04, 02:06 PM

No one is safe. I turned vegetarian for a few weeks and during that time I was turning purple. look at this from http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/soydoerge.htm I am outraged and I'm going to take it out on the farm animals. Anyways, I don't know how anyone can possibly know if vegetarians are healthy. I was pretty sick eating those toxic pellet raisins and soy products all those weeks. from http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art14546.asp

Asians at first believed soy was a poisonous plant. It is definitly a thyroid downer. So if you consume soy make sure you also consume sea vegetables like kombu, sea palm, wakame, nori, which happen to be thyroid uppers. And try to only eat soy in its fermented forms.

There is a more important question then whether we are vegan or not. And that is are we sustainable. The current agracultural practices of today destroy the land within 50 years. They distroy our water suppies and they kill or deform thousands of creatures. One part per billion of pestiside reside in water kills aligator eggs. Most chemicals they use are nurotoxins.

I am a vegan, and I support sustainable agraculture. Organic, biodynamic.. etc. I eat fruits and vegetables and grains and beans most people have never heard of. Have you ever cut open an apple and it had pink flesh? Have you ever had yellow watermellon? Have you ever had anazazi beans or quinoa? You see, a biodynamic vegan diet is all inclusive. The only things I do not eat are; pesticides, cholesteral and saturated fat. If you have a protein fedish just remember hemp seed and whey are better protein sources then any animal.

Mazuz

Aug18-04, 03:07 PM

When in human history were the majority of humans ever not meat eaters? It seems to me that vegitarians are trying to change human behavior from what has been normal throughout human history (not to mention evolution). To me, that requires a pretty clear and profound justification.

First of all humans haven’t been around for 5 billion years, more like a few million. Humans have never had a choice in what to eat until now, for the most part. Basically whatever contained the most fat and protein was what we needed in our diet, and that was meat.

However many of our ancestors ate a large amount of insects as well, and if you are willing to go back just a little bit I’m sure we have evolved from creatures that ate mostly insects.. But you probably don't want to think about that...

I for one don't think how we have evolved is always a guide for how we should live, though granted it is important to understand. If our ancestors were murderers should we be? If our ancestors were rapists should be? If our ancestors practices ritual sacrifices should we?

The truth is we eat meat because we like it.. which is a good enough reason for a lot of people, and it is also the reason people smoke cigarettes and eat potato chips. The "because I like it" reason rules most people.

In all fairness a certain amount of meat in our diet I’m sure is healthy. It can probably be substituted for other foods however, but I don’t have that information. But just because something is good for us doesn’t make it right. It may be good for me to eat you for instance. Or it may be good for me to take your healthy heart when mine begins to fail. And even if eating meat is good for an individual’s health does that justify what the destruction of our planet is going to do to individuals in the future? I can’t conclude eating meat is “good for us” when we take just a little step back.

Dissident Dan

Aug21-04, 06:33 PM

I've argued this one before: I'll concede that there is a difference betwen a pig and a head of lettuce that makes a different morality apply if you concede there is a difference between a human and a pig that makes a different morality apply.

Or, if you prefer, you could concede instead that there is a similarity between a lion and a human that makes the same morality apply when dealing with the pig.

So, you say the differences are grounds for different treatment when it suits you and say that the similarities are grounds for similar action when it suits you. What you are doing is taking differences that are irrelevant with regard to this thread (this thread is about eating animals, so as as it concerns recipients of an action, it is about being eaten) and using them to defend cruelty, and yet you are using a weak link in the similarities between humans and lions (appetite and instinct, perhaps?) to defend cruelties, despite the obvious and relevant differences (cognitive capacity).

The similarity that is relevant as recipients of actions is the ability to experience. As creatures with the ability to experience, we should not be killed or tortured. The difference that is relevant as actors is our (humans')cognitive abilities. We have increased ability to understand, empathize, and think about morality. Thus, we should act differently from lions. I doubt that you would disagree as it pertains to most topics--I doubt that I would catch you defending rape as a method of reproduction or fighting with other males over territory or females. I think that you are just rationalizing the eating of animals because of your desire to be correct and your desire to not change.

Chronos

Aug22-04, 03:19 AM

I eat meat. I presume farmers raise animals to be food for the same reason. Is it wrong to raise animals to to be eaten? I have no idea. I would guess there would be far fewer of them otherwise. Perhaps they would be extinct. Perhaps highly advanced aliens raise us for food. Perhaps we just think we live long lives and die peacefully.

digiflux

Aug24-04, 10:32 AM

I'll concede that there is a difference betwen a pig and a head of lettuce that makes a different morality apply if you concede there is a difference between a human and a pig that makes a different morality apply. Or, if you prefer, you could concede instead that there is a similarity between a lion and a human that makes the same morality apply when dealing with the pig.

When I see posts like this one I understand exactly what “avemt1” means. This gets tiring...

Plants don't have brains or awareness any more than rocks do. They don't have a capacity for suffering in our sense of the word.

We don’t know this to be true. Suffering can take on many different forms. Humans can suffer greatly without feeling physical pain.... Otherwise I agree with just about all Mazuz says.

That argument has been used before and its a straw-man. Blacks are clearly not pigs or heads of lettuce. The fact that uneducated bigots used to think different is irrelevant.

Many people (highly educated, non bigots) see the parallel between the animal industry and slavery. Black people who eat meat are incensed by the argument but it does have merit.

How we've become? When in human history were the majority of humans ever not meat eaters? It seems to me that vegitarians are trying to change human behavior from what has been normal throughout human history (not to mention evolution). To me, that requires a pretty clear and profound justification.

Slavery and torture were, and still are in many cultures, “normal” human behaviors. Some things about human nature should change. It begins with laws which then become ingrained into the culture. THIS is “normal” human behavior.....

Quite right - but like I said, I'll need a pretty strong reason why we should suddenly alter our behavior after 5 billion years of evolution.

Morals should evolve too.......

The truth is we eat meat because we like it.

Mazuz: You have hit the nail on the head. People are to weak to change. They behave more like my dogs. If it tastes good, down it goes...lol. Their justifications for eating meat are a self indulgent ruse.

Speaking of self indulgence: www.allhatnocattle.net/george_w_bush_picking_his_nose.htm (http://)

digiflux

Aug24-04, 10:40 AM

Lemme try again. If it still doesn't work just copy and past it. It's a must see! hahahaha....

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/george_w_bush_picking_his_nose.htm

poolwin2001

Sep10-04, 12:34 PM

I dont agree that we should stop eating meat for reasons like saving animals spieceies being extinct but there are many other reasons to do so.
We have to compulsorily study biology till STD 10 and i learned something about Bio magnification(i think it is called that)=more and more pesticides/insecticides etc are sprayed on crops,when we eat plants, these chemicals in low ppm(ppt?) arent degraded and cumulate and cause harm,get passed on to the next generation etc etc
If we eat meat,we eat beings on whom biomagnification had already acted and so on.....
There was also something about robins being killed which lead to the DDT ban

Alkatran

Sep22-04, 11:45 AM

Top priority should be the continuation of life on earth. We should be more worried about mosquitoes going extinct than the cute n cuddly panda, which doesn't really contribute much, going extinct. If the pandas die off, who suffers? A few people get sad.

If mosquitoes die off, who suffers? Any animal that was eating mosquitoes. That's... a lot of animals.

Also, believe it or not we have a delicate balance going here. If you stop deer hunting for even a year the deer overpopulate, car-deer accidents increase, deer start leaving the forest looking for food, ETC

I can't imagine how bad it would be if we just stopped hunting these animals.

Dissident Dan

Sep22-04, 03:43 PM

Also, believe it or not we have a delicate balance going here. If you stop deer hunting for even a year the deer overpopulate, car-deer accidents increase, deer start leaving the forest looking for food, ETC

I can't imagine how bad it would be if we just stopped hunting these animals.

Deer populations were fine before we got here.

Aren't there hunting seasons to make sure that they aren't hunted to extinction? And you're talking about overpopulation. Anyway, this has little to do with the purpose of the thread.

Alkatran

Sep22-04, 04:43 PM

Deer populations were fine before we got here.

Aren't there hunting seasons to make sure that they aren't hunted to extinction? And you're talking about overpopulation. Anyway, this has little to do with the purpose of the thread.

It has everything to do with the purpose of the thread. I consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most. That's how I'm going to make my decision, could the planet handle a massive halt in meat eating?

Think of it this way: If we stop eating meat we need more room for crops. That means we need to either move or get rid of the animals currently on the field. How do we do that? Be eating them and NOT REPLACING them.

And saying deer populations were fine "before we got here" has little relevance. We ARE here now. The population has adapted to keep the balance it has with the hunting season. Yes, if the hunting season was year round it would mean the end of deer, but the same goes for if it was removed. There would be massive amounts of death due to disease, hunger, etc. Better for some to get shot (much better than starving to death) than for all to hunger.

By the way, if the deer overpopulated, they would become a nuisance, trying to eat at the crops we need.

stefan80302

Sep22-04, 07:03 PM

[QUOTE=Alkatran]It has everything to do with the purpose of the thread. I consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most. That's how I'm going to make my decision, could the planet handle a massive halt in meat eating?

I'm sorry to disagree with you Alaktran but I think when you say i consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most i think you mean human life. Everything humans do to prolong their existence is infact imorral. We kill animals, destroy the land, burn the forests, drain the lakes, warm the atmosphere. Further on, i think the planet can handle anything we trow at it, unless we change its orbit it is going to be here long after we are gone.
sorry for not having a concrete point but i just needed to respond.

Alkatran

Sep22-04, 07:11 PM

I'm sorry to disagree with you Alaktran but I think when you say i consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most i think you mean human life. Everything humans do to prolong their existence is infact imorral. We kill animals, destroy the land, burn the forests, drain the lakes, warm the atmosphere. Further on, i think the planet can handle anything we trow at it, unless we change its orbit it is going to be here long after we are gone.
sorry for not having a concrete point but i just needed to respond.

I figured someone would bring up that point. That's why I based all my arguments around what would go wrong for animals.

Face it, humans are one the higher versions of life. Highly Intelligence, capable of large scale change. A dog will spend it's entire life eating, sleeping, etc. ... Then again, so will your average person. :rolleyes:

I kill billions of bacteria every day, I'm sure. I crush mosquitoes if they decide to bite me (I let them be if they don't both me). I brush off a spider crawling up my leg. Is this wrong? If nothing ever crushed a mosquito wouldn't they get out of hand?

Anyways, my point is, if we make a RADICAL change like completely stopping consumption of meat the animal population will EXPLODE. There will suddenly by double (or more!) the number of herbivores that we eat around. What happens next? Well carnivores have an easy few months ahead! The population explosion moves up the food chain (herbivores go down to normal and lower when carnivores get high). I can't see very many 'good' situations arising from a sudden change like that. Wolves in the streets and such.

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 09:21 PM

I am studying Science 10 here in a Canadian High School. We are running over the beginning of the text book - looking at ecology. I have learned about certain ways scientists categorize ecosystems and relationships between biotic and abiotic members of the ecosystem (some, at least); and one way of looking at relationships is to graph or represent the transfer of energy from one organism to the next. I have learned something interesting here: aparently, the energy we take from our food (measured in Kj) lessens as the food we consume aproaches the top of the food chain. Note to take here: eating a shark will give you much less energy than consuming what the shark ate, consuming what the shark ate, ate, or cosuming what the shark ate, ate, ate... catch my drift? In coclusion, cosuming plants, which get their energy from the sun and nutrients in the terestrial system will give us optimal energy transfer. What do you guys think? Is this true?

- V

An alternative reasoning i developped independently (perhaps this has already been debated?), is that, perhaps by consuming mamals (eating meat) allows us to bypass the metabolic preparation of the matter we have consumed, simply, (and i might be thinking too simply here) because the animal we are eating has performed the digesition and transformation of plant matter into protein and hormones, through its own metabolism, for us; thus we do not need to alocate much energy to our metabolic system which would, otherwise, use it to break down and transform plant matter into protein and hormones.

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 09:33 PM

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 09:36 PM

It has everything to do with the purpose of the thread. I consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most. That's how I'm going to make my decision, could the planet handle a massive halt in meat eating?

Think of it this way: If we stop eating meat we need more room for crops. That means we need to either move or get rid of the animals currently on the field. How do we do that? Be eating them and NOT REPLACING them.

And saying deer populations were fine "before we got here" has little relevance. We ARE here now. The population has adapted to keep the balance it has with the hunting season. Yes, if the hunting season was year round it would mean the end of deer, but the same goes for if it was removed. There would be massive amounts of death due to disease, hunger, etc. Better for some to get shot (much better than starving to death) than for all to hunger.

By the way, if the deer overpopulated, they would become a nuisance, trying to eat at the crops we need.

you'r reasons might be valid, to a point, but your thinking is a bit facetious. We didn't alwasy eat deer, and we haven't developed the gun to hunt the deer so easily and readilly untill very recently in natural history. Therefore, don't you worry about deer overpopulation.

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 09:53 PM

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on earth stopped eating meat.

Thats a load of carp. Excuse my spelling mistakes. These are food chains we have created. There is no option anymore, we have pretty much disturbed everything. Why do you think nation leaders have meetings on the issues of ecology and natural resurces? Because there is no war to wage and they are bored? Why do we wage war first of all? For resources; directly or indirectly, for the same resurces under question here, food and space (among other things).

- V

Alkatran

Sep22-04, 10:01 PM

you'r reasons might be valid, to a point, but your thinking is a bit facetious. We didn't alwasy eat deer, and we haven't developed the gun to hunt the deer so easily and readilly untill very recently in natural history. Therefore, don't you worry about deer overpopulation.

That's bull and you know it. We've hunted deer for a long time (centuries), and human civilization has changed A LOT since the beginning.

This is what I mean:
http://www.texasdeer.com/deer.htm

This research also shows that wildlife professionals foresee that without their ability to hunt or trap, the current population of some species will increase phenomenally. When asked by how much their budgets would have to increase to maintain the same level of service if they could neither hunt nor trap, most wildlife professionals stated that no increase in funding would make up for the loss of those two methods.

Alkatran

Sep22-04, 10:01 PM

Thats a load of carp. Excuse my spelling mistakes. These are food chains we have created. There is no option anymore, we have pretty much disturbed everything. Why do you think nation leaders have meetings on the issues of ecology and natural resurces? Because there is no war to wage and they are bored? Why do we wage war first of all? For resources; directly or indirectly, for the same resurces under question here, food and space (among other things).

- V

I didn't say to do nothing. I said an ultimatum on meat wouldn't work.

Alkatran

Sep22-04, 10:02 PM

It wouldnt be that bad... the wolf will hunt them. There is always a way, in nature.

That's what I said. Not only would the deer population explode, but the wolf population would explode afterwards. Wolves run out of food. Wolves start hunting pets... maybe worse.

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 10:05 PM

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

[8)] Good health to all.

See i don't know about that thory, to me doctors saying that you should drink so much water a day is starting to sound like sponsorship of "Pure Life" water, a Nestle brand.

How much water do people drink in a natural ecosystem? My theory is this: When hungry eat, when thirsty drink, don't listen to anything anybody says, it's you who lives in your body. Unfortunately i also do believe that our bodies' desires can be tampered with through psychological means, resulting in a false desire to consume certain substances, when in fact it should not be so.

- V

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 10:07 PM

That's bull and you know it. We've hunted deer for a long time (centuries), and human civilization has changed A LOT since the beginning.

This is what I mean:
http://www.texasdeer.com/deer.htm

So you are saying we are hunting as much deer as prehistoric/pre-industrial human? Oh really?

- V

P.S.

To bring focus back to the original topic, i will say this: by this method you have presented in your original post - we have not done anything exept relocate a naturally occuring very large number of chickens and cows and other species from their environment, into enclosed ones we have made. Why? Why do you think this theory doesn't sound right?

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 10:12 PM

That's what I said. Not only would the deer population explode, but the wolf population would explode afterwards. Wolves run out of food. Wolves start hunting pets... maybe worse.

Wolf start hunting pets? Maybe worse? Clue: "worse" implies evil, evil is a human concept - and a relatively new one at that, it is not a natural concept. You are confusing nature with philosophy. (of course there is much to say on this topic, and here is where i think it should be taken up, if interest allows, in a different post)

- V

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rader
For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

[8)] Good health to all.

See i don't know about that thory, to me doctors saying that you should drink so much water a day is starting to sound like sponsorship of "Pure Life" water, a Nestle brand.

How much water do people drink in a natural ecosystem? My theory is this: When hungry eat, when thirsty drink, don't listen to anything anybody says, it's you who lives in your body. Unfortunately i also do believe that our bodies' desires can be tampered with through psychological means, resulting in a false desire to consume certain substances, when in fact it should not be so.

- V

Wow, sometimes i surprize myself, i appologize for not paying more attention to your words, i think i basically repeated what you meant.

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 10:23 PM

I say skip the part where they test one pinky, brain and monkeys and just go straight to human testing. There's plenty of us we can spare a few people. Maybe clones but that just wouldn't be the same as real experinced humans.

"There's plenty of us we can spare a few people."

That's what Hitler thought too...

- V

Dissident Dan

Sep22-04, 10:54 PM

I wish that people would read some of the previous posts before posting.

The food chain/overpopulation argument is thus broken:

99.99% of the food we eat is NOT from wild animals. We breed them to eat them. We feed them plants. We would actually need to grow fewer plants to feed our selves directly than we do to feed to animals which we eat.

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

Also, it does not matter that we are the smartest. That doesn't give us the right to do whatever else we want to others. By that reasoning, we can do whatever we want to mentally retarded people, and, hypothetically, if extraterrestrials more intelligent than ourselves came here, they would have a right do whatever they want to us. Obviously, this is absurd.

Intelligence does not determine the value of someone's life. The only things that matter are capacities for pleasure and suffering. These give value (positive or negative) to an entity such as a human or a pig.

siliconhype

Sep22-04, 11:05 PM

lightbeing

Sep27-04, 12:47 PM

America is poised to gain from "learning" how to eat. Exemplified by this thread and all of your local nursing and convalescent homes in your areas. Just go visit them once to see what the benefits are a life of eating the typical FDA and Rx. influenced American diet can do.

Then, observe the aged yogi or buddhist monk located in the Eastern rural part of the Asian continent. I am not saying exploit their disposition. Simply, learn. Learn what the state of the matter that enters the body has the ability to do. Learn, what the last phase of matter( of the three, but not taught here!), the "dead" phase which includes previously killed meat, and or vegetables that have been cooked at high temp and smothered in chemicals and reactants as well as inert ingredients, has as far as nutrients and lifeforce function inhibiting tendencies.

Feeding the mind of arrogant, egotistical based scripts of educational accomplishment has not improved the understanding of the world around us. Believe what you want about adkins and advertisement. But, there is always possibilities of what can be done, can NOT be undone.

Contrary to the underdeveloped conscious awareness of the population.
You don't know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nor I........

So, stop saying you do. And...
Learn.

johnny

Alkatran

Sep27-04, 04:01 PM

Wolf start hunting pets? Maybe worse? Clue: "worse" implies evil, evil is a human concept - and a relatively new one at that, it is not a natural concept. You are confusing nature with philosophy. (of course there is much to say on this topic, and here is where i think it should be taken up, if interest allows, in a different post)

- V

If wolves started trying to attack people because they couldn't find enough food, that would be 'worse' (but unlikely). Where's the 'evil'?

Also, it does not matter that we are the smartest. That doesn't give us the right to do whatever else we want to others. By that reasoning, we can do whatever we want to mentally retarded people, and, hypothetically, if extraterrestrials more intelligent than ourselves came here, they would have a right do whatever they want to us. Obviously, this is absurd.

Intelligence does not determine the value of someone's life. The only things that matter are capacities for pleasure and suffering. These give value (positive or negative) to an entity such as a human or a pig.

Survival of the strongest. If aliens come and wipe us out, well they were more evolved for the task. But this also means that since WE are the strongest (aquired strength through weapons counts!) we are a higher form of life. Just as the tiger is higher than a human stupid or unfortunate enough to walk in its path.

But it's all a very vague and arguable line, on who is more important.

So you are saying we are hunting as much deer as prehistoric/pre-industrial human? Oh really?

I explicitly said centuries. I don't know the history of hunting, but I'm sure as long as we've been here in North America, we've hunted the local wildlife.

russ_watters

Sep27-04, 07:21 PM

digiflux

Sep28-04, 08:55 AM

Face it, humans are one the higher versions of life. Highly Intelligence, capable of large scale change. A dog will spend it's entire life eating, sleeping, etc. ... Then again, so will your average person.

I kill billions of bacteria every day, I'm sure. I crush mosquitoes if they decide to bite me (I let them be if they don't both me). I brush off a spider crawling up my leg. Is this wrong? If nothing ever crushed a mosquito wouldn't they get out of hand?

Anyways, my point is, if we make a RADICAL change like completely stopping consumption of meat the animal population will EXPLODE. There will suddenly by double (or more!) the number of herbivores that we eat around. What happens next? Well carnivores have an easy few months ahead! The population explosion moves up the food chain (herbivores go down to normal and lower when carnivores get high). I can't see very many 'good' situations arising from a sudden change like that. Wolves in the streets and such.

I'm not even going to reply to an idiotic post like this. This thread has taken a turn for the worse......

Alkatran

Sep28-04, 09:30 AM

I'm not even going to reply to an idiotic post like this. This thread has taken a turn for the worse......

That was a reply. If the post was idiotic you should have shot it down.

Les Sleeth

Sep28-04, 10:22 AM

What's the average life expectancy of a buddhist monk in asia compared to the average american? I doubt it compares favorablly.

Yes, but I doubt that has anything to so with vegetarian vs. meat diet.

Alkatran

Sep28-04, 10:40 AM

Yes, but I doubt that has anything to so with vegetarian vs. meat diet.

Is he implying that they eat nothing but vegetables or something else?

YourLooks

Sep28-04, 11:38 AM

I have never eaten meat for a year or so, reasons ? only one, because I have no money to buy meat. I am only able to afford rice, bread, and cheese.
Oh well, I know bread and in cheese I eat daily, there are also fats and eggs but they are not meat anymore, right ?
I eat a lot, and do exercises every morning, I am healthy and in a very good condition, 45kgs.

Les Sleeth

Sep28-04, 12:04 PM

Is he implying that they eat nothing but vegetables or something else?

I don't know. I assumed he simply meant meat vs. non-meat diet. Environmental stress can't be discounted when comparing health in different cultures. Diet isn't all there is to health.

I think most informed people today would say that a balanced, nutritional meatless diet is most likely to be better for one's health, than a balanced, nutritional meat diet; yet, a balanced, nutritional meat diet is most likely to be better for one's health than a bad meatless diet. In terms of living on just veggies (i.e., no dairy), I did it for 8 years about 20 years ago and was never healthier, but I also knew a lot about nutrition, combining incomplete proteins, etc. (the relatively small amount of dairy I eat now is purely for sensual enjoyment of my food). I had some friends who did it and they always looked ragged because they ate poorly. So the comparison between diets has to be correct to make any sense.

However, none of that has nothing to do with the morality of eating meat, which I still cannot see. More efficient, healthier, better for the planet . . . yes. But moral or immoral I don't get.

pace

Sep28-04, 12:06 PM

Survival of the strongest. If aliens come and wipe us out, well they were more evolved for the task. But this also means that since WE are the strongest (aquired strength through weapons counts!) we are a higher form of life. Just as the tiger is higher than a human stupid or unfortunate enough to walk in its path.

Oh yes. Let's See. If I'm smarter than you, then I just kill you if let's say you're doing something stupid and is in my way and I've done nothing wrong. Do you really believe this? This is how the Hitler Agenda was. It was all about lower races, and that we could kill them just because they was of 'lower' form. It didn't matter that they wanted to live, or that they obviously felt pain. Oh no.

But it's all a very vague and arguable line, on who is more important.

Exactly. Many of us humans are really stupid, spending our lifes in a little box. In many ways a lot of the other animals are much more lifely and smart than us.

Anyways, my point is, if we make a RADICAL change like completely stopping consumption of meat the animal population will EXPLODE. There will suddenly by double (or more!) the number of herbivores that we eat around. What happens next? Well carnivores have an easy few months ahead! The population explosion moves up the food chain (herbivores go down to normal and lower when carnivores get high). I can't see very many 'good' situations arising from a sudden change like that. Wolves in the streets and such.

The change of vegetarianism will never go that fast anyway, so it's not a valid argument.

Alkatran

Sep28-04, 12:28 PM

Oh yes. Let's See. If I'm smarter than you, then I just kill you if let's say you're doing something stupid and is in my way and I've done nothing wrong. Do you really believe this? This is how the Hitler Agenda was. It was all about lower races, and that we could kill them just because they was of 'lower' form. It didn't matter that they wanted to live, or that they obviously felt pain. Oh no.

Good point. I was thinking of a situation where the aliens HAD to whipe us out to survive. You have two species competing against each other, the victor is worthy.

Just a senseless massacre is wrong, I agree. I'm not entirely heartless, you see. That would go against the 'beneficial' theory of right I like. (destruction of one species for the unnessecary expansion of another)

Exactly. Many of us humans are really stupid, spending our lifes in a little box. In many ways a lot of the other animals are much more lifely and smart than us.

Smarter than us? I can't think of any other animals which have the same pure processing power we do. Of course I'm not counting serverely mentally disabled people here.

The change of vegetarianism will never go that fast anyway, so it's not a valid argument.

Good point. We make the change gradual, slowly lowering hunting and killing, breeding less animals etc.

Question: Would you say it's better to have lived and been killed than never to have been born? If we stop raising domestic animals (and we would have to, we need more room for crops. I'll admit not as much room as the animals take, but THEY NEED THAT ROOM) isn't that taking away life in one respect?

russ_watters

Sep28-04, 07:24 PM

Yes, but I doubt that has anything to so with vegetarian vs. meat diet. True - it was a straw-man, but I felt like shooting it down anyway.

pace

Sep30-04, 02:31 AM

Good point. I was thinking of a situation where the aliens HAD to whipe us out to survive. You have two species competing against each other, the victor is worthy.

Just a senseless massacre is wrong, I agree. I'm not entirely heartless, you see. That would go against the 'beneficial' theory of right I like. (destruction of one species for the unnessecary expansion of another)

Oh.. Ok :biggrin:

Smarter than us? I can't think of any other animals which have the same pure processing power we do. Of course I'm not counting serverely mentally disabled people here.

Yeah, smart is maybe not the right word. Wise and lifely is better. When we spend our days in blocks and sement I think we miss out on life. Animals live a very variated and lifely life out there I think.

Question: Would you say it's better to have lived and been killed than never to have been born? If we stop raising domestic animals (and we would have to, we need more room for crops. I'll admit not as much room as the animals take, but THEY NEED THAT ROOM) isn't that taking away life in one respect?

It's hard for me to imagine that we are doing animals a favor by bringing them into that type of existence and then confining them, tormenting them, and slaughtering them. Besides, I don't wanna say we are 'taking life away' when we don't raise them in the first place.
We are already helping other animals in some degree. When we have more time, peace and comfortability(I think people in general have a more wish for being in comfort(fun&healthcare) than actually stribe for things like Genioushood or Love), then I think we will put much more force on helping our different animals too. Then we will have time to raise proper animals to their right habitat, and help them too in understanding and healthcare. Bringing general good. Simply because we have to prioritate that they also want to live, and feel pain. We will help where we can.

Thanks for all the good comments! :biggrin:

lightbeing

Sep30-04, 03:37 AM

What's the average life expectancy of a buddhist monk in asia compared to the average american? I doubt it compares favorablly.
I do not know.

The observation is to understand the difference in the state of the body!
More variables than diet affect life expectancy...

Who cares if I said that "monks" eat right or yogis It could be any living creature. Even you. But there is a few interesting observations of the contrast to "average american". There have been a few monks. That, eat right and who have acheived a special feat that exemplifies the main differential.
That is, while the elderly and increasingly more people throughout the world have the organs in there bodies attempt to rip there life away from them by breaking down, they have died with all of their body left so intact and clean that they do not even decompose but attain their stature.
As a "mummy"

Alkatran

Sep30-04, 07:41 AM

I do not know.

The observation is to understand the difference in the state of the body!
More variables than diet affect life expectancy...

Who cares if I said that "monks" eat right or yogis It could be any living creature. Even you. But there is a few interesting observations of the contrast to "average american". There have been a few monks. That, eat right and who have acheived a special feat that exemplifies the main differential.
That is, while the elderly and increasingly more people throughout the world have the organs in there bodies attempt to rip there life away from them by breaking down, they have died with all of their body left so intact and clean that they do not even decompose but attain their stature.
As a "mummy"I need more proof than the word "monk"

Dissident Dan

Oct4-04, 10:40 PM

Question: Would you say it's better to have lived and been killed than never to have been born? If we stop raising domestic animals (and we would have to, we need more room for crops. I'll admit not as much room as the animals take, but THEY NEED THAT ROOM) isn't that taking away life in one respect?

Well, you have to consider quality of life. For an animal being born into modern agriculture, life is hell. Any such creature would be better off dead.

Now, I don't think that you can make a moral issue of not allowing a creature to be created, because, if the creature is not created, then there is no creature to be denied of life. There is no individual to be affected by the decision.

digiflux

Oct5-04, 08:37 AM

For thousands of years Native Americans killed animals for food and shelter, but they lived with nature not against it. Science not withstanding, modern Americans have embraced a religion which separates humans from our non-human cousins. This has led to widespread abuse of sentient beings. They justify their cruelty with scientific jargon and deny their humanity like a Nazi scientist experimenting on Jews.

I encourage all here to read Carl Sagan's book, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.

physicsisphirst

Oct5-04, 12:41 PM

This has led to widespread abuse of sentient beings. They justify their cruelty with scientific jargon and deny their humanity like a Nazi scientist experimenting on Jews.

it is fascinating the extent to which people can rationalize their actions.
for instance, descartes decided one day that animals were mere automatons incapable of suffering. vivisectors therefore used to nail conscious animals to dissecting boards and proceed to cut them up.

denying basic characteristics that living beings share, allows one to treat others anyway one pleases.

in friendship,
prad

pace

Oct5-04, 02:44 PM

.. and when the animals screamed, it was just their 'mechanics' that told them to do so...

cogito

Oct5-04, 05:58 PM

it is fascinating the extent to which people can rationalize their actions.
for instance, descartes decided one day that animals were mere automatons incapable of suffering. vivisectors therefore used to nail conscious animals to dissecting boards and proceed to cut them up.

denying basic characteristics that living beings share, allows one to treat others anyway one pleases.

in friendship,
prad

To be fair to Descartes, this wasn't an arbitrary decision on his part, and it wasn't motivated by a desire to cut animals open. His views on animals were bizarre and inhumane, but not unprincipled. If anything, this makes his views on animals even more disturbing to those of us who recognize the mental complexity of many animals, especially mammals.

brandon.irwin

Oct12-04, 11:42 AM

I think most people in America eat too much meat compared to fruits and vegetables (especially now with the popularity of the Atkins diet). From a nutritional standpoint, I think this is a bad idea.

From a moral standpoint, I see no problem in eating other lower lifeforms. By lower, I mean like fish, most poultry, etc. I see no reason to eat beef since it's possible to eat too much with bad effects (heard disease, etc). Plus, the cattle these days are feed to themselves, which is never a good idea. Although, isn't this true for pork and chicken too?

I see no problem with putting chickens in small cages. They are comfortable there. Maybe not as healthy, but if they really didn't like it, don't you think they would get too stressed out and not lay eggs (like chasing them all day)? I don't think they can comprehend the situation enough to care. Look at the size of their brains...it's ridiculously small. I believe there are enough chickens out there in the wild to naturally evolve.

I don't think it's right for us to keep a species from evolving. I don't see any circumstance where we make this happen (besides wiping out an entire species).

And, the soy, from what I've read about it, it's the processing that makes it toxic.

proneax

Oct12-04, 12:28 PM

OK, first of all, the poor treatment of animals on farms etc isn't an argument for vegitarianism or veganism. It may be an argument for reform and new laws regulating the treatment of animals in these circumstances, but to make the connection between vegitarianism and animal treatment is skipping a few steps.

So lets say we've fixed this problem, and chickens, cattle, etc are all free range and happy as clams. Now the argument becomes 'any killing of an animal for consumtion is morally wrong' ?? Sorry but I dont' see the justification for that. Is your cat morally wrong when it kills a mouse or bird? It doesn't even eat it. What about the cat or dog food you feed your pet? Does it contain meat? Is that 'wrong'? Is any animal 'morally wrong' for eating another animal? If not, then how are we different? Because we have higher cognitive abilities? What about dolphins? They have a pretty high cognitive ability and they eat other fish. If you look at the evolution of the human race, at what point in its history did it suddenly become 'wrong' to eat meat? When was our reasoning capacity high enough that we should have said 'lets stop eating meat'.

So if you can't say that 'any killing of an animal for consumption is morally wrong' then what is the argument for vegitarianism? I've heard people say that they're healthier when eating vegetarian but it also seems to take a good dietary knowledge to pull this off. If you're vegetarian for health reasons that really has nothing to do with animal rights. Some people are vegetarian because the find meat 'gross' or don't like the blood or whatever. Again, this isn't really related to animal rights.

And being vegetarian to 'boycott' the poor treatment of animals really doesn't fly either. In theory, not buying meat reduces the size of the market so in theory fewer animals are killed, however it also means that less meat is sold. Now, in a market that has a mix of industrially raised and 'free-range' cattle/chickens/whatever, reducing the size of the market reduces the slice of the pie that the 'free range' can take up and lessens the chance that it will continue to be viable without legislation, unless those that purchase 'free-range' are devoted consumers and as the market shrinks the consumer base stays the same. I'm no economist so I guess there isn't a good conclusion to this conjecture but none the less you can't say with certainty that not buying meat decreases the improper treatment of animals.

thoughts?

Alkatran

Oct12-04, 01:46 PM

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct12-04, 03:12 PM

Personally, I've found myself at the conclusion that vegetarianism is not just "not right", but in fact wrong. I'd like to start an intelligent debate though, so please bear with me. I'd like people to look at my logic below:

Eating meat is efficient and more efficient than eating substitutes. Not only is meat more efficient, but it is also more enjoyable in many instances.

Animals cannot contribute postively to society in an amount that justifies not eating them. If something doesn't help us, why shouldn't we take advantage of it? Maybe it's cruel, maybe we wouldn't like it if people did that to us, but what justification for being vegan does that create. The whole premise of treating animals how you would like to be treated is based on fear. But with humans that logic applies and can benefit you directly rather than through some unlikely possibility. If animals can't help us the only reason I can see to let them live, is a reason based on fear. They wouldn't like to be in an animals situation, so instead of taking advantage of an opportunity - vegans refuse to do so based on fear.

Even though vegetarians aren't overtly harming people. Vegetarianism is insufficient and works against idealism, making it wrong in my mind.

I have to go at the moment so I apologize if my logic wasn't clear. This is/isn't meant as an attack on vegans. I wanted to express my current opinion to try and get other perspectives.

pace

Oct12-04, 03:22 PM

And I belive that the theory of evolution will cause more good to other animals in length, than it has caused us bad things.

chroot

Oct12-04, 03:47 PM

Personally, I've found myself at the conclusion that vegetarianism is not just "not right", but in fact wrong.
Well, most of what you say doesn't make any real sense, honestly.
Eating meat is efficient and more efficient than eating substitutes. Not only is meat more efficient, but it is also more enjoyable in many instances.
Define 'efficient' for me. If 'efficient' means having a large amount of protein per unit weight, then yes, it's efficient. If 'efficient' means having a large amount of essential vitamins per unit weight, then no, it's extremely inefficient.

The 'enjoyment' factor is also debatable. I will agree with you that the dominant reason that people eat meat is simply that it tastes good, but there are many people who find fruits more enjoyable than steaks. It's very subjective, and you can't really use such sweeping generalizations to make a logical argument. They're called "arguments by assertion."
Animals cannot contribute postively to society in an amount that justifies not eating them.
Since when have animals been tasked with contributing something to human society? Is it our right to declare that every living thing on the planet either help us or end up in our bellies? That's extortion. It's not only immoral but illegal to extort people, so why shouldn't that moral standard apply to other living things, too?
If something doesn't help us, why shouldn't we take advantage of it? Maybe it's cruel, maybe we wouldn't like it if people did that to us, but what justification for being vegan does that create.
It makes an excellent justification for being vegan. The whole point of veganism is this: There are two ways to live your life. One depends upon the exploitation of animals, the other does not. Given that choice, vegans choose (for many reasons) to live a life that does not depend on the exploitation of animals. In other words, if you don't have to kill animals, why should you?
The whole premise of treating animals how you would like to be treated is based on fear.
Fear? :uhh: Veganism is driven by three motivations:

1) Health. It seems generally true (though far from certain) that people are healthier when they eat less meat. The medical community has accepted this for quite some time.

2) Environmental protection. The farming of animals for food is extraordinarily wasteful with land and natural resources. The amount of energy and land required to produce 1000 kcals worth of meat is much, much larger than the amount of energy and land required to produce 1000 kcals worth of edible plant matter.

3) Animal rights. Many vegans simply adhere to the afore-mentioned philosophy: if you don't have to kill an animal, why should you?

Perhaps you don't know any vegans, but I know many -- and none have ever expressed anything resembling fear. Unless, of course, you mean the fear of heart disease and liver failure from eating at McDonald's.
But with humans that logic applies and can benefit you directly rather than through some unlikely possibility. If animals can't help us the only reason I can see to let them live, is a reason based on fear. They wouldn't like to be in an animals situation, so instead of taking advantage of an opportunity - vegans refuse to do so based on fear.
This is just abject silliness.
Even though vegetarians aren't overtly harming people. Vegetarianism is insufficient and works against idealism, making it wrong in my mind.
Vegetarianism is insufficient? What does this mean? What does it mean to 'work against idealism?' This doesn't make any sense.

- Warren

pace

Oct12-04, 04:03 PM

Yeah! Go chroot! :biggrin:

chroot

Oct12-04, 04:09 PM

Now the argument becomes 'any killing of an animal for consumtion is morally wrong' ?? Sorry but I dont' see the justification for that. Is your cat morally wrong when it kills a mouse or bird?
Lower animals do not have the capacity for technology or ethics, so comparing human behavior to lower animal behavior is silly. There is no particular reason that we should model our behavior on lower animals.
What about dolphins? They have a pretty high cognitive ability and they eat other fish.
They may have great intellect, but they lack technology. Technology is a critical component.

Only in recent years has mankind's technology enabled veganism. In the past, a diet without meat would more than likely render you malnourished. Our understanding of nutrition and our agricultural abilities have finally enabled mankind to make an unfettered choice between a diet that exploits animals and a diet that does not. It seems quite silly to make that choice by observing the behavior of lower animals who do not have the choice available to them.
If you look at the evolution of the human race, at what point in its history did it suddenly become 'wrong' to eat meat? When was our reasoning capacity high enough that we should have said 'lets stop eating meat'.
In the recent past. Most vegans (not the ones you see on TV holding signs) are not militant. They don't really care if you eat meat or not, as long as you don't persecute them for their choices. Few vegans will say outright that 'eating meat is wrong.' They will simply say that they have chosen not to eat meat. Why should they?
I've heard people say that they're healthier when eating vegetarian but it also seems to take a good dietary knowledge to pull this off.
It seems funny that you ask for reasons, then provide them yourself. The most common reasons are for better health, for environmental protection, and for animal rights. Every person who chooses to be vegan chooses for one or more of those reasons. Some vegans are concerned only with their health and couldn't care less about killing cows.

And being vegetarian to 'boycott' the poor treatment of animals really doesn't fly either.
I haven't heard of many vegans being vegan solely to boycott animal mistreatment. In fact, the two camps are somewhat disparate. Many (if not most) PETA members are meat-eaters, and many vegans don't really care about animal rights.

- Warren

Revelationz

Oct12-04, 04:14 PM

1. I spoke with a nutritionist once, who said that there are structures in the brains of developing children that do not develop properly without cholesterol that can't be gotten from plants. He thought it positively harmful to deprive a child of meat entirely. However, not a lot of meat is needed to make up the requirement.

2. Pure herbivores like cows have long GI tracts for digesting plants, incisor teeth for cutting plant fibers, as well as molars for grinding them. Carnivores like lions have short GI tracts for digesting meat quickly before it rots in the warmth of the carnivore's body and have 'canine' teeth for tearing flesh. Omnivores like humans have intermediate length GI tracts and all types of teeth. This leads me to conclude that humans are designed to eat both flesh and plants.

chroot

Oct12-04, 04:17 PM

1. I spoke with a nutritionist once, who said that there are structures in the brains of developing children that do not develop properly without cholesterol that can't be gotten from plants. He thought it positively harmful to deprive a child of meat entirely. However, not a lot of meat is needed to make up the requirement.
You have one data point -- one person's opinion. Many other nutritionists would say precisely the opposite, that meat is not required in any respect.
This leads me to conclude that humans are designed to eat both flesh and plants.
And we're biologically diggers, too, since we have those pretty fingernails. Why aren't you out digging for termites?

- Warren

Alkatran

Oct12-04, 04:51 PM

Whichever path is the most beneficial is the one that should be followed. If vegetarianism can be implemented in such a way that it is better than what we have, then by all means go for it.

Just don't forget how picky some people are about their food.

Technicly, to side-step the 'animal rights' issues, you could 'create' an organism through genetic manipulation (obviously not now, we have not the knowledge!) that would simply constantly grow (cancer! yay!), have minimal (if not any) brain, definitely no pain reception, etc... and tastes good. A big blob oozing off a table isn't going to make people think "oh no! cute thing being killed!"

You never know...

arildno

Oct12-04, 04:55 PM

Alkatran:
Have you read Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crane"?

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct12-04, 05:11 PM

By people refusing to eat meat, because they refuse to kill animals (who don't help society), they are creating changes in the economy that make it less efficient. Society has to adapt (or has adapted) to provide options for vegans. Some vegetarians also rebel against meat eating. Restaurants could delete vegan specific options - allowing for employees to have the spare time to volunteer or do something else more important. This infringing on useful time is an example of how vegetarianism "works against idealism". In an idealistic world, the extra time would be avaliable.

Exhorting humans is considered wrong because those humans have potential to do something for society. Animals who don't contribute aren't equal to humans with the potential to contribute. Should we prey on everyone/everything that doesn't contribute to our society? If it gives us pleasure - logically, why not?

Should the goal of an individual not be to gain the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain by working within society and choosing the option best for "themself and the group"? Logically, to me atleast, it should be.

Through analysis it seems to me that meat eating contributes to this goal in a greater amount than vegetarianism. Therefore, idealistically - everyone should eat meat.

I don't see my linking of vegetarianism to fear as being silly at all. In some cases, perhaps not all, you could make a logical case towards that point. Why else would someone spare an animal's life if not because of empathy, which is linked to understanding, which can be extrapolated to the idea of a vegetarian being fearful.

Your stuck in a room eternally - you have all your essentials for life. However, you see something that can make you happy. Your told an animal will cruely die if you are to get that thing. Why wouldn't you get it? They animal will never contribute to you directly in any way. However, through its death you can achieve something that will bring you pleasure.

Why is it cruel to kill a dog? Dogs have personality traits and physical characteristics that make them contribute to the pleasure of humans.

Using animals for meat seems completely correct in my mind. The root of the issue for me lies in what is a greater contribution to society. Meat eating or vegetarianism?

chroot

Oct12-04, 06:10 PM

You really seem to have some deeply confused notions about the way the world works, Dooga.

By people refusing to eat meat, because they refuse to kill animals (who don't help society), they are creating changes in the economy that make it less efficient.
Now it's an economic problem? If you keep shifting the topic of this debate from one subject to another, we're never going to have a useful discussion. Please don't use the stupid tactic of continuing to argue when you're backed into a corner.

Point of fact, raising animals for meat is far less economically efficient than growing plants. Animals use more raw resources for the same quantity of edible product. Our economy would be much more efficient if we stopped raising animals.
Restaurants could delete vegan specific options - allowing for employees to have the spare time to volunteer or do something else more important.
Uh, what? Restaurant employees work specific shifts. They don't work overtime to make vegan dishes. Once again, point of fact, vegetarian entrees often take less time to prepare than cooking meat entrees.

Now you're arguing extrema -- ridiculous extrema -- our society is less efficient as a whole because restaurants have larger menus and their employess have less time to volunteer? This is an argument by assertion, again. I challenge you to provide some evidence that society is losing valuable man-hours of volunteer time because restaurants include vegan options. This is just laughable. Plain laughable.

Of course, you don't seem to have a similar problem with blue and red and green and white and purple tennis shoes. :rofl: How about the thousands of different automobiles we have to choose from? How about the wide variety of kitchen faucets? Don't all these options also detract from the precious pool of volunteer hours? :rofl:
Should we prey on everyone/everything that doesn't contribute to our society? If it gives us pleasure - logically, why not?
Perhaps because, despite prevailing dogma, we are part of an ecosystem. Preservationists desire to keep the environment and the ecosystem as stable as possible. We don't really know what the effects on the planet's habitability will be if we kill all the animals and raze all the forests, just because we can. Some of us would rather not find out.
Should the goal of an individual not be to gain the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain by working within society and choosing the option best for "themself and the group"? Logically, to me atleast, it should be.
Thankfully, we're not all as selfish as you. Besides, you didn't respond to my earlier point that many people find fruits more appetizing and satisfying than steaks. Point of fact, vegans are working toward their own happiness, your inability to understand that happiness notwithstanding.
I don't see my linking of vegetarianism to fear as being silly at all. In some cases, perhaps not all, you could make a logical case towards that point. Why else would someone spare an animal's life if not because of empathy, which is linked to understanding, which can be extrapolated to the idea of a vegetarian being fearful.
I've already answered this. Can't you read? People might choose not to kill an animal for health reasons, for environmental reasons, OR, often lastly, for animal-rights reasons.
Your stuck in a room eternally - you have all your essentials for life. However, you see something that can make you happy. Your told an animal will cruely die if you are to get that thing. Why wouldn't you get it? They animal will never contribute to you directly in any way. However, through its death you can achieve something that will bring you pleasure.
Boy, I sure would like to kill your whole family and take all your money. Perhaps I should, since you're not likely to contribute to my happiness in any other way.
Why is it cruel to kill a dog? Dogs have personality traits and physical characteristics that make them contribute to the pleasure of humans.
Ah, so we'll just keep all the cute and cuddly animals, and eat all the ugly ones left over. Superb rationalization.
The root of the issue for me lies in what is a greater contribution to society. Meat eating or vegetarianism?
You've yet to provide any evidence that society benefits from meat consumption. If you're really working towards the good of society, perhaps you should spend your time worrying about welfare, public health, social security, low-income housing, water quality, education standards, and so on. They all seem to have a much larger impact on society's well-being than whether or not I eat a hamburger or a salad. I suspect you are just couching your rhetoric behind a banner of "societal benefit' to avoid looking like the bastard you really are.

- Warren

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct12-04, 06:56 PM

1. Some people enjoy a salad and others enjoy meat, true. Could a case not be made that for some, meat eating creates an amount of pleasure? To hamper this pleasure because of animals (that don't contribute to people directly), seems unfair to me. I'm not addressing vegetarians in general as wrong in this instance, but the ones who advocate the dissolution of meat eating.

2. That was an extreme example because I couldn't think of anything else at the time.

3. Not taking a risk that results in pleasure because of fear of a theoretical possibility of pain is typically frowned upon. I have to think on this.

Omit 4.
5. The room is a representation of society as a whole. In reality if you killed one of my family members they would deprive you. They would contribute somehow to someone then that person would to someone else, ect, therefore contributing to the society your a part of.

However using the room as a metaphor for society the only thing that can effect you directly is getting the pleasure bringing object. Logically, the animal dieing shouldn't be of any concern.

6. Dogs do more because of there looks, and as a result, they contribute.

Anyway, I hope you haven't been too offended by my rhetoric. On a "hopefully" positive note, I've discovered that I need to make an alteration within the core of my philosophy - from which I derive my ethics. Your not the only one to congratulate on this, the study of Mitosis helped as well.

It will likely take me awhile to incorperate this new information based on differences among offspring, into my current philosophical theory. Thanks for your patience.

physicsisphirst

Oct12-04, 07:54 PM

I've discovered that I need to make an alteration within the core of my philosophy - from which I derive my ethics.

that would really be a very good idea.

while your 'philosophy' might appear to be 'logically consistent' (eg to not eat meat deprives those who enjoy eating meat from meat eating pleasure), it may not take values into account (eg i used to eat humans, but now i don't even though it deprives me of pleasure).

so eventually you come down to what qualities do we value as humans - and these may actually prove to be logically worthwhile ;)

in friendship,
prad

chroot

Oct12-04, 08:14 PM

I'm not addressing vegetarians in general as wrong in this instance, but the ones who advocate the dissolution of meat eating.
You are changing your story. You quite specifically began your intrusion into this topic with the assertion that vegetarianism is wrong. Now you're trying to escape by claiming that you really just meant to address those militant vegetarians who want to stop you from eating meat. Why don't you just consider apologizing, rather than trying to convince us all that we just misread you?
2. That was an extreme example because I couldn't think of anything else at the time.
Posting ridiculous arguments is far worse for your case than posting no arguments.
3. Not taking a risk that results in pleasure because of fear of a theoretical possibility of pain is typically frowned upon. I have to think on this.
This "fear" concept of yours is out of left field. Few people have decided not to eat meat out of some kind of fear.
5. The room is a representation of society as a whole. In reality if you killed one of my family members they would deprive you. They would contribute somehow to someone then that person would to someone else, ect, therefore contributing to the society your a part of.
I expected this response. How about if I instead just go out on the streets of San Francisco tonight and slay a bum or two in cold blood? The bums are certainly not contributing to society; in fact, they're leeching from it! It should be totally okay to go kill those people. When the police stop me, I'll just explain that it gave me pleasure, and they weren't contributing anything anyway.

Yes, yes, it sounds great to have a moral standard by which the right to life is determined solely by contribution to Dooga Blackrazor. Excellent plan!
Anyway, I hope you haven't been too offended by my rhetoric. On a "hopefully" positive note, I've discovered that I need to make an alteration within the core of my philosophy - from which I derive my ethics. Your not the only one to congratulate on this, the study of Mitosis helped as well.

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. -- Andre Gide.

- Warren

XMLT

Oct12-04, 09:22 PM

We need meat for protein which plays an important part in our protein synthesis making the most vital amino acid molecules for proper functions of body cells.

XMLT

chroot

Oct12-04, 09:24 PM

We need meat for protein which plays an important part in our protein synthesis making the most vital amino acid molecules for proper functions of body cells.

XMLT
All of the protein and amino acids you need are available in foods not derived from animals. You do not need meat to get them.

- Warren

XMLT

Oct12-04, 09:34 PM

But most of them come from meat.

XMLT

physicsisphirst

Oct12-04, 10:42 PM

But most of them come from meat.

this sort of thing is an ill-conceived line of reasoning that was a result of a misinterpretation of a statements by the likes of francis lappe moore back in the 70s or 80s. she said something like 'to get proteins like meat supplies, you need to combine vegetables properly'. unfortunately, what stuck was the notion 'to get proper proteins, you need to combine vegetables proteins properly'.

as a result, some people still hold the strange idea that you can't get your proteins on a vegetarian diet or that vegetarian diets are somehow deficient in something or other.

vegetarian diets are not only as 'complete' as you want them to be, they are fortunately missing many of the key ingredients that you really don't want messing up your inards.

in friendship,
prad

chroot

Oct12-04, 10:48 PM

But most of them come from meat.
Not if you don't eat meat. Then they all come from plants. :biggrin:

- Warren

siliconhype

Oct12-04, 11:23 PM

"Is your cat morally wrong when it kills a mouse or bird? It doesn't even eat it."

Cats don't eat mice and birds? I had a cat, it ate mice and birds.

XMLT

Oct13-04, 12:14 AM

Not if you don't eat meat. Then they all come from plants. :biggrin:

- Warren

Then you have to eat a lot of plants. :smile: You're gonna be very busy. :wink:

allanpatrick

Oct13-04, 12:28 AM

No he isn't. :rofl:

chroot

Oct13-04, 12:33 AM

Then you have to eat a lot of plants. :smile: You're gonna be very busy. :wink:
That's very stupid. Do you actually know anyone who is vegan? Can you ask him or her about his/her diet?

- Warren

XMLT

Oct13-04, 12:40 AM

That's very stupid. Do you actually know anyone who is vegan? Can you ask him or her about his/her diet?

- Warren
Oh, cmon. I was just joking around. I know there are lots of vegans and their diets anyway. Nevermind, just forget what i have said. Jokes sometime don't work at all.

XMLT

chroot

Oct13-04, 12:51 AM

XMLT:

Sorry for not catching the joke! There's been a lot of misinformation in this thread already, so I unfortunately assumed you were one of them. My apologies.

- Warren

XMLT

Oct13-04, 12:59 AM

Warren,

It's fine. :wink:

XMLT

arildno

Oct13-04, 01:11 AM

It's fine. :wink:

XMLT
Your joke was fine, too..:wink:

XMLT

Oct13-04, 01:23 AM

arildno,

Thanks. I'm a Vietnamese with a very little knowledge of English. So if I make mistake just tell me ok?

XMLT

arildno

Oct13-04, 01:26 AM

Sure enough; I was not sarcastic, if you thought so..

XMLT

Oct13-04, 05:29 AM

-arildno
I didn't think that you were sarcastic. I was just saying that since it's true.
Anyway, back to the topic, I voted yes.

XMLT

physicsisphirst

Oct13-04, 12:33 PM

Your joke was fine, too..:wink:
hey i didn't get the joke :grumpy:
everyone else seems to get it :frown:
what's the joke? :confused:

in friendship,
prad

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct13-04, 02:55 PM

I began the topic with a stance and stated that I wanted other opinions. I thought that implied that I wasn't completely certain on what I thought. In the quote you mentioned - I had said "in this instance". I wasn't refering to the whole arguement but dependent clause contained in that paragraph.

Through society people are linked together and affect one another. The bum does provide hierarchy reinforcement through inaction. However, he still could be contributing negatively to society. In that case, he should be given the opportunity to contribute. If he refuses he should be forced to contribute through any means necessary. If he has such resolute as to resist torture I wouldn't object to his death. His organs could be harvested and used.

Going back to vegetarianism, I am not unsure on my stance, but inclined towards it being an incorrect view. Through the eating of meat and a vegan diet - and the harvesting of animals - jobs are created. Through eating only vegan, vegetarians likely decrease the amount of jobs. While the requirement for more vegetarian food becomes imminent the requirement for meat is lower. By having two industries going the requirement for material & machinery is higher and more jobs can be created.

Some vegetarians do not enjoy eating meat. Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat. If you could enjoy more food you would have more sources of enjoyment, since variety often provides more joy. To put it simply it seems like not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw. One that I have, but I don't deny that it seems like a problem. Not only for the purpose of pleasure, but for survival of humans if something were to happen to certain food sources. Variety should bring more pleasure, and the enjoyment of more things to create more variety is more efficient.

Chroot, you seem to be getting offended by some things I'm saying. I know my rhetorical skills aren't excellent and I phrase things in an incorrect way sometimes. However, despite the absence of certain skills in some areas - I am trying to discuss this issue intellectual as you are.

~This way opinion written somewhat formally.

chroot

Oct13-04, 03:14 PM

If he [the bum] has such resolute as to resist torture I wouldn't object to his death. His organs could be harvested and used.
You're a psychopath. Do you have no respect for life at all?

Through eating only vegan, vegetarians likely decrease the amount of jobs.
You really can't make these kinds of arguments by assertion anymore. If you can't provide any evidence for this statement, I demand that you retract it. It's stupid anyway -- farmers who raise animals can just as easy farm vegetables on the same land. The same number of mouths need to be fed with same number of calories. Vegetable calories are much cheaper to produce than animal calories. The farmer who switches to raising vegetables because meat is no longer fetching a good price will actually end up making more money. It's plain, simple supply-and-demand economics.

First you assert that vegetarianism reduces the pool of volunteer hours available. Now you assert that vegetarianism removes jobs. What's next? Does vegetarianism cause ugliness? Does vegetarianism make the Sun weaker?
Some vegetarians do not enjoy eating meat. Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat. If you could enjoy more food you would have more sources of enjoyment, since variety often provides more joy.
What?! Wouldn't it - logically - also be better if people liked to eat rubber and glue and old tires and sheet metal and solid waste? They would have more sources of enjoyment, and that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
To put it simply it seems like not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw.
Since everyone dislikes some kinds of food, I would suggest that it's a genetic variation, not a flaw. Genetic diversity is essential for the survival of a species. I know you're only 16, but have you ever taken a biology class?
Not only for the purpose of pleasure, but for survival of humans if something were to happen to certain food sources.
Oh, now it's a survival issue. It's no longer about killing bums and eating cows for pleasure, now it's about survival? Guess what? If it comes down to eating a hamburger or dying, there are very few vegans who would choose death. To be sure, there are some PETA members who claim they would rather let their children die than kill a cow, but I'd venture that they might change their minds when actually confronted with such a reality.
Chroot, you seem to be getting offended by some things I'm saying. I know my rhetorical skills aren't excellent and I phrase things in an incorrect way sometimes. However, despite the absence of certain skills in some areas - I am trying to discuss this issue intellectual as you are.
I hope that anyone with even a mild respect for life (human or otherwise) would be offended by your statements.

- Warren

siliconhype

Oct13-04, 04:01 PM

"not liking certain foods is a genetic flaw."

Wow, so, i have a genetic flaw if i think poisoneus mushrooms are really nasty tasting?

You have got it the other way 'round, not liking certain foods is a genetic defense mechanism, since you are most vulnerable when you have put a food in your mouth, your body wants to make sure you don't and it does that by making you have prejudices against certain foods. Of course, this is not the whole story, different cultures like and dislike different foods, therefore this is also something that effects what food you eat, and it has nothing to do with genetics, Jews don't have a gene that makes them not like pig. Another factor that determines what food you like is the training you got from your parents. Children watch and are tought from their parents what to like and what to avoid, and when they grow up, they know that the foods that they have eaten are good and so continue to eat that kind of food as experimentation would pose certain risks to them. Some people, as adults, or in a multicultural society, overcome food taboos, for lack of a better word, and learn to eat a variety of foods; again, this has nothing to do with genetics.

Other comments you made make even less sense. Take the: "eat meat for jobs" campaign you got going there. I can see you being a union advocate for the poultry industry in a few years. ;) Jobs are a retarded reason, illogical and withought an ethical or moral basis - in reality, perhaps not in the ideological world you dwell. Because in reality, Ford replaced people, thus jobs, if that's how you define people, with robots. And that's t just the tip of the, metaphorical, iceberg.

"Wouldn't it - logically - be better if they liked meat."

No, logically it's better if you don't like meat. Technology is the only reason we like and are capable to like meat. "Back in the day", we eaither ate the meat raw, or we learned to smoke and salt it to keep bacteria from taking it over. But meat is very dangerous, in fact, your mind has a mechanism that, if you had no social conditioning, would lead you to a vegan type diet. For more information check out "How the mind works" by Steven pinker, that's one choice, which i recomend, since it is written by a scientists who has published a few books before, and follows a long and broad view of the subject.

Of course, in the end, in this society at least, choosing to be vegetarian is more of a ideological decision than anything else, sometimes it is touted as a health choice, but really, if that was the case, all meat eaters would be dead or realy sick by now and we would have learned after the millenia of meat eating that maybe we shouldn't do it. Since we haven't run into any problems, it does, in the end come down to ethical and moral choices, weather for the sake of the environment, the sake of the animal or other reason, wich has nothig to do with health or genes - or jobs.

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct13-04, 04:52 PM

I haven't seen any logical support towards the value of life. If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit. This goes for someone else as well, if someone isn't contributing to society, force them to or get rid of them. The metaphorical state of conscience based on treating others "how you would like to be treated" is illogical when applied to non-contributors. If you strive towards excellence through contribution, there are no reprocussions aside from theoretical fear.

I am familiar with the processes of Biology and why asexual reproduction is flawed. Therefore, I realize the importance of diversity. I was looking at the issue from a different perspective using some of the same logic. The purpose of my posting was to gain further intellectual information on the topic through perspective. Since that is happening, my goal is being achieved.

I have to contemplate the issue of Vegetarianism further before I comment on it again.

chroot

Oct13-04, 05:19 PM

If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit.
So you see no reason not to declare yourself judge, jury, and executioner of any person on Earth that you deem a "non-contributor" eh? Welcome to the Middle Ages, m'Lord! :rofl:
I have to contemplate the issue of Vegetarianism further before I comment on it again.
This really has nothing to do with vegetarians, Dooga. This heart of this discussion is your disgusting self-aggrandizement. You feel that you are so far superior to everyone (and everything) else on the planet that you alone are qualified to make a decision as to who lives and who dies.

I fear you're going to have a lonely life ahead of you.

- Warren

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct13-04, 05:39 PM

chroot

Oct13-04, 05:46 PM

You haven't interpreted my words correctly. I'm saying that society as a whole should be judge, jury, and executioner, and society should decide who contributes. Perhaps not society, but the intellectuals in society. Regardless, I'm not saying the decisions of the world should be decided by me.
What kind of interpretation am I supposed to make of a statement like this:

"If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit."

Please quit while you're ahead. Claiming that "me" meant "society" is not going to make you any more credible. This whole discussion is becoming off-topic anyway, since it's no longer about vegetarianism; it's about Dooga's right to kill anyone he wants.

(I'm not even going to touch the "intellectuals in society" bit with a 10-foot pole.)

- Warren

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct13-04, 05:54 PM

Yes, but I also went on to state that I believe other people should go by that logic as well. In that, I was saying people should not concern themselves with people who don't contribute to "them".

It's unfortanate that you think I believe I can kill anyone whenever I want. Regardless, I'm not trying to win a debate here. The issue of vegetarianism has me puzzled morally and I'm trying to get other perspectives on it. You don't usually get someone's most in-depth logic when you agree with them all the time; therefore, I have been presenting the other side along with my thoughts at the current moment - which have been changing. It's obvious I'm unsure of my stance when you look at the wavering logic I use to support anti-vegetarian claims. Atleast I'm trying to find an answer to the issue unlike many people who don't take the time to contemplate moral issues.

The majority if society can't be trusted to handle moral issues responsibly. A vast amount of them can't accept secularism. Intellectuals aren't flawless, but they are generally more reliable.

XMLT

Oct13-04, 05:58 PM

I haven't seen any logical support towards the value of life.

Then I can tell you have missed out a lot in your research and even in your life now. Living without acknowledging the value of life? I wonder how you can survive for such a long time in this world (16 years, right?)

XMLT

chroot

Oct13-04, 06:03 PM

Atleast I'm trying to find an answer to the issue
Here is the answer to the issue, according to me. I can guarantee that I have spent a lot more time thinking about this issue than have you.

(NB I am using vegan and vegetarian interchangeably in this context.)

Vegetarianism and veganism are perfectly acceptable ways to live one's life. Vegans are not malnourished, and they are not missing anything. Some vegans love meat, but choose not to eat it. Some vegans don't like meat at all. There are many reasons to choose a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, among them health benefits, environmental preservation, and animal rights. Many vegans are vegan simply because they see no reason to kill an animal if they don't have to. These people contribute to the economy just like anyone else, i.e. the majority of their expenses are not food-related. The vast majority don't care what other people eat; they accept diet as a purely personal choice.

The bottom line is that human beings are the first creatures with both the technology and the sentience to make a conscious decision about their diet. There is no reason why people should not take advantage of this unique situation by eating whatever they wish to eat.

- Warren

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct13-04, 06:04 PM

You are correct on my age. However, what is a life when nothing is done with it? I simply think that if a person sees another person - who doesn't contribute to society or them in any way, directly or indirectly - they have no reason to value that person. Furthermore, if this entity isn't willing to assist them in any way - they have no logical reason not to take advantage of the individual.

People have the chance to enter society, if they refuse they can either be forced to or be dissolved. There is no reason for people disregard a potential resource - whether it be material or genetic. I appreciate everyone commenting on my logic. Unfortanately, I've only heard repeatedly that I'm wrong. My logic on this issue hasn't been refuted in any rational manner.

EDIT: I appreciate your last post and the manner in which you delivered it Chroot. That was actually the conclusion I was leaning towards. For diversity, both vegetarianism and meat-eating should be accepted. I have to think on it further though. I still haven't achieved an explaination that is satisfying to the point that I can say "Aha... I've got it now".

chroot

Oct13-04, 06:12 PM

I simply think that if a person sees another person - who doesn't contribute to society or them in any way, directly or indirectly - they have no reason to value that person. Furthermore, if this entity isn't willing to assist them in any way - they have no logical reason not to take advantage of the individual.
The logical refutation is simply that a society based on these values would not be as pleasing to its members as a society based on more tolerant values.

A society based on the principle that one person can kill another for not (directly or indirectly) contributing to his life is one that seems unlikely to foster love, compassion, empathy, friendship, volunteerism, or charity, which most people regard as pleasurable. Since you're all about pleasure, it would seem that you'd want a society to encourage them.

You'd be surprised how good it feels to delay your home-cooked Christmas turkey to spend a few hours delivering $5 toys to poor children. I can guarantee it feels better than shooting bums on the street and harvesting their organs.

- Warren

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct13-04, 06:18 PM

What about doing both? Shouldn't something be done to deal with people who leech off the system. Also, contributing to society can be extrapolated to include many things. Almost everyone contributes to society in some way or another. If effort is exerted, it's not difficult to contribute more than you leech.

chroot

Oct13-04, 06:33 PM

What about doing both? Shouldn't something be done to deal with people who leech off the system.
Yes, perhaps we should have welfare programs, homeless shelters, and food banks to help keep these people alive so that they might later "contribute."
Also, contributing to society can be extrapolated to include many things. Almost everyone contributes to society in some way or another. If effort is exerted, it's not difficult to contribute more than you leech.
That's my point, Dooga. The notion of "contribution" is far too subjective to be the basis of a system to decide the merit of a human life.

- Warren

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct13-04, 07:02 PM

I agree, however, with criminals I think my logic could be applied effectively.

chroot

Oct13-04, 07:08 PM

Your feelings on capital punishment have nothing to do with vegetarianism.

- Warren

proneax

Oct13-04, 08:16 PM

Dooga- you're getting nowhere here and you won't no matter how long you argue. There are several things wrong with your argument. First of all it really has nothing to do with vegetarianism/veganism as chroot pointed out. It has to do with animal rights, which as chroot has pointed out to me and others is not always linked with vegetarianism/veganism.

Secondly, you say "If something doesn't contribute to society and therefore doesn't indirectly or directly contribute to me, I see no reason not to destroy it for my own self benefit".

When you contemplate killing (or 'destroying' - really not the right word here) an animal, you generally need a reason, like "I need food and this animal is something I can eat," or "If I don't kill this bear It will maul me," or "this animal has a terminal, contagious disease that will cause death to other animals/humans." Each of these examples and any others I can think of (except sport hunting) have to do with self preservation. That isn't the same thing as deciding whether something is 'contributing to society'. Notice I only discussed animals. I'm not even going to address the implication that this 'philosophy' could apply to humans.

Not that I've concluded this topic of debate but please start a new thread to discuss this issue, it isnt' related to this topic.

Back to the vegetariansim thing, Choot my point in my last post was that I didn't see the connection between vegetariansim and animal rights, as my perception was that this was a main determination in becoming vegetarian. I see now that this assumption was wrong, and I wasn't trying to 'bash' vegetarianism but what I saw as the justification for it.

Justification is a funny word because you don't need any justification to be vegetarian. However part of the discussion was whether everyone should stop eating meat. That implies that it shouldn't be a personal choice, and in that instance you need justification.

And to whoever picked apart my argument about cats, yes I phrased it incorrectly i should have said 'doesn't necessarily eat it' because yes cats may eat a bird or mouse etc that it kills but often, well-fed domesticated cats kill these things based on instinct not for nutrition.

Anyway, I'm not sure If I grasp the full ideology behind vegetarianism. Obviously if you dont' like the taste of meat, have some kind of allergy, etc then you categorically won't eat meat and could be classified a 'vegetarian'. However, lets say you don't like 'red meat' because you don't like blood or whatever. How does that extend to 'white meat' or seafood?

If you're vegetarian for nutritional reasons no one can critisize you for that. But I don't see how this applies to veganism? Is there some nutritional benefit to not consuming dairy products? (not saying they have to be the ones loaded with fat)

What I find most interesting is this idea of being vegetarian/vegan because we have the technology to do so. Now I'm not trying to attack here, just to understand. I guess what I'm not sure of is, does the fact that we have the technology to avoid eating animals make eating them wrong? We raise an artificailly high number of these animals so when we do consume them its not like we are endangering a species. What about our pets? Do vegetarians also feed their pets a vegetarian diet? We have the technology to do so.

The only answer to this is that it has to do with animal rights, and in my last post I pointed out i saw not validity i this argument. So to address this further, I guess what I'm thinking is, we have the technological ability to stop world hunger, to stop homelessness. These two things are not yet conceived to be economical, which is why they haven't happened. So if we use technology to better the world only when its economical, does that mean people are vegetarians because its economical? I know thats a big stretch but I hope you see where I'm going with it and maybe someone can help me understand this.

physicsisphirst

Oct13-04, 09:33 PM

Anyway, I'm not sure If I grasp the full ideology behind vegetarianism.
proneax,

there are 3 main rationales to vegetarianism:

health
environmental
ethical

(vegans btw are vegetarians who avoid animal products such as leather, silk, wool, fur etc)

all three apply to meat as well as to dairy, eggs, seafood etc.

for example,

dairy contributes to various ailments such as osteoporosis and arthritis;
the cows make a mess and drink a lot of water;
their quality of life as a milk machine is horrendous and their male offspring are crated alive for the veal industry.

if you want to know more, you can start with this link (where the issues are presented very concisely):

http://towardsfreedom.com/veggiechess/goVeg.html

and explore some of the websites suggested towards the bottom of the page.

there really is a lot of information about this topic of vegetarian ideology, but animal rights, though it supports vegetarianism for obvious reasons, is a much larger and different issue.

in friendship,
prad

proneax

Oct13-04, 11:23 PM

"A vegetarian doesn't consume any animal products such as meat, fish, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, sea foods, or even honey (a vegan is a vegetarian who has adopted a lifestyle avoiding animal products like wool, leather, silk)."

very interesting. I always thought that vegetarians didn't eat meat while vegans didn't eat meat and dairy products. But what I get out of this is a vegetarian doesn't eat any FOOD product created by/from animals while a vegan doesn't use/eat ANY product created by/from animals.

That puts a very animal rights spin on it, but it could just be the site it comes from? I find the honey thing interesting. I guess I don't know a lot about it but are bees harmed in any way when their honey is harvested? Or is that not even the point?

chroot

Oct13-04, 11:33 PM

"A vegetarian doesn't consume any animal products such as meat, fish, milk, cheese, butter, eggs, sea foods, or even honey (a vegan is a vegetarian who has adopted a lifestyle avoiding animal products like wool, leather, silk)."
The terms are and always have been a little ambiguous. Generally, people who eat no animal products at all are vegetarians. People who eat no meat, but do eat animal products like eggs and milk are called "lacto-ovo vegetarians." People who use no animal products at all are called vegans. Another class of people who eat no meat or animals products, yet wear leather or silk, has no distinct name.

When someone tells you they are veg or vegan, you might even consider asking for such specifics. :)

- Warren

pace

Oct14-04, 12:08 AM

Vegetarian
A Vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat, poultry or fish/seafood

A Lacto-Ovo vegetarian
A Lacto-Ovo vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat, poultry or fish/seafood of any kind, but does consume eggs (ovo) and dairy (lacto) products. (Wikipedia:The term "vegetarian" is most commonly intended to mean "ovo-lacto vegetarian", particularly as "vegan" has gained acceptance as the term for stricter practice.)

Ovo Vegetarian
An Ovo Vegetarian is a person who does not eat dairy products, meat, poultry or fish/seafood of any kind, but does consume eggs (ovo).

Lacto Vegetarian
A Lacto Vegetarian is a person who does not eat eggs, meat, poultry or fish/seafood of any kind, but does consume dairy (lacto) products.

Vegan
A Vegan is a person who does not eat meat, poultry, fish/seafood, eggs, or dairy products of any kind. (Wikipedia: Today, strict vegetarians are commonly called vegans, though some reserve this term for those who additionally avoid usage of all kinds of animal products (e.g., leather, honey), not just food.)

Wikipedia, Country definitions:

In the United States, vegetarianism is usually synonymous with ovo-lacto vegetarianism. However, vegetarians are sometimes wrongly assumed to be Pesco/Pollo vegetarians who will tolerate some meat. It is also possible to order a vegetarian meal and be served meat.
In the UK, due to its sizeable Hindu minority, vegetarianism often refers to the Hindu practice described further below. Conveniently, there is fairly consistent food labelling in place, where all groceries that don't contain any meat or meat products would be labelled as "Suitable for vegetarians" (except where it's obvious; e.g. apples would not be labelled this way). Cheese is labelled as well, making it possible to distinguish between cheese that was made without using animal rennet and such that was made with the animal product.
In Ireland, the same food labelling is also in place.
In Germany, the confusion of vegetarianism with Pesco/Pollo vegetarianism is also common. There is no food labelling in place, and buying only vegetarian foods can involve having to read the fine printed ingredients list ("Zutaten") on many food products.

More Info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

physicsisphirst

Oct14-04, 01:59 AM

very interesting. I always thought that vegetarians didn't eat meat while vegans didn't eat meat and dairy products
as others have said above vegetarian is generally synonymous with lacto-ovo vegetarianism mainly because most vegetarians are lacto-ovo. as a result, vegan is often relegated to the dietary description (even in dictionaries). there is a bit of interesting history behind this that i posted in another thread (but i don't remember where):

an examination of the historical roots of the word vegan will show that there is much more than diet involved since its inception in 1944 by Donald Watson in england. i have posted the relevant information below from the article by Joanne Stepaniak.

http://www.vegsource.com/jo/vegan.htm
Being Vegan

To understand what it means to be vegan, it is vital to reflect on the historical roots and origin of the word. Many people think of the term vegan and its associated lifestyle as something new, faddish, insurgent or radical. In many ways, just the opposite is true. The word vegan was coined in England by Donald Watson in 1944. He, along with several other members of the Vegetarian Society in Leicester, England, wanted to form an alliance of nondairy vegetarians as a subgroup of the Society. When their proposal was rejected, they ventured to start their own organization. They prospected what to call themselves, and, after evaluating a range of ingenious possibilities, agreed that "vegan" (decisively pronounced VEE-gn, with a long "e" and hard "g" ) was best. It was derived from the word "vegetarian" by taking the first three letters (veg) and the last two letters (an) because, as Donald Watson explained, "veganism starts with vegetarianism and carries it through to its logical conclusion."

In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, followed shortly thereafter by the creation of a manifesto describing their unified mission and perspective. Although the group advocated a totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, and animals' milk, butter and cheese, they also encouraged the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal commodities, including clothing, shoes and other apparel. In addition, the group acknowledged that the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society and emancipate both humans and animals.

That puts a very animal rights spin on it, but it could just be the site it comes from?
vegans tend to be concerned about the mistreatment and exploitation of animals for various reasons. it doesn't necessarily mean that they are animal rights advocates. it doesn't work the other way either - some AR activists aren't even vegetarian. for instance, we had a meat-eating tennant many years ago who used to rescue animals from laboratories. there exist quite a variety and rationale.

I find the honey thing interesting. I guess I don't know a lot about it but are bees harmed in any way when their honey is harvested? Or is that not even the point?
it is and it isn't. the strict AR argument runs along the lines that the bees make the honey for their offspring and therefore humans should not harvest it. a more animal welfarish argument will cite the danger to the bees themselves as a result of commercial harvesting. here are a couple of articles to that effect:

http://www.all-creatures.org/mhvs/nl-2004-sp-bees.html
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=122

in friendship,
prad

lilboy

Oct14-04, 05:56 AM

Gee... isn't this getting a little too complicated?

Seen animals struggle before getting their throat cut?
And the butchers see them struggle.
Where's the empathy??? We're desensitized.

Shameless creatures we are.

And what's worse, we can actually eat and laugh together although
we're feeding on other animals. As though nothing is wrong.

For god's sake, those are (cooked and decorated) corpses lying on our dining table!!!

Humans. Despicable.

Maybe I should stop eating meat.

Edit : Oh hi people. This is my first post. And I'm new here. :smile:

proneax

Oct14-04, 07:34 AM

pace

Oct14-04, 09:36 AM

Gee... isn't this getting a little too complicated?

Edit : Oh hi people. This is my first post. And I'm new here. :smile:

Welcome! :wave:

I agree with you that it should be told about in as precice manner as possible.
But the fact is that language is a.. floating thing, it's definitions change, and dialects constantly arises. So some clearing up can be in order sometimes I think.

Leaping antalope

Oct24-04, 07:21 AM

Well, if everyone stops eating meat, then it will not only disrupt the food chain, but also disrupte the entire ecological system on Earth. Also, The number of animals will increase, and the number of plants will decrease, the consequese is that there will be more carbon dioxide (from animals) and less oxygen (from the plants' photosyntesis process). Just think about what the world would be like if all of us stop eating meat.

abitofnothingleft

Oct24-04, 04:44 PM

i, myself, do not eat meat, but i am not opposed to other people eating meat. i think its disgusting what idustries do to the meat they sell. its horrible what they do before and after the animal is dead and before it is sold. the torture and conditions those poor animals have to go through, how they're violated, everything about how they "live" and what they go through is simply disgusting. i dont understand how people can just sit there and not question what happens to their food. what made me become a vegetarian was when i saw a documentary video done my PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). i saw it and was instantly disgusted by it. i hated that i supported such actions and decided to not only investigate further into the matter but also, i became part of PETA. I dont yell at people for eating meat, but i, myself, will not support the barbaic, inhumane and cruel actions of those "farmers" :grumpy: :yuck: :mad:

siliconhype

Oct24-04, 05:47 PM

Hello,

I would like to ask question about the effects of eating vegetables vs eating meat in the production of energy.

Sometimes, when i eat carbohidrate food, pasta, veggies etc, i feel tired, and want to take a nap. But susually after i eat a protein rich food, i don't feel any difference, except not hungry anymore. So, i had this theory that the animals eating the veggies have done the majority of metabolism work for us, therefore by consuming meat, we can release energy by using less energy, and when we eat veggies we need to use up more energy and time to release the energy that we need. Am i just hallucinating? (happens ;) )

- V

abitofnothingleft

Oct25-04, 10:24 PM

I think vegetarianism as a form of protest has a great heart and goal in mind but is a horrible attempt at making progress. It's not the facts like "the animals are being so mistreated" that really relate, so much, its more the issue of "how much does this accomplish?"

For me, I couldn't become a vegetarian because of my weighlifting and powerbuilding/boxing. It truly is detrimental to you physically in that respect.

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Humans are quite obviously the top of the 'chain' when it comes to planet earth...by that I mean, we have basic control over the populations of all other animals...we are the king animals of the earth. Why not let us be the top of the food chain, too? I'm sure animals don't like being killing...buut, animals are killed no matter what.

Also on another note, if a person is vegetarian for religious reasons, that's fine with me, no questions asked.

I'm not trying to make a 'barbaric' argument...it may be mistaken as that. I really think protestant vegetarianism is futile. There are much greater things you can do to help out.

first i'd like to start off by saying that i am a vegetarian. i dont eat meat, fish or any kind of animal. i'd also like to mention that i'm one of the healthiest people i know. many of my friends get sick more often then i do, they seem to be more suceptable (sp?) to colds, viruses, etc then i am and when comparing some of the physical strengths between myself and some of the people at my school with equal body weight, i am more physically fit. being vegetarian doesnt really alter your health if you are responsible enough to take care of yourself and take the supplements that you are not getting. i jog every second night, i box and kickbox and i'm on my school's girl's hockey team. I've been vegetarian for almost my whole life now and i've never been held back because of it.

second, how can you say that vegetarians are iggnorant of what they are taking? people who eat meat have no clue what "their" meat goes through before it reaches them. the poor animals are tortured, pumped full of proteins and food, calves(baby cows) are pulled away from their mothers at birth. they are stuck in cages just big enough for them to stand up. they cannot turn around or move in these cages and they are pumped full of protiens, steroids, etc. they are pumped so full of food that their legs cannot support them any long until they collapse. and even then the "farmers" dont kill them. they wait, keeping them in those disgusting fecie-infested cages until they're big enough to make a good amount of product off of....all that for damn slab of veal. so dont tell me vegs are iggnorant when it comes to taking care of theirselves. take a look around and tell me that isnt barbaric. im not even going to get into what they do to chickens, ducks, etc. because it is not really my place to teach you until you are ready or want to learn about it.

third, some vegs dont go around protesting it because they are not trying to make a statement. they are merely just trying to attain self satisfaction that they will not participate in supporting such disgusting barbaric rituals. there are place where they can go to protest against it and if you havent noticed, veganism and vegetarianism has become increasingly popular. yes, meatlovers still outnumber vegs but we are making movements.

the article below states that 1 out of every 4 college students asks for vegan meals

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20041019005105&newsLang=en

the article below states that to gov. Schwarzenegger rejects foie gras

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/30/BILLS.TMP

so there are statements and movements being made in order to stop animal cruelty when it comes to killing them for food.

if anyone else is interested in learning about PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) , you can use the site below to reach them. this website is graphic so please, if your stomach becomes easily queezy, dont watch the movies. :frown:

http://www.peta.org/

i would also like to mention that this is not a hostile attack on you KingNothing. but it is really just me stating my opinion. please, everyone, do not take personal offence to anything said here. its just here to educate.

Eyesaw

Oct25-04, 11:04 PM

first i'd like to start off by saying that i am a vegetarian. i dont eat meat, fish or any kind of animal. i'd also like to mention that i'm one of the healthiest people i know. many of my friends get sick more often then i do, they seem to be more suceptable (sp?) to colds, viruses, etc then i am and when comparing some of the physical strengths between myself and some of the people at my school with equal body weight, i am more physically fit. being vegetarian doesnt really alter your health if you are responsible enough to take care of yourself and take the supplements that you are not getting. i jog every second night, i box and kickbox and i'm on my school's girl's hockey team. I've been vegetarian for almost my whole life now and i've never been held back because of it.

second, how can you say that vegetarians are iggnorant of what they are taking? people who eat meat have no clue what "their" meat goes through before it reaches them. the poor animals are tortured, pumped full of proteins and food, calves(baby cows) are pulled away from their mothers at birth. they are stuck in cages just big enough for them to stand up. they cannot turn around or move in these cages and they are pumped full of protiens, steroids, etc. they are pumped so full of food that their legs cannot support them any long until they collapse. and even then the "farmers" dont kill them. they wait, keeping them in those disgusting fecie-infested cages until they're big enough to make a good amount of product off of....all that for damn slab of veal. so dont tell me vegs are iggnorant when it comes to taking care of theirselves. take a look around and tell me that isnt barbaric. im not even going to get into what they do to chickens, ducks, etc. because it is not really my place to teach you until you are ready or want to learn about it.

third, some vegs dont go around protesting it because they are not trying to make a statement. they are merely just trying to attain self satisfaction that they will not participate in supporting such disgusting barbaric rituals. there are place where they can go to protest against it and if you havent noticed, veganism and vegetarianism has become increasingly popular. yes, meatlovers still outnumber vegs but we are making movements.

the article below states that 1 out of every 4 college students asks for vegan meals

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20041019005105&newsLang=en

the article below states that to gov. Schwarzenegger rejects foie gras

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/30/BILLS.TMP

so there are statements and movements being made in order to stop animal cruelty when it comes to killing them for food.

if anyone else is interested in learning about PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) , you can use the site below to reach them. this website is graphic so please, if your stomach becomes easily queezy, dont watch the movies. :frown:

http://www.peta.org/

i would also like to mention that this is not a hostile attack on you KingNothing. but it is really just me stating my opinion. please, everyone, do not take personal offence to anything said here. its just here to educate.

Plants are alive too don't forget. And the processing of the plants sold in markets also subject them to "unnatural" growth- one might call that torture
as well. Until the day we can manufacture all the organic molecules our body needs without killing any life form, I say we eat without guilt- plants or animals. If it was immoral for us to eat plants or animals, we would have only ourselves to eat.

abitofnothingleft

Oct25-04, 11:27 PM

Plants are alive too don't forget. And the processing of the plants sold in markets also subject them to "unnatural" growth- one might call that torture
as well. Until the day we can manufacture all the organic molecules our body needs without killing any life form, I say we eat without guilt- plants or animals. If it was immoral for us to eat plants or animals, we would have only ourselves to eat.

yes but there is no proof that us creating plants is torture. we have physical evidence that what we do to an animal is seriously harming and inhumane. and if you can do something about it then why not try? right? :shy: there's only so much we can do and if you can help stop the torture of something or someone innocent why not? :smile:

physicsisphirst

Oct25-04, 11:34 PM

i'd also like to mention that i'm one of the healthiest people i know ... I've been vegetarian for almost my whole life now and i've never been held back because of it.

what an all-round excellent post!

a lot of people are still under the weird impression that vegetarians are skinny weaklings. here is a list of more famous veg people that might cause some reconsideration:

Hank Aaron (home run champion in major league baseball)
Andreas Cahling (body builder)
Chris Campbell (1980 world champion wrestler)
Sally Eastall (Marathon runner - UK No 2)
Sally Hibberd (British Women's Mountain Bike Champion)
Billie Jean King (tennis champion)
Martina Navratilova (tennis champion)
Silken Laumann (Olympic rower)
Killer Kowalski (wrestler)
Jack LaLanne (Fitness guru)
Donnie LaLonde (Former Light Heavyweight Champion of the World.)
Katherine Monbiot (world champion arm wrestler and nutritionist)
Edwin Moses (longtime world hurdling champion)
Carl Lewis (world record for 100m)
Bill Pearl (Bodybuilder, Mr America)
Anthony Peeler (NBA Grizzlies basketball player)
Jacques Vaughn (All American point guard, #1-ranked Univ of KS Jayhawks)
John Salley (only 4x NBA champ in history)

in friendship,
prad

Eyesaw

Oct26-04, 12:01 AM

yes but there is no proof that us creating plants is torture. we have physical evidence that what we do to an animal is seriously harming and inhumane. and if you can do something about it then why not try? right? :shy: there's only so much we can do and if you can help stop the torture of something or someone innocent why not? :smile:

I think you are right about the torture- plants don't have a nervous system so they can't feel pain , which is required for torture. We should only breed for eating animals that will eat humans given the opportunity. We have to eat some kind of meat though else we would evolve into a cow.

abitofnothingleft

Oct26-04, 01:16 AM

I think you are right about the torture- plants don't have a nervous system so they can't feel pain , which is required for torture. We should only breed for eating animals that will eat humans given the opportunity. We have to eat some kind of meat though else we would evolve into a cow.

yes....but the whole point that we (or at least i) became veg's is because farmers carry out those tortures on the animals. if they didnt torture them to make them "better" then it wouldn't be as bad. i mean, if we didnt pump them full of steroids and proteins, and we treated them with some respect and gratitude, then killing them wouldn't be as disgusting as it is. they are providing you with life, energy, etc. should people not treat those providers with a little more respect and thanks? but instead we stick them in cages etc and treat them as if they cannot feel. :grumpy:

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct27-04, 07:12 PM

Last time I posted it was in a haphazard fashion. I hope to do a better job of expressing myself this time. I'd like to get opinions from both sides on this issue, as I already have.

My main question is: Animals don't really contribute much to human society. If untrue, statements/facts would be appreciated. Why should we let them live when we can benefit from their destruction?

Isn't the pleasure given to society, the pleasure from eating meat, isn't it greater than whatever small contributions animals make by living their everyday lives?

If animals do less for us alive, why shouldn't we kill them. I realize they experience pain, but we don't experience their pain. Sympathy is an illogical application when applied to something that doesn't affect human society, is it not? Yes we could be on the other side of the coin, but we aren't. Should I not eat meat because I wouldn't want some alien race to torture me. That choice would be entirely based on theoretical fear. Is that acceptable?

I do intend to be disrespectful, if I have been, my apologies.

chroot

Oct27-04, 07:14 PM

For Christ's sake Dooga, do I really need to rip you to shreds again? This is virtually the exact same crap you posted last time. Get a clue, man!

- Warren

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct27-04, 07:22 PM

I'm not trying to win a debate here. I want to make decisions on various issues that I'm contemplating. I stated above that I am going to try and approach this discussion in a more organized fashion, and I plan to do that.

I respect your help in assisting me last time, but by the obvious illogical train of thought I followed, I wasn't thinking clearly. I'm not trying to attack vegetarianism right now, I've changed my mind on that for the moment; however, I am concerned that I may be incorrect in my stance on eating meat.

I enjoy discussions, and perhaps someone else can provide another perspective to challenge my thoughts. More things go on in my mind than I post, many things affect one another. Just because all the logic used in the thread supports an argument doesn't mean other contradicting evidence doesn't exist, evidence in my mind, I have to have resolved.

If you wish to speak further on the issue I'd appreciate it, but if you don't want to, I feel there is no reason for me to be insulted.

chroot

Oct27-04, 07:26 PM

You have posted the exact same arguments already. They have been shown to be stupid already.

-Warren

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct27-04, 07:47 PM

chroot

Oct27-04, 07:49 PM

No, your repetitive posts are waste of time, Dooga -- and I have every right to make that determination. Feel free to read over my (and others') responses to your thoughts on the preceding pages. There is no reason for you to repeat the same questions, almost verbatim. Do I need to delete them?

- Warren

Les Sleeth

Oct27-04, 08:30 PM

It's also been proven that I'm fairly stubborn and like to overanalyze things. You don't have to view my posts, and I have to resolute to take insults and move futher on with my thoughts. Your insults are a waste of both your time and mine.

It seems you are trying to make decisions based on 1) logic alone, and 2) deciding what is good and bad based on how it affects you.

I believe part of what you haven't, and cannot, understand using logic alone is the practicality of compassion and empathy. If you advocate and adopt a principle of "if it doesn't hurt me, why should I care," then that is a principle which can hold true for all of us. Think about it, the more you profess that others' suffering don't matter because it isn't hurting you, the more you've given us permission to torture you. Afterall, it doesn't hurt me to make you suffer. That actually is the attitude of sociopaths like Richard Lacey who if he got you under his control, would bind you up, torture you, rape you, kill you, and then bury you in his basement. And why not??? He had great fun and didn't feel a thing when he cut off your genitals.

If you put yourself in the place of someone or creature who suffers, and try to feel (not analyze) what they feel, you can tell what feels okay and what doesn't. For example, you don't say so explicitly, but it does seem that insults bother you. There is a clue in that, the fact that if something makes you "feel" badly, you don't care for it. In this world you can further good feeling or you can make it worse. And guess what, when you contribute to good feeling, you feel better too! So I say there is practical value and personal gain in practicing compassion and empathy.

theriddler876

Oct27-04, 09:01 PM

I think it's a moral issue, and it depends on what peoples morals are. now take religion, if stripped of all theology it's basically a moral and ethical guide, so it would depends on what your religion's moral code (if you have one) and your interpretation of that moral code

abitofnothingleft

Oct27-04, 09:41 PM

main question is: Animals don't really contribute much to human society. If untrue, statements/facts would be appreciated. Why should we let them live when we can benefit from their destruction?

Isn't the pleasure given to society, the pleasure from eating meat, isn't it greater than whatever small contributions animals make by living their everyday lives?

If animals do less for us alive, why shouldn't we kill them. I realize they experience pain, but we don't experience their pain. Sympathy is an illogical application when applied to something that doesn't affect human society, is it not? Yes we could be on the other side of the coin, but we aren't. Should I not eat meat because I wouldn't want some alien race to torture me. That choice would be entirely based on theoretical fear. Is that acceptable?

I do intend to be disrespectful, if I have been, my apologies.

no offence, well you can take offence if you want but, overall i found that post to be rather pompous and arrogant. animals dont do much for society? yea okay......and what exactly do humans do for the earth? compare that! humans do more destruction to the earth then animals do to human society. so because the animal kingdom doesnt do anything to benefit you then its a plausable excuse to torture and kill them? and you find pleasure out of eating a dead animal? i find your logic to be very self-praising. you think we're "all that" with retrospect to the world? let me tell you if those animals weren't there we wouldn't even be here, when considering evolution and darwins theory. just because you dont experience the same pain that animals experience doesnt mean you cant have a little sympathy for them. or is that too hard for us "almighty" humans? and since you seem to need evidence to prove that they benefit us lets take a domestic example first....dogs....they allow sight for blind people and happiness to many of those who are unable to provide so for themselves. sheep give wool. cows give fertilizer. birds keep the insect population leveled out. all that and they also provide a diversity of species among the earth. what if one day we take such advantage of our power that the species that are of use to you die off? thats another of the problems of the world today. people are too greedy. they think that since they have an advantage over someone or something they need to do what they can to get ahead. they cant just stay neutral (but thats a different arguement altogether)

again, i didnt mean to offend you in calling your post pompous and arrogant, but that is what i thought. and just like you, im giving my opinion. :smile:

Mazuz

Oct27-04, 10:20 PM

I realize they experience pain, but we don't experience their pain.

Actually I don't think you do realize that they experience pain, anything outside yourself doesn't appear to have any real meaning to you. Can your argument not extend to say that anyone or anything other than yourself does not affect you because you don't experience it? Unfortunately, I'm not sure society would miss you.. we mine as well torture you on the way out since that only hurts you and is meaningless to the rest of us, including to the concept of society. Only joking.

Also, the arguments made for or against the eating of meat have nothing to do with whether we should rid the planet of animals or not.

abitofnothingleft

Oct27-04, 11:10 PM

Mazuz

Oct27-04, 11:54 PM

no you're right it doesnt. but dooga here is explaining how much power we have and how we dont need animals for anything but food but if we keep up with that attitude you never know where it'll take you

Unfortunately for this argument, we don't need animals for food. And it's a different discussion as to whether we need them for anything else or not, I won't touch that.

There is one good reason for not eating meat, and its simple. By not eating meat we aren't supporting the meat industry. This doesn't mean it’s impossible to eat meat without supporting the meat industry, but no one does. How many people only eat what they hunt?

The reasons for not supporting the meat industry are also simple. The meat industry is needlessly causing suffering on a massive scale. Meat production is also destroying the environment.. animals are an extremely inefficient source of food. The food energy we put into growing animals is FAR greater than the food energy we get back out of them.

Again, people eat meat because they enjoy it.. not because it is the right thing to do. And what's pleasurable has little to do with what is right.

lilboy

Oct28-04, 08:46 AM

wow thanks for all the info guys. Good stuff. Its great to have a better understanding of all this.

I think when you're concerned about the expoitation and mistreatment of animals and are actively doing something as a result, you're an advocate of animal rights, yet not in the way many people perceive it eg. saving animals from laboratories.

I think my analysis of all this is being vegan/vegetarian for 'animal rights' reasons is certainly acceptable and in a way admirable, yet I don't think there is anything wrong with not being vegan/vegetarian.

lilboy do I detect some sarcasm?

Sorry if you've found sarcasm in my post.
It so happened that I was arguing with a friend of mine about not eating meat. He kept quoting from his religion, arguing that all animals have been created to benefit humans. And when I tell him that animals have other better ways benefit humans, he goes back quoting on his religion again.

The argument is going nowhere, and I was frustrated.

Anyway - just as animal can be eaten, when we don't have a choice, we use lab animals because we don't have a choice.
Nevertheless, ,strict rules should be given to prevent abuse of this animals.

To pace : Hi!!
Guess you're right about the need to clear up on certain points.
Nevertheless, I think it's very important to note how desensitized we have been to animal cruelty. From fishing to hunting, we have created numerous ways to inflict injuries on other creatures.

I believe constant practice of this may desensitize us, and lead us to commit worse actions in the future.

So people: eat veggies while you can. :smile:

To current postings (Actually to Doogaz)
Yo man, I don't think its necessary for me to tell you how conceited that post was...

So I just want to share some information:

While animals may not look useful to humans, they contribute to the ecosystem indirectly. Every species (including humans) are all interdependent.
For example, sharks may seem unrelated to our lives, but they are the ones who prey on unhealthy marine animals, keeping the marine ecosystem healthy.
Decrease of the sharks population will affect the ecosystems and ultimately affect the quality of fishes that you eat (if you eat fish) which will affect YOU.

pace

Oct28-04, 10:05 AM

you never know where it'll take you

Oh yes. All the Love and friendship. All the difference that we'll be experiencing from seeing and listening to how the other animals live. All the variation. Blossowing of life. Realising a lot of truths about our nature and how it works.

It's really scary. I don't want that. I want to live in a pavement, wall, block by block society.

;)

lilboy: Hello again. Yes I agree. Our society really changes the way we think about things. It's scary how things that's cruel can become so obvious to our lifestyle..

Dooga Blackrazor

Oct28-04, 02:42 PM

I think I'm onto something now, I'll continue thinking about it later as well. I appreciate everyone's input.

I don't get offended when people insult or criticize me about my morals. However, my morals are constantly changing and being developed. Even if you disagree with me, I'd like to analyze the disagreement collaboratively(sp) rather than argue over different view points. If my thoughts are evil, I am not truly evil until I act on any thoughts.

To someone who mentioned my thinking with logic. I do, but I also try to analyze emotion and the unexplainable through logical extrapolation of facts.

I believe alot about emotion is unexplained and therefore separated from logic as a way for individuals to cope. I see no reason against including the logical analysis of emotion within one's moral beliefs.

The entire foundation of my belief is based on intellectual (thinkers, not just genius') society working together to provide the best result for a massive group of individuals. The best result is achieved by choosing the path best for yourself and the group (ABM) Those uncapable of contributing are left behind. Unlike Darwinism, I do not think the strong should prey on the weak. I believe the strong should prey on the uncontributing. Those who can still contribute should be used by the strong; however, the best way to get people to work for you - from what I can discern - is to provide them with happiness. That also contributes to the happiness of powerful individuals due to the contagious qualities of happiness.

Those are my current thoughts, but my thoughts often change. I do not intend to offend anyone with my ideologies.

tiger_striped_cat

Oct29-04, 11:54 PM

The question, I think (boy this topic is long), is "Is it morally permissible to kill animals to eat meat?" But I think we should all be careful not to argue irrelevant points.

Vegetarian evangalists like to show videos of the horrible things that go on in factory farms, and argue with questions like, "Do you think it's ok to eat your dog/horse?" I see this fallacous appeal to emotion all the time. But anyways, I digress.

Philosophers have thought about this a lot. And it usually comes down to the question of "Do animals have any utility-trumping rights," if you're a Utilitarian, or "Do animals have a right to life?"

These are interesting questions. And it seems to me that people's answers come close to what can be called "philosophical primatives." (If I remember correctly.) Basically these are base assumptions that have no (need no) justification: "Animals have a right to life," "Animals don't have a right to life"

So two people taking these diametricly opposed viewpoints will find no common ground on which to agree. And I have no idea how someone can defend against one of these, so called, primatives. But if some common ground is to be established, then one could say that what gives something a "right to life" is something that "has the POTENTIAL (properly defined) of self-awareness" By self awareness I mean something that not only knows that "This thing in the mirror is me" (as some monkies are able to do), but something that also knows "I am the thing that is thinking about whether the thing in the mirror is me" HA HA. Ok, no one is going to understand that.

But I using the above necessary condition for a "right to life" you can see that babies qualify, but cows do not. Now this may be a lot of philosophical dancing to be able to defend my right to eat meat, but I think it is at least a consistent position.

So if someone asked me if it was ethically permissible to kill a cow to give 500 people some almost marginal satisification, I would say "It's not the best use of resources, but there is nothing wrong with it" because animals don't have a "right to life" as argued from above, or maybe by some other means.

Now I do believe that we can all (espically Americans) stand to eat less meat, and I do think that anmials have a right to be free from suffering, and I just went to a Vegan resturant yesterday, but animals still don't have a right to life that we want to attribute to them.

But back to my point. The key question to ask is whether it's ok to eat meat, above and beyond any circumstances you can build into your argument. To argue from emotional atachment, factory farms, people starving in Africa, plants suffering--and yes espically health concerns, is to miss the main argument of vegetarians. Most moral vegetarians would say that eating meat is wrong even if you get rid of all these circumstantial concerns. But of course I would disagree.

russ_watters

Oct30-04, 12:18 PM

That's a good characterization and I more or less agree, with one caveat: the human right to life has been accepted for centuries and has a lot of philosophical backing (meaning lots of philosophers have discussed it and written about it), the animal's right to life is a new concept, not widely accepted, and with little or no philosophical backing. These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

Mazuz

Oct30-04, 01:04 PM

The question, I think (boy this topic is long), is "Is it morally permissible to kill animals to eat meat?" But I think we should all be careful not to argue irrelevant points.

I don't think this is the most relevant question to the argument of whether we should eat meat or not. Of course there are reasons for eating and killing animals that make sense, it would be hard to argue otherwise. A more relevant question is should WE be eating meat given what we know (the destruction of the environment and the tremendous suffering of animals) when we don’t need it for healthy living.

Mazuz

Oct30-04, 01:11 PM

russ_watters

Oct31-04, 01:44 PM

What evidence, philosophical or otherwise, is there that human beings aren't just a different sort of animal? I think both science and philosophy are in agreement here, religion however is a different story. Well, we are just a different sort of animal. I realize its a long thread, but my point in it is essentially just that: as animals, we eat other animals just like a lot of other animals do. But as "a different sort of animal" we've decided to treat each other differently.

physicsisphirst

Oct31-04, 09:49 PM

These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

i don't think that is really the case. the right to life for animals has quite a large amount of philosophic backing (and from various camps such as utilitarian and deontologic) both in the past and present (more in the latter, understandably though).

As a reference for anyone interested in learning about this topic, here are brief summaries (with links) to some of the more prominent animal rights philosophers' ideas:

Peter Singer
a utilitarian approach in which there is no presumption of inherent animal rights, but that the interests of animals should be given proper consideration.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_singer.htm

Tom Regan
establishes the rights of animals on the basis that they have complex mental lives, including perception, desire, belief, memory, intention, a sense of the future and because an animal cares about its life, that life has inherent value.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_regan.htm

Carol J. Adams
brings a feminist's perspective to animal rights linking the objectification of women and other non-dominant humans to a similar attitude towards animals.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_adams.htm

James Rachels
argues that scientific knowledge such as the evolution of species and the heliocentric theory alters antiquated views of morality in which only humans have moral worth and that the ability to reason is not usually relevant to moral consideration.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_rachels.htm

Steve Sapontzis
uses traditional moral principles such as fairness, protecting the weak, the reduction of suffering cannot be limited to humans because suffering and pain are not exclusively human.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_sapontzis.htm

A source providing some of the actual writings is here:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/essays/edits_anirites1.html

the ideas have been around for quite a while, but pragmatic acceptance as with many things can be slow.

in friendship,
prad

cogito

Oct31-04, 10:44 PM

...one could say that what gives something a "right to life" is something that "has the POTENTIAL (properly defined) of self-awareness" By self awareness I mean something that not only knows that "This thing in the mirror is me" (as some monkies are able to do), but something that also knows "I am the thing that is thinking about whether the thing in the mirror is me" HA HA. Ok, no one is going to understand that.

But I using the above necessary condition for a "right to life" you can see that babies qualify, but cows do not. Now this may be a lot of philosophical dancing to be able to defend my right to eat meat, but I think it is at least a consistent position.

So, why do you think that cows don't have such a capacity? I remember when I brought my cat home as a kitten. He used to get all sketchy around windows and mirrors, thinking that the reflection he saw was another cat. Now, he seems clearly to know that the reflection he sees is himself. If the massive simularity between the cognitive architectures of different mammals justifies the inference that their mental capacities are, in general, on a par, then given what we know about our pets why should we think cows lack the capacity for self-awareness?

hypnagogue

Nov1-04, 12:13 PM

So, why do you think that cows don't have such a capacity? I remember when I brought my cat home as a kitten. He used to get all sketchy around windows and mirrors, thinking that the reflection he saw was another cat. Now, he seems clearly to know that the reflection he sees is himself. If the massive simularity between the cognitive architectures of different mammals justifies the inference that their mental capacities are, in general, on a par, then given what we know about our pets why should we think cows lack the capacity for self-awareness?

Generally, the accepted criterion for whether or not an animal has self-awareness is whether it can recognize its image in a mirror. While humans, dolphins, and some of the more intelligent apes appear to pass this test readily, to my knowledge the vast majority of mammals do not appear to pass the test. Of course, one can question the theoretical motivation behind the test (is self-recognition really completely co-extensive with self-awareness?) or the criteria for passing it (can behavioral clues completely resolve the issue? is using a visual test not biased against animals with inferior visual processing systems?).

cogito

Nov1-04, 06:45 PM

Generally, the accepted criterion for whether or not an animal has self-awareness is whether it can recognize its image in a mirror. While humans, dolphins, and some of the more intelligent apes appear to pass this test readily, to my knowledge the vast majority of mammals do not appear to pass the test. Of course, one can question the theoretical motivation behind the test (is self-recognition really completely co-extensive with self-awareness?) or the criteria for passing it (can behavioral clues completely resolve the issue? is using a visual test not biased against animals with inferior visual processing systems?).

It's obvious that self-recognition is not necessary for self-consciousness, as an animal may know that it is the subject of various experiential states without knowing what it looks like in a mirror. It is possible that an animal, when looking in a mirror, believes something of the form "there is an animal there that is not me". Such self-referential belief content is indicative of self-consciousness. Do you have any evidence that mammals other than those you mentioned cannot recognize themselves in mirrors?

Loren Booda

Nov1-04, 07:23 PM

Should the belief that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny influence our diet?

Also, are there any vegetarian alternatives for the raptors and snakes I feed? :yuck:

hitssquad

Nov1-04, 07:42 PM

Generally, the accepted criterion for whether or not an animal has self-awareness is whether it can recognize its image in a mirror.It's obvious that self-recognition is not necessary for self-consciousness, as an animal may know that it is the subject of various experiential states without knowing what it looks like in a mirror.Recognizing yourself in a mirror would seem to be not the same thing as knowing what you look like in a mirror. If you looked at the screen of a CRT monitor and saw an animated tree that reliably moved in sync with your own mental impluses and that reliably did not move in the absence of your own mental impulses, you might be said to be relatively correct in deducing that the animated tree shown in the monitor was you yourself.

cogito

Nov1-04, 09:04 PM

Recognizing yourself in a mirror would seem to be not the same thing as knowing what you look like in a mirror. If you looked at the screen of a CRT monitor and saw an animated tree that reliably moved in sync with your own mental impluses and that reliably did not move in the absence of your own mental impulses, you might be said to be relatively correct in deducing that the animated tree shown in the monitor was you yourself.

Season the example to taste. Suppose the animal has a belief that 'that animal moves whenever I do" while looking in the mirror. Again, the self-referential content of the belief indicates self-consciousness, even though the animal fails to recognize the image in the mirror as its reflection.

pace

Nov2-04, 01:10 AM

Sometimes I have NO idea who's in the mirror. I'm much too busy, and it's much too early in the morning.

abitofnothingleft

Nov2-04, 02:36 PM

I don't think this is the most relevant question to the argument of whether we should eat meat or not. Of course there are reasons for eating and killing animals that make sense, it would be hard to argue otherwise. A more relevant question is should WE be eating meat given what we know (the destruction of the environment and the tremendous suffering of animals) when we don’t need it for healthy living.

well you can both look at the question either way you want but when asking either question you must look at one very permissible point (whichever way you want to word it): how are they killing the meat? if we were to simply take the animal out of the wild, or the non-industrial farm, would that be moral? i think that almost anyone can agree that the way farmers treat animals is inhumane and disgusting. that can be said with respects to how they kill the animal as well as what they do before and after the killing.

envscigrl

Nov3-04, 11:29 AM

I am a vegetarian and have been for two years now. I eat fish and eggs and have recently started eating chicken again (not often, once every two weeks or so). I did this for protein resons because I am in college and on the go and dont often get enough protein from my current fav foods ( ie EZ Mac). However, I am very healthy, thin, and I would recomend vegetarianism over any fad diet (including the Atkins diet which is actully bad for your health) to anyone trying to lose weight. The whole diet situation is very interesting. I feel like I should write a book on it or something. Anyway, What I have observed through my own experience is this:
Most Americans could not just become vegetarian. I eat in much smaller portions and much more frequently than I did when I ate meat. Americans love the feeling of being full even 'stuffed' or overly full and thus could not be a vegetarian because it is much harder to acheive such a feeling. My entire mental state concerning food had to change when I became a vegetarian and I honestly do not belive many people have the will power to do it even if it will greatly improve their health. So what it all comes down to is that I think it would beneficial to the health of our planet and the human population to switch to vegetarianism (with some fish eggs and chicken thrown in there :tongue2: ). But in reality this will never happen, peoples inherent instinct is to gorge and fat is where its at for most people.

NUKEELT

Nov3-04, 01:15 PM

NUKEELT

Nov3-04, 01:20 PM

These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

As Prad pointed out above there's an abundance of writings on the topic many dating back centuries (pythagoras for example). But beside the point, just because nobody has thought of a concept before doesn't invalidate the assertion. In fact it's wonderfully easy to argue this topic just using common sense. It's not good for you, it's not good for the environment, it's definately not good for the animals would be the "No you shouldn't" philosophy and well.... I suppose It tastes good, or God makes animals for us to use would more or less be the standard "yes you should" arguement.

Dissident Dan

Nov3-04, 03:55 PM

Anyway, What I have observed through my own experience is this:
Most Americans could not just become vegetarian. I eat in much smaller portions and much more frequently than I did when I ate meat. Americans love the feeling of being full even 'stuffed' or overly full and thus could not be a vegetarian because it is much harder to acheive such a feeling.

I get that feeling quite frequently...there's nothing about being vegetarian that says that you have to eat small portions.

pace

Nov3-04, 05:22 PM

I'm really stuffed right now :biggrin:

kouga

Nov3-04, 09:32 PM

should we not eat meat and let the animals of the world overpopulate it taking the needed room for our own expanding population????

abitofnothingleft

Nov5-04, 10:32 AM

first of all, it would take a LONG time for animals to over populate the world.

second of all, i dont think that would happen because most animals have a shorter life span then that of humans

third of all, to defend my own opinions, i am against how people kill animals. not the actual eating of it. if things were done a little, no wait, a lot differently before and after an animals death maybee i wouldn't be against it so much but the fact that the poor animal is tortured and the meat tampered with is just utterly(no pun intended) digusting :smile:

mee

Nov9-04, 08:07 AM

There is a short story by Gardner Dozois called I believe "A Kingdom by the Sea" It talks a great deal about a slaughter houses and used to be posted on the scifi.com website. It was published in 1972 I believe. Its worth a read.

steveb

Nov20-04, 03:14 PM

Well, while all of you are debating whether or not we should kill animals for food, I'm going to sit here and enjoy my steak, and baked potatoes. I learned a long time ago, that food is for eating, and if the creator did not want us to eat it, he wouldn't have created it to begin with.
http://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=102911#
Rolleyes
I think my favorite thus far is a grilled porterhouse, and red potatoes. Oh, and of course, we cannot forget Popeye's favorite.... Spinach.
Of course, I do have to say that I do enjoy a good shark steak... and I can assure you, they do not just use the fin, and throw away the rest. And as for chicken's living in TINY cages, have you ever seen this? I haven't, and I've worked in chicken farms before. I'd like an image of this thing you've described. Ten thousand chickens, living in ten thousand tiny cages. Aside from the cost of the cages, they would be wasting chickens.
Then only true vegetarians that I've ever met were practicing hindu's, and they used it properly. Of course, they believe that the fly you just killed is their long dead greatgrandfather, so who knows.
Nope, give me a good steak, hamburger, chicken breast, etc... along with some other good foods, and I'll be a contented man.
Enjoy your debate though, perhaps you'll stop guys like me from going hunting one day,and killing that bambi that feeds my family once every few years. Now there is a good meat.
And I must say, I do agree with the native americans. Take only what you need, and eat what you take. Those who throw food away are hurting the rest of humanity. As my mother said when I was a child--- eat all your food, there are hungry, starving children in China. Too bad she never sent any of it off to our neighbors who were hungry.
Ahh.... now that is a steak!

geraldmcgarvey

Nov20-04, 04:56 PM

It is best to cut down on consumption of animal foods, particularly from factory farms. There are several benefits.
Protecting our environment:
. It takes much less resources and causes less pollution to produce plant food.
. Factory farms pollute our environment, partly because the pollutants are concentrated in small areas and are not properly filtered. Also because of the pesticides and herbicides used to grow the plants that the animals eat.
Compassion:
. Factory farms cause a tremendous amount of suffering to billions of animals. For example, chickens have their beaks sliced off and are put in tiny cages.
Our own health:
. Animal foods from factory farms are laced with antibiotics and added growth hormones.
. Nutrients such as protein and iron can be gotten in adequate amounts from plant foods, it just takes a little bit of research.
. I've seen conflicting information about soy, but soy is not the only source of protein from plant foods. I eat some soy and haven't had a problem.

Regarding a response such as "I expect vegetarians not to bother me.", people have a right to promote the benefits of eating less animal foods, it's called freedom of speech. What you eat is your choice, and you have a choice of whether to feel bothered. If you're not interested, don't read the thread.

From
http://www.vegetarianteen.com/articles/forenviron.shtml

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert Einstein

Water - Animal food production uses up huge amounts of water resources. A pure vegetarian diet uses nearly 14 times less water to be produced than an animal based one.

Land - Overgrazing destroys millions of acres of land that would more efficiently be used to grow food that feeds people directly.

Pollution - Raising animals for food is the largest industrial polluter of water and topsoil. ...

Energy - Veggie diets consume less energy to produce. ...

Fishing - Hundreds of species of fish are now extinct or threatened due to the effects that fishing has on the world's oceans. ...

Resources - Producing animals for food depletes a huge amount of resources. ...

hitssquad

Nov20-04, 09:10 PM

http://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=102911#
RolleyesYour link to post 102911 doesn't work. Try this one:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=102911#post102911

pace

Nov22-04, 07:09 AM

Ah, the joy of a good steak, and baked potatoes.

What is Love really compared to Beef with Onion. - George Bernard Shaw.

shrumeo

Nov22-04, 11:42 AM

It's great to hear you're healthy but eating chicken and fish is still meat so you're definately not a vegitarian. It's wonderfully easy to get enough protien (I for one get monumentally more protien than when I ate meat) through simple foods. One glass of soymilk has more protien than a chicken breast for example. You can get a great full feeling with pasta and complex carbs. So you can still get all the benefit and spare the fish and chickens too.

It's not a matter of the amount of protein you get but the kind of protein you get. The protein has to have the right balance of amino acids to be wholly beneficial to you. An egg is the golden standard for the right mix of amino acids a human should have in his/her diet. You just can't get the right types of proteins from plants, even soy.

that said, here's me 2 cents on the matter.

As an organism, a human is designed to eat meat.

We can try to get around this if we think that we must, but it is difficult and less healthy than eating meat.

Does this mean we have to be cruel to our "prey." No.
We don't have to be cruel to chickens, cattle, swine, or any other animal we use for meat. But, we should not stop eating them.

We should also not eat any animal that is endangered, obviously, but this is a problem in Asia and Africa right now.

neend

Nov23-04, 12:53 AM

I think the logic and philosphy behind the topic is not much stronger that we stope eating meal, as our body structure support us to eat meat and vegetables both so we should eat both but also try to save those species which are going to be finished. One thing more; as tiger eat only meat as its body supports only meat and similarly some animals eat only vegitables so we should go as nature tell us that is the system made by God for us.

3mpathy

Nov23-04, 07:08 PM

Dooga Blackrazor

Nov23-04, 07:33 PM

Can an animal cognitively understand what we are doing do it and attempt to negotiate a course of action that would benefit us enough to logically allow it to live - no.

juju

Nov24-04, 04:43 PM

Hi,

I don't think that eating meat is wrong. I enjoy it. What is wrong, in some cases, is the way the animals are treated before and during the slaughtering process. This should change.

juju

abitofnothingleft

Nov24-04, 06:10 PM

not just some cases doll.....the majority of farms now are "industrial farms" just about every bit of meat you eat is from an industry farm where they pump the animal full of hormones until they cannot stand. fun eh? mmmmm mmmmmmmm cow :yuck:

learningphysics

Nov24-04, 07:00 PM

If eating animals is acceptable if they are treated and killed humanely, is it acceptable to eat humans if they are treated and killed humanely? If not, why not.

Basically, why do we grant humans more value than animals?

3mpathy

Nov24-04, 07:08 PM

because we are humans and we don't like to think that we would be eatin'( well the sane ones at least agree with me) we dont care about animals.

Newton's Third Law of Hamburger's : The "greatest scientist ever" makes another dazzling discovery!. cow+grease = yummmmmmmm

abitofnothingleft

Nov24-04, 09:59 PM

its true though. why dont we eat humans? we think of ourselves as a "civil" and "brilliant" species. therefore, why waste a perfectly good species right? if you look at it though, not many species actually eat their own...save for the insects and a few fish. animals dont really eat there own species either.

Dissident Dan

Nov24-04, 11:17 PM

It's not a matter of the amount of protein you get but the kind of protein you get. The protein has to have the right balance of amino acids to be wholly beneficial to you. An egg is the golden standard for the right mix of amino acids a human should have in his/her diet. You just can't get the right types of proteins from plants, even soy.

I'm sorry for being so blunt, shrumeo, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. Soy has all the essential amino acids, and other plants complement each other to get the right amino acids. Check our the American Dietetic Association's website: http://www.eatright.org

Dissident Dan

Nov24-04, 11:20 PM

Well, while all of you are debating whether or not we should kill animals for food, I'm going to sit here and enjoy my steak, and baked potatoes. I learned a long time ago, that food is for eating, and if the creator did not want us to eat it, he wouldn't have created it to begin with.

I hope you're joking. If not, then remember that, according to creation, the creator created humans, rocks, lava, and everything else. Why don't you eat those, as well?

And as for chicken's living in TINY cages, have you ever seen this? I haven't, and I've worked in chicken farms before. I'd like an image of this thing you've described. Ten thousand chickens, living in ten thousand tiny cages. Aside from the cost of the cages, they would be wasting chickens.

http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/battery.html

As my mother said when I was a child--- eat all your food, there are hungry, starving children in China. Too bad she never sent any of it off to our neighbors who were hungry.
Ahh.... now that is a steak!

Well, with an ever-growing population, it will continue to be harder and harder to provide enough food as long as people continue to eat animal products. It's just inefficient. It takes dozens or hundreds of times more resources to produce meat than it does to produce wheat.

juju

Nov25-04, 03:57 PM

abitofnothingleft

Nov26-04, 07:13 PM

thats so sweet...thanks :blushing:

Madhavi Thakurdesai

Nov27-04, 03:37 AM

Meat does not contain fibers so not much helpful to body so we should not eat meat

juju

Nov27-04, 03:54 PM

thats so sweet...thanks :blushing:

Sweet it isn't and sweet it wasn't meant to be.

You need to find out whose pulling your strings, 'cause for sure it ain't you.

juju

abitofnothingleft

Nov27-04, 05:25 PM

well i didnt mean it as an insult to you so i didnt take it as an insult to me :approve:

physicsisphirst

Nov27-04, 09:32 PM

As an organism, a human is designed to eat meat.

while i agree with what you say about not being cruel to animals, your statement above really isn't accurate.

humans process meat and all animal proteins very inefficiently. as posted earlier:

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs). Our jaws can move sideways (grinding capability) unlike a true carnivore. Nor do we possess the short digestive tracts through which consumed flesh passes through quickly. Instead, humans have teeth that are suitable for grinding and a long digestive tract in which vegetable material can be processed (in fact, when meat winds up here it putrifies leading to a host of physical problems).

Our digestive system is not capable of properly breaking down large animal proteins which wind up in the blood stream resulting in protein antigeneity (the production of antibodies to attack the large proteins) leading to inflammatory conditions such as eczema, asthma and arthritis. Nor can it handle the high cholestrol fat that animal products contain leading to obesity and clogged arteries resulting in heart problems. When an autopsy is done of a heart attack victim one can pull out the cylinders of fat that constricted blood flow. Never, ever has it been found that the flow of blood was stopped by pieces of apples, brocoli or tofu!

Even our psychology isn't designed for an animal consumptive lifestyle: when you see a squirrel do you think 'how cute!' or do you start salivating?

dissident dan has answered well on your, neend's and 3mpathy's other points.

in friendship,
prad

martillo

Nov28-04, 07:34 PM

I think that our world is not in an ideal state.
In an ideal state no animal or human should eat other animals! Just ideal vegetals should feed everyone perfectly.
But in today´s state we evolutionated eating meat. Meat give us some essential things that vegetals can´t. For example B-12 vitamin. If you become a vegetarian you should need B-12 suplementation.
I´m expecting the world to reach that ideal state some day in the future. Many things will change.
Meanwhile we need to eat our complex complete diet that is a mixture with some meat, some cereals some vegetals and some fruits.
We need all them!

Richard Harris

Nov28-04, 07:48 PM

Being only 20, and definatly not my field of study, i know one thing.

Science has conclusivly proven, that we are Designed to be carnivores, and it has proven that we are omnivores, and yet again, we have been proven to be vegen.

saying one or the other is a Falicy, because science doesnt have the answers, and it never will. the only diet to ever come close is the one that starts and ends with the word 'Moderation' and contains nothing else.

Medical science Proves that All substances are Benifical and Harmful, depending on the Dosage. being the same test subject, and mainly the same compounds, Food is no different. If you eat Vegtables Exclusivly, you will never be as healthy as if you also ate even one chicken a year on top of that.

If you ate all meat, you would never be as healthy as if you also ate even one carrot a year on top of that.

modern science may have found a way to replace meat in our diet, but where was it 600 years ago?

If meat is a Replaceable part of our diet, why do we have a Taste for it.

For a Creationist, we are Unequely Created to eat both, and we are allowed to eat both.

for a Evolutionist, why do we not have 4 stomoch's like a Cow and a heard instinct, we are 'evolved' from hunters, with a gatherer side too. why do you knock the strength of those who 'survived'

I know what goes on in a meat processing plant, and I still eat it, i've seen the chemicals Sprayed on Vegtables, and I still eat it, none is more Moral than the other, just now that we agree animals feel pain when before we didnt, we may someday learn that plants feel pain (or have we already discovered this)

America is FAT because it is a glutinous Nation, breed by the mindset that drives America.

Moderation in everything is the ONLY diet, and the healthy way to live.

there is no should we eat meat, because a true Philosophor would Render the question down to the beliefs that drove it, and attempt to answer them.

donjennix

Nov28-04, 08:33 PM

Actually the small cages physicskid mentions are not used for chickens intended for eating but for laying hens. Moreover, I have learned to be suspicious of the claims made by anti meat, anti whatever enthusiasts and if eating meat is really not economical we will see it soon enough in the price of meat.

omni-8

Nov28-04, 09:15 PM

It confuses me that so many vegans assume they are doing justice by eliminating meats and consuming fruits and vegetables exclusively, in the name of "sparing life". Plants ARE a living species as well! In fact research indicates they respond to human communication...so vegans are "slaughtering" a living, breathing, "thinking" creature afterall.

Where can a line be drawn? Well, it can't (at least not yet). Life feeds on life....

abitofnothingleft

Nov28-04, 09:22 PM

It confuses me that so many vegans assume they are doing justice by eliminating meats and consuming fruits and vegetables exclusively, in the name of "sparing life". Plants ARE a living species as well! In fact research indicates they respond to human communication...so vegans are "slaughtering" a living, breathing, "thinking" creature afterall...

yes but the difference is that plants dont have nervous systems....they dont feel pain like animals do. that is the basic reason as to why people dont eat animals but eat plants.

omni-8

Nov28-04, 10:24 PM

yes but the difference is that plants dont have nervous systems....they dont feel pain like animals do. that is the basic reason as to why people dont eat animals but eat plants.

If executed properly the animal should not feel pain.

I think the level of consciousness of an animal lends to the perception of what is acceptable to kill and what is not. For example, lacto-ovo vegetarians make allowances for eating fish and eggs.

Overall I agree with Richard Harris, in that moderation is the ultimate course to pursue regardless of the variables.

susanest

Nov29-04, 01:51 AM

Kurdt

Nov29-04, 09:15 AM

While i agree that some of our practises toward animals are very cruel and need to be addressed, I would not go so far as to say we should ban meat. It is an individuals choice what he/she eats and should remain so. In most of the world today we live in societies that are supposed to uphold the principal of civil liberty and free speech. while i value the points some people make I resent the fact that they imply that sanctions either way will be imposed.

A right to live a vegan life style is well catered for nowadays and the industry is getting better. I do remember several months ago, a documentary concerning the missing link and current accepted theory (correct me if I am wrong) is that human ancestors developed the brain capacity we have now from the switch to consuming mainly plant life to a mix between meat and plant life. in other words we would not be having a debate on whther it was moral or not.

I also seem to remember that the human body isn't completely incapable of dealing with meat. herbivores have a tough time digesting any meat, carnivores have similar trouble with vegetation omnivores can do both but aren't brilliant at either. I was under the distinct impression that we were the latter category of animal.

Another thing that caught my attention is if we eventually deem it immoral to cull animals for food then what can we say about carnivores. Round them all up and feed them three bean soup? There is not a chance that we could make a decision whilst nature itself has so much diversity. If we were the only species that did it then i would have no problem with an ultimate moral decision but as it stands theres plenty of room for both parties to live as they wish.

shrumeo

Nov29-04, 03:48 PM

while i agree with what you say about not being cruel to animals, your statement above really isn't accurate.

humans process meat and all animal proteins very inefficiently. as posted earlier:

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs). Our jaws can move sideways (grinding capability) unlike a true carnivore. Nor do we possess the short digestive tracts through which consumed flesh passes through quickly. Instead, humans have teeth that are suitable for grinding and a long digestive tract in which vegetable material can be processed (in fact, when meat winds up here it putrifies leading to a host of physical problems).
We come from a mixed line of plant eating and meat eating primates.
We are omnivores, not herbivores.
Human predecessors split into 2 species (homo robustus and homo habilus) a few million years ago. Robustus had huge jaws for grinding leaves, stems, and roots, and habilus became more lanky and active because it supplemented its vegetable diet with meat. Robustus died out because it filled too narrow a niche. We come (more likely) from the habilus line, which was able to digest meat as well as vegetables, and therefore could better adapt to different food supplies. we could SURVIVE on either a strictly vegetable diet or a strictly meat diet (compare vegetarians with Innuit people [or Atkins dieters])

We do have an GI tract capable of digesting vegetables, because that's what it's designed to do. It's also designed to digest meat. Our teeth have BOTH capabilities.

Our digestive system is not capable of properly breaking down large animal proteins which wind up in the blood stream resulting in protein antigeneity (the production of antibodies to attack the large proteins) leading to inflammatory conditions such as eczema, asthma and arthritis. Nor can it handle the high cholestrol fat that animal products contain leading to obesity and clogged arteries resulting in heart problems. When an autopsy is done of a heart attack victim one can pull out the cylinders of fat that constricted blood flow. Never, ever has it been found that the flow of blood was stopped by pieces of apples, brocoli or tofu!
Go on the Atkins diet and you will find that your LDL's go down. All the bad cholesterol levels go down, along with triglycerides and arterial plaque. Then, counterintuitively, go on the Mayo Clinic diet (high carb, low fat) and you will see all these numbers go up. Just because you eat it, doesn't mean it sticks to your arteries.

Even our psychology isn't designed for an animal consumptive lifestyle: when you see a squirrel do you think 'how cute!' or do you start salivating?
Depends on how hungry I am. If I am starving in the woods and any edible animal comes my way, it's dinner time.

Let's do the same with plants. When you see a fern or a tulip, do you say 'how pretty' or do you start salivating?

0TheSwerve0

Nov29-04, 04:08 PM

The should depends on the "who." Our ancestors had taboos on certain things, but eating meat wasn't one of them. Should they not have eaten meat? Even when our population would've died out? Have we evolved to a point where we are a knew "who" and should change our proper course of action regarding food? Or has our environment changed? Just some ideas that probably have been addressed but I'm not going to read all 44 pages of this thread.

For example, we have changed our stance on gender roles, somewhat. So, are we a different "who" or is this another thing we "should" do now and should have done then?

shrumeo

Nov29-04, 04:22 PM

I agree with shrumeo. we were made to eat meat, we have thrived on eating meat, why stop now? it is the niche that we are (meant to/ are) occupying right now.

on the other hand, i do enjoy playing the devil's adovacate so here it goes:
Since ppl complain that humans are to "animal-ish" in their behavoir, is this not some way to seperate ourselves and say "Yo everyone look at me! I am above those puny animals for I have decided not to be like them!"? Also maybe this whole "man is meant to be a meat eater" thing is outdated? Yes eating meat has gotten us this far, but slaves made Rome great(for a while) yet most ppl would agree that slavery is a old fashion tradition that is evil. Is this not like slavery in a way?
Where do we draw the line? Don't plants have a right to live out their lives and reproduce too? I guess most fruit-bearing plants rely on being eaten to reproduce, but lettuce doesn't, neither does celery or a ton of plants we eat. Shouldn't we limit our diet to plants that bear fruit (beans and nuts too) and leave (no pun intended) the leafy plants, roots, and tubors alone to live out their lives fully?

One extreme is Soylent Green and the other extreme is starvation by altruism.

its true though. why dont we eat humans? we think of ourselves as a "civil" and "brilliant" species. therefore, why waste a perfectly good species right? if you look at it though, not many species actually eat their own...save for the insects and a few fish. animals dont really eat there own species either.

Exactly. But, we are not "above" animals since we are inevitably animals ourselves. We may not be able to escape the 'cycle of life' unless we come up with Star Trek like replicators or begin to design the evolution of our own species.

I'm sorry for being so blunt, shrumeo, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. Soy has all the essential amino acids, and other plants complement each other to get the right amino acids. Check our the American Dietetic Association's website: http://www.eatright.org
All right. I was going on old info that claimed that soy did not provide all essential amino acids. Perhaps new research has shed light on this.

BUT, maybe we can't rely on soy for our "meat replacement."
Because it contains isoflavones.
Depending on who you ask, these are good for you and bad for you.
While they may be great for post-menopausal women, I don't think I want to start dosing myself with what could be called an "estrogen replacement."
------------------------------
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/300_soy.html
"Soy by itself is not a magic food," says Christine Lewis, acting director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements. "But rather it is an example of the different kinds of foods that together in a complete diet can have a positive effect on health."

The problem, researchers say, is that isoflavones are phytoestrogens, a weak form of estrogen that could have a drug-like effect in the body. This may be pronounced in postmenopausal women, and some studies suggest that high isoflavone levels might increase the risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer. Research data, however, are far from conclusive, and some studies show just the opposite--that under some conditions, soy may help prevent breast cancer. It is this scientific conundrum, where evidence simultaneously points to benefits and possible risks, that is causing some researchers to urge caution.

Unlike the controversy surrounding soy isoflavones, available evidence on soy protein benefits is much clearer. That's why FDA limited its health claim to foods containing intact soy protein. The claim does not extend to isolated substances from soy protein such as the isoflavones genistein and daidzein.
---------------------------

Anyway, why is soy protein called a "meat replacement" if we don't normally rely on meat for complete nutrition? This is what we are naturally designed to do. If that ONE plant (soy) didn't exist, we'd be left with the multitude of animal-based options that we have had throughout our evolution to complete our dietary needs. Not all our ancestors had access to soy beans. If they did, we'd probably all be eating tofu for lunch every day and not hamburgers.

Edit:
Ah!
here we go:
http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/17084.cfm
This position paper reviews the current scientific data related to key nutrients for vegetarians, including protein, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B-12, vitamin A, n-3 fatty acids, and iodine. A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients.
-------
So, if you are a vegan, you must SUPPLEMENT your diet with manufactured pills in order to meet recommended requirements.
-------
Vegetarian diets offer a number of advantages, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein and higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, boron, folate, antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, carotenoids, and phytochemicals (27-30). Some vegans may have intakes for vitamin B-12, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and occasionally riboflavin that are lower than recommended (27,29,31).
-------
And they would have to take pills to make up the difference (or use an animal product).
-------
Anyway, it sounds far easier to just eat the way nature intended.

shrumeo

Nov29-04, 04:39 PM

Meat does not contain fibers so not much helpful to body so we should not eat meat
Wheat doesn't provide all essential amino acids, so we should not eat wheat.

Eggplants don't provide much nutrition at all (but provide plenty of fiber) so we shouldn't eat eggplants.

A broom has a lot of fiber so we should only eat brooms.

abitofnothingleft

Nov29-04, 07:35 PM

If executed properly the animal should not feel pain.

yes but the point is they are NOT executed properly. and they feel pain by living. the conditions of their living space is disgusting.

Dissident Dan

Nov29-04, 09:58 PM

Stop immediately trying to rebutt the vegetarian arguments and actually think about them for a bit.

Kurdt

Nov30-04, 05:44 AM

In some parts of the USA a lot of PEOPLE aren't executed pain free. It first has to stop there before it ever has a chance of being implemented with animals. A famous comedian in britain once suggested in his satirical magazine show that abatoirs should slaughter a member of staff every six weeks to redress the balance to some extent.

shrumeo

Nov30-04, 10:46 AM

'Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.'
This is the motto of the PETA organization. I suggest you check out some of their excellent information on peta.org. I also agree with the person who suggested that our current attitudes toward animals will one day be looked upon as we now look back at slavery! It's wrong and the sooner we recognize it, the better.
This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures. By dumping red paint on people for wearing fur coats and performing militant acts toward researchers, they end up hampering their own efforts. All these methods do is backfire.
The first steps are to push for humane treatment of fur bearing animals in the trapping/hunting process and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats).

There are many good sources of information available that support the fact that we would all be better off relying on plants for food, rather than putting the plant material through animals and then eating animal flesh which is also a major source of accumulated pesticides, hormones, cholesterol and so on! The three leading causes of death in the US today (heart disease, stroke and cancers) are associated with diet and would be reduced tremendously by eliminating meat, eggs and milk products from the diet.
Actually, heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancers do largely come from a dietary source, but it's not meat, eggs, and milk (3 of the most healthy things for you) but from eating highly processed carbohydrates like sucrose and white flour mixed with starchy vegetables cooked in saturated fats.

It's McD's, Little Debbie, Lay's, and Ben & Jerry's that leads to those diseases, not eating high quality meats, fishes, and especially not milk and eggs.

The excellent book "The Food Revolution" by John Robbins is an amazing source of very well-documented truths regarding the lies we have been fed by the meat and dairy industries. Mr. Robbins (heir to the Baskins-Robbins fortune who turned away from that business to learn about healthier ways to live!) points out that those industries spend billions each year to maintain the myth that their poisons are good for us! Like so many problems these days, sources of truth are overshadowed by greed in our very corrupt system.
Get real. Everything is a freaking poison to someone. Hell, Baskin Robbins is poison if anything. Long before a nice steak is poison.

Another point: although it is, of course, true that plants are a life form, too, approximately 20 pounds of plant protein are required to create one pound of beef protein. Very inefficient!
But if the animal was never fed the plant protein how would it live? Would these animals even exist if it weren't for their purpose as human consumables? How many animals would be left in this world if all we did with their land is plant crops? Some of that farmland is now inhabited by domesticated food animals.

The pollution that results from the meat and dairy industries is mind-boggling.
What would that be? poo poo? That's not pollution unless it's highly concentrated in an area that would be harmed by that high concentration. Dilution is the solution to pollution. The amount of pollution from human poo poo is comparable.

shrumeo

Nov30-04, 10:48 AM

Stop immediately trying to rebutt the vegetarian arguments and actually think about them for a bit.
Does this mean that you are thinking a bit about the pro-meat arguments?

abitofnothingleft

Nov30-04, 02:09 PM

This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures. By dumping red paint on people for wearing fur coats and performing militant acts toward researchers, they end up hampering their own efforts. All these methods do is backfire.
The first steps are to push for humane treatment of fur bearing animals in the trapping/hunting process and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats)

thats not totally true. PETA has made MANY great steps in the move forward to stop animal cruelty. as i said before, they are not total extremesists. how do i know? because im part of it. yes...im a peta person. we have stands to educate people. we dont walk up to someone eating a burger and throw it on the ground and i haven't heard of any controlled peta members recently throwing paint on peoples fur coats. it is people who take that too far that give peta that reputation. we have a campaign that emphasizes the horrors of fur coats, clothes, etc. its called "i'd rather go naked then wear fur." and it is vastly spreading. Pamela Anderson even posed for the calendar.
check this link out for more info:
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=naked_campaign

peta overall works to benefit the stopping of animal cruelty by advertising, and educating people about the horrors of wearing fur. its true that in the past people went extreme, but they now have official members who cannot do such things and blame it on peta, because peta would never tell someone to throw red paint on a person who is wearing a fur coat. they would tell them to educate that person, rather then totally humiliate them. this is because no one wants to listen to someone when you are embarasing them. therefore, instead of doing that, they are educating.

and no shrumeo...i think he means for the pro-meaters to think about the pro-veggies arguements a little more before before you dismiss them.

Dissident Dan

Nov30-04, 04:29 PM

This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures. By dumping red paint on people for wearing fur coats and performing militant acts toward researchers, they end up hampering their own efforts. All these methods do is backfire.
The first steps are to push for humane treatment of fur bearing animals in the trapping/hunting process and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats).

Maybe, but I don't see what that has to do with what susanest wrote.

Actually, heart disease, diabetes, strokes and cancers do largely come from a dietary source, but it's not meat, eggs, and milk (3 of the most healthy things for you) but from eating highly processed carbohydrates like sucrose and white flour mixed with starchy vegetables cooked in saturated fats.

Highly processed carbohydrates are not good for you in most regards, but I'd like to know why you claim that animal products do not contribute to the ailments mentioned and why you claim they are actually very healthy. I am especially perplexed about the milk one. Milk is one of the most unhealthy and alien substances that people regularly consume in large amounts. It is packed with saturated fat, cholesterol, hormones, antibiotics, harmful proteins, and puss, and it triggers allergic reactions in many people, if not everyone.

abitofnothingleft

Nov30-04, 04:41 PM

and to ensure humane treatment of laboratory animals like mice, rats, monkeys, and cats (especially monkeys and cats).
.

they are doing that too....there are tons of campaigns that peta runs all at once. so not only are they attempting big leaps, but also those steps too. and its harder then you think to obtain humane treatment for those animals.
its an ongoing battle, as are many of their other campaigns, but as i said before, they have made some awesome achievements in the past and have helped animals out a lot!

theriddler876

Nov30-04, 06:07 PM

this isn't about animal treatment or testing, it's about animal consumption, try not to deviate from the topic... anyways, analysis of our teeth proves what we were and were not meant to eat..

abitofnothingleft

Nov30-04, 08:40 PM

okay .....well people are arguing as to whether we should or should not eat meat. along with your opinion comes a reason.....that is my arguement against theirs. i dont see how that doesnt directly relate to the topic.

physicsisphirst

Dec1-04, 02:28 PM

I do remember several months ago, a documentary concerning the missing link and current accepted theory (correct me if I am wrong) is that human ancestors developed the brain capacity we have now from the switch to consuming mainly plant life to a mix between meat and plant life.

At the end of this post is some information from another thread on the idea some people propose regarding increased protein causing increase brain capacity (not that this is what you or the documentary is suggesting). The essence of it is that increased caloric density (available through grains for instance) was what contributed to increased brain size.

I also seem to remember that the human body isn't completely incapable of dealing with meat. herbivores have a tough time digesting any meat, carnivores have similar trouble with vegetation omnivores can do both but aren't brilliant at either. I was under the distinct impression that we were the latter category of animal.
the key point you make is the "omnivores can do both but aren't brilliant at either". humans can eat meat, just as cats can manage vegetables and fruits, and factory farmed animals often end up being fed animal proteins in the form of 'rendered flesh', feces etc. every creature can be said to be omnivorous to some extent - but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. as for humans eating meat, the evidence accummulated over the past half century certainly indicates that it is a very bad idea.

Another thing that caught my attention is if we eventually deem it immoral to cull animals for food then what can we say about carnivores. Round them all up and feed them three bean soup?
the issue here is 'should we eat meat?' not 'should we allow any creature to eat meat'. i do not think the matter is simply one of morality though meat and dairy production can certainly be deemed to be immoral considering what goes on. the point is that since humans have no need to kill other animals for food (except in places where it is not possible to grow food), therefore eating meat can certainly be considered immoral given the circumstances.

in friendship,
prad

-----------
the idea of large brain development being a result of the free hours for creative thought which became available as a result of the high caloric intake that meat supposedly provided is at best speculation.

However, the rationale behind some of this is perhaps interesting at least.

The idea is derived from the topic of encephalization reviewed (albeit somewhat biasedly) here: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4a.shtml.

Essentially, the correlation between DQ (diet quality specifically the caloric intake) and brain size led to the hypothesis that in order to get all this energy, we needed to eat meat otherwise our brains wouldn't have ever developed. In fact, Leonard and Robertson claim that

What made meat an important resource to exploit was not its high protein content, rather, its high caloric return ... the early hunting-gathering life-way associated with H. erectus was a more efficient way of getting food which supported a 35-55% increase in caloric needs (relative to australopithecines)...

(If you recall, I mentioned the 2 human 'strains' earlier in the thread)

Their entire thrust appears based on dense caloric intake (as opposed to just meat) for later they write (Leonard and Robertson 1994, p. 79)

Even in human populations where meat consumption is low, DQ is still much higher than in other large-bodied primates because grains are much more calorically dense than foliage.

Having said all this, they conclude:

These results imply that changes in diet quality during hominid evolution were linked with the evolution of brain size. The shift to a more calorically dense diet was probably needed in order to substantially increase the amount of metabolic energy being used by the hominid brain. Thus, while nutritional factors alone are not sufficient to explain the evolution of our large brains, it seems clear that certain dietary changes were necessary for substantial brain evolution to take place.

Notice that they say that nutritional factors alone are not sufficient to explain brain development.

Note: there are several other theories such as the rather interesting one put forth by william calvin in the Ascent of Man deals with the ice ages and how human intelligence evolved as a result of having to deal with resulting challenges:

Three things apparently started 2.5 million years ago: the ice ages, toolmaking, growth in brain size.

Indeed, switches in climate may promote a jack-of-all-trades set of capabilities under some conditions. The rapidity of the climate change would appear to be more important than its magnitude.
Climate Instability and Hominid Brain Evolution
http://www.williamcalvin.com/1990s/1998AGU.htm

as well as the more 'political' effort (quite remarkable for its time) by Engels on the importance of labor on human brain development, developed with minimal fossil evidence, but still "a masterpiece of the dialectical method"
http://www.marxist.com/scienceandtech/HumanDevelopment.html

physicsisphirst

Dec1-04, 02:36 PM

yes but the point is they are NOT executed properly. and they feel pain by living. the conditions of their living space is disgusting.

this is very true even in so-called 'human slaughter'. for instance, after receiving complaints, an investigation by PETA revealed the horrors of 'kosher' killing at the plant run by Agriprocessors Inc. in Postville, Iowa:

AgriProcessor workers ignore the suffering of cows who are still sensible to pain after having their throats slit by the ritual slaughterer. The animals stagger and slip in blood while their tracheas dangle from their necks.
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/

there are two videos at the above link that show this 'kosher' process as well as this What You Can Do link: http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/wycd.asp

below is the New York Times article that appeared yesterday regarding this investigation.

in friendship,
prad

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/national/30cnd-kosh.html
November 30, 2004
Videotapes Show Grisly Scenes at Kosher Slaughterhouse
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

An animal-rights group released grisly undercover videotapes today showing cows in a major kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa staggering and bellowing in seeming agony long after their throats were cut.

The plant, run by Agriprocessors Inc. in Postville, Iowa, is being denounced as inhumane by the group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and by several experts on animal science and kosher practice.

But the plant's supervising rabbi said the tapes were "testimony that this is being done right." And representatives of the Orthodox Union, the leading organization that certifies kosher products, said that while the pictures were not pretty, they did not make the case that the slaughterhouse is violating kosher law.

The plant is the country's largest producer of meat certified as glatt kosher, the highest standard for cleanliness under kosher law. (Glatt means smooth, or free of the lung blemishes that might indicate disease.) Employing 600 people and selling under the popular Aaron's Best brand, it is the only American plant allowed to export to Israel.

On the 30-minute tape, each animal is placed in a rotating drum so it can be killed while upside down, as required by Orthodox rabbis in Israel. Immediately after the shochet, or ritual slaughterer, has slit the throat, another worker tears open each steer's neck with a hook and pulls out the trachea and esophagus. The drum rotates, and the steer is dumped on the floor. One after another, animals with dangling windpipes stand up or try to; in one case, death takes three minutes.

In most kosher plants, animals are tightly penned while their throats are
slashed, and the organs are not torn; tearing by the shochet is forbidden under Jewish law. In nonkosher plants, animals by law must be made unconscious before they are killed.

Virtually all defenders of kosher slaughter, called shechita, insist that the
prescribed rapid cut with a razor-sharp two-foot blade is humane because it causes instant and painless death. Jewish law also forbids killing injured or sick animals, so they may not be stunned first, either with clubs as in ancient times or with air hammers, pistols or electricity today.

Federal law considers properly conducted religious slaughter to be humane, and so allows Jewish as well as Muslim slaughterhouses to forgo stunning. But federal rules outlaw leaving animals killed that way conscious "for an extended period of time."

Rabbi Chaim Kohn, of the Agriprocessors plant, says the cows feel nothing, even as they struggle on the floor and slamm their heads into walls. "Unconsciousness and the external behavior of the animal have nothing to do with shechita," he said. Because the throat-tearing happens after the shochet's cut, he said, it does not render the animal nonkosher.

Other experts in kosher law were divided on the issue.
Rabbis Menachem Genack and Yisroel Belsky, the chief experts for the Orthodox Union, which certifies over 600,000 products as kosher - including Aaron's Best meats - said the killings on the tape, while "gruesome," appeared kosher because the shochet checked to make sure he had severed both the trachea and esophagus.

Scientific studies, Rabbi Belsky said, found that an animal whose brain had lost blood pressure when its throat was slit felt nothing and any motions it made were involuntary.

"The perfect model is the headless chicken running around," said Rabbi Genack.
Both rabbis said they were willing to revisit the plant and study whether
tearing the throat or letting steers thrash on the ground violated Talmudic proscriptions against cruelty to animals.

The union, they said, prefers a type of pen designed by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in which steers are killed standing up with their weight supported. They were designed in the 1950's so American kosher plants could stop killing live animals suspended on chains, which was seen as both cruel and dangerous to the slaughterer.

But a spokesman for Shechita UK, a British lobbying group that defends ritual slaughter against the protests of animal-rights activists, said after watching the tape with a rabbi and a British shochet that he "felt queasy," and added,"I don't know what that is, but it's not shechita."

The spokesman, Shimon Cohen, said that in Britain an animal must be restrained for 30 seconds to bleed, and no second cut is allowed. Done correctly, he said, a shochet's cut must produce instantaneous unconsciousness, so Agriprocessors' meat could not be considered kosher.

Asked how prominent authorities could disagree over such a fundamental issue, he replied: "Well, we don't have a pope. You do find rabbis who interpret things in different ways."

Dr. Temple Grandin, a veterinarian at Colorado State University who designs humane slaughter plants, viewed the tape last week without knowing the location. She called it "an atrocious abomination, nothing like I've seen in 30 kosher plants I've visited here and in England, France, Ireland and Canada."

She said the throat-tearing violated federal anti-cruelty law. "Nothing in the Humane Slaughter Act says you can start dismembering an animal while it's still conscious," she said.

A spokesman for the Department of Agriculture, which also certifies the plant, said it had not received the tapes yet and had no comment.

Rabbi Kohn, of Agriprocessors, said the throat-tearing was done only to speed bleeding. Recent Federal rules for slaughterhouse inspectors do recognize "the ritual cut and any additional cut to facilitate bleeding" as different from skinning or butchering, which is forbidden "until the animal is insensible."

The plant is at the center of a 2000 book, "Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America," by Stephen G. Bloom, which described the tensions in the tiny farming town between residents and Hasidic Jews from Brooklyn who took over its defunct slaughterhouse in 1987.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known as PETA, posted the tapes at GoVeg.com today and demanded that the plant be prosecuted for animal cruelty and decertified by kosher authorities. While the group advocates vegetarianism, it accepts that shechita can be relatively painless, said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman.

Mr. Friedrich said that after two fruitless years of pressing Agriprocessors to improve conditions, PETA sent a volunteer to the plant with a hidden camera for seven weeks last summer.

The cameraman, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he had no trouble being hired (he was assigned to the sausage department) or filming during his lunch hours and on days he called in sick.

"I'm glad I did it," said the young man, who became a vegetarian and volunteered for undercover work two years ago after seeing a PETA videotape. "I wish people who eat meat could stand where I did and see the things I saw."

Meat from the Agriprocessors plant can end up in any market or restaurant. Because Jewish law requires that the sciatic nerves and certain fats be cut out, which tears up the meat until it can only be sold as hamburger, the hindquarters of virtually all kosher-killed steers are sold as conventional meat.

physicsisphirst

Dec1-04, 02:58 PM

This is just ridiculous.
PETA goes too far and actually serves to impede progress toward animal rights by pushing too hard for extreme measures.
This is a strange thing to say considering

* PETA has been around for more than 2 decades
* has a membership of over 800 000 worldwide (last i heard)
* has helped to make 'animal rights' practically a household phrase
* been responsible for numerous changes for both animal welfare and animal rights (here is a link to recent victories: http://www.peta.org/about/victories.asp and for milestones by year go to http://www.peta.org/about/ and follow the milestones link)

Admittedly, a few of PETA's tactics may not be considered to be 'productive' even by certain AR groups, but the organization is obviously highly respected judging by the support it has from people in all walks of life as well as feared judging by the concerns of many of its opponents.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec1-04, 03:18 PM

Does this mean that you are thinking a bit about the pro-meat arguments?
shrumeo, there really aren't any pro-meat arguments other than

1. i like the taste
2. we are omnivores (which isn't the point or particularly correct considering what animal proteins - high quality or otherwise - do to humans)
3. extremely rare situations such as primary carbohydrate intolerance (where it appears there may be lacking digestive enzymes)
4. mind your own business because i'll do whatever i want to

To argue the nutritional merits of eating meat using stuff like the Atkins diet is a bit strange considering it is really not regarded too highly by even medical authorities (though it does appear to be somewhat successful for weightloss) as is the psychological comparison you put forth earlier regarding whether a fern or a tulip can cause salivation LOL.

In any case, consumption of animal proteins isn't necessary nor healthful. The agri-production is seriously damaging to the environment and it is certainly causing more and more people to question their ethical values.

Even ethics aside, going veg really isn't too difficult when one contemplates what is associated with animal protein production such as the drugs, the growth hormones, the mercury poisoning, the deforestation, the pollution, the depletion of the water table, the heart attacks, the cancer, the osteoporosis, mad cow disease, the samonella and of course the cow pus!

Vegetarianism isn't just another fad - it's been around a long, long time and has been increasing in popularity for several decades thanks to research and dissemination of information.

in friendship,
prad

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec1-04, 06:46 PM

learningphysics

Dec1-04, 07:50 PM

I'm supporting the vegetarian economic/health efficiency arguements so far. I'm still a bit stuck on the issue though.

What about the animal right to life issue? I like meat and generally dislike vegetables and can't see these animals contributing to me enough for me to justify their existance. Do animals contribute to society through the food-chain in an amount that is greater than the pleasure they provide dead?

Ask yourself this: if a human contributes nothing to human society, and his death provides pleasure, is his/her existence justified?

There are plenty of humans that don't contribute to me. Does that mean I can't justify their existence?

Lots of animal societies would be better off if humans were extinct. We contribute nothing to their societies. Is our existence justified?

Also think about what the word "society" means exactly...

Just pointing out some issues.

physicsisphirst

Dec1-04, 10:54 PM

Do animals contribute to society through the food-chain in an amount that is greater than the pleasure they provide dead?
An interesting line of reasoning, but very well addressed by learningphysics in the previous post.

I think part of the idea is along these lines as well:

'ask not what your planet can do for you, ask what you can do for your planet'.

hedonism may bring instant gratification, but what is admired, what we teach our children, is to contribute and not to just take. The examples throughout history pointed to as 'models of humanity' have overwhelmingly been kind, compassionate, selfless, courageous and very prone to do for others rather than usurp for themselves.

Hence, the issue changes somewhat from passing judgement on whether the 'contribution' some being makes can justify its existence, to how should I act in order to justify mine.

in friendship,
prad

abitofnothingleft

Dec3-04, 10:53 AM

Do animals contribute to society through the food-chain in an amount that is greater than the pleasure they provide dead?

wow...that amazes me.....you would much rather see and eat a dead animal then see it wild and alive? really....?! you would rather eat a horse then see it living and wild and running around ....as hard as it may be for you to believe....animals can enjoy their life too. seeing an animal in the wild is one of the most amazing sites ever. i think thats one of the most selfish questions i've ever heard.

"i'd like to have an animal tortured and slaughtered so i can enjoy the juicy greasy hormone ridden meat of its dead carcass, thank you!:redface:"

p.s.~ i'm sorry but i get really passionate over these kind of arguements...both the arguement for or against meat as well as abortions

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec3-04, 02:27 PM

learningphysics

Dec4-04, 12:05 AM

I don't take any offense to passion. I prefer unemotional debates but I can understand how some people get emotional over certain topics. I certainly hope your pro-choice. Concerning the running around part, if I could see a cow run around or eat a nice BBQed hamburger with cheese I'd certainly take the burger.

The majority of people contribute to my existance because they contribute to society and society helps sustain my existance. What are the logical arguements against selfishness towards dealing with both animals and humans?

All of this comes down to a matter of ethics. What is "right"? What is "wrong"? If one starts with a moral foundation of "right" being whatever is selfish, and "wrong" being otherwise, then it is impossible to give any argument against selfishness.

If a thief can get away with stealing, and he enjoys the process and rewards of stealing, is it right for him to continue? I can't think of any logical arguments against it. There might be ethical arguments though...

abitofnothingleft

Dec4-04, 10:54 AM

Concerning the running around part, if I could see a cow run around or eat a nice BBQed hamburger with cheese I'd certainly take the burger.

The majority of people contribute to my existance because they contribute to society and society helps sustain my existance. What are the logical arguements against selfishness towards dealing with both animals and humans?

the thing is you've only ever seen cows in farms...you havent seen them wild (or at least thats what im assuming considering cows arent really in the wild.) animals are totally different when they're in the wild and when they're captive in farms. nothing ever looks as good as it would if it was wild.

humans are very very selfish when it comes to anything. they prefer to be in control of everything they possibly can be. they want to be in control of what they eat, how juicy and thick the meat is, they want to be in an environment where they are the masters and controllers and the animals are the victims, the tortured, slaughtered victims. they cannot simply kill the animal, they mutate it and then kill it. they are mutating animals for their own pleasure....how selfish is that?

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec5-04, 09:59 AM

What does Tofu taste like? If someone doesn't like it what should they do?

Can someone be Vegeterian and eat eggs? Are eggs considered chicken abortions? Are the majority of vegeterians pro-life? What reasoning is placed against drinking milk and eating cheese?

shrumeo

Dec5-04, 01:29 PM

thats not totally true. PETA has made MANY great steps in the move forward to stop animal cruelty. as i said before, they are not total extremesists. how do i know? because im part of it. yes...im a peta person. we have stands to educate people. we dont walk up to someone eating a burger and throw it on the ground and i haven't heard of any controlled peta members recently throwing paint on peoples fur coats. it is people who take that too far that give peta that reputation. we have a campaign that emphasizes the horrors of fur coats, clothes, etc. its called "i'd rather go naked then wear fur." and it is vastly spreading. Pamela Anderson even posed for the calendar.
check this link out for more info:
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=naked_campaign

peta overall works to benefit the stopping of animal cruelty by advertising, and educating people about the horrors of wearing fur. its true that in the past people went extreme, but they now have official members who cannot do such things and blame it on peta, because peta would never tell someone to throw red paint on a person who is wearing a fur coat. they would tell them to educate that person, rather then totally humiliate them. this is because no one wants to listen to someone when you are embarasing them. therefore, instead of doing that, they are educating.

and no shrumeo...i think he means for the pro-meaters to think about the pro-veggies arguements a little more before before you dismiss them.

I was just making sure that he was doing the same.

Eat meat. It's healthy.

I guess I have to say it 1000 times. We should eat meat, but that doesn't mean we have to be cruel to animals. We could even wear fur, but there is no excuse for the treatment most of these animals receive in the name of "saving money."

So think about the pro-meat arguments before you dismiss them. Thank you.

Ok, about the Peta thing. It wasn't some fringe part of PETA that threw paint on people, that was just a tactic that backfired and had to be labelled as "fringe." I applaud the naked campaign if it really had the results they claim.

I don't think anyone was really humiliated when they got the paint thrown on them. I would think it really pissed them off, and they were probably rich enough to sue.

Look, I'll just end it with this:
Eating meat, in and of itself, is not being cruel or unethical toward animals. Wearing fur, in and of itself, is not being cruel or unethical toward animals.
Cruel practises involved in these industries must be stopped, but they can really only be stopped in any good measure through the law. Boycotting only works to some extent and rarely forever (not saying anyone should give up).

And I noticed a dog in the middle of the video, did he eat a vegetarian diet?

physicsisphirst

Dec5-04, 01:44 PM

What does Tofu taste like? If someone doesn't like it what should they do?
tofu takes on the taste of various flavorings - that's what makes it an excellent and versatile item. if you don't like tofu one way, it can probably be made in some other way that you will like.

Can someone be Vegeterian and eat eggs?
not really if you go by the actual meaning of the word vegetarian.
however, common (though incorrect) usage has resulted in vegetarian being used to describe lacto-ovo vegetarians and vegan being used to describe strict vegetarians (no animal products at all - including honey).

Are eggs considered chicken abortions?
no since fertilization hasn't occurred in most eggs that people eat.
see them rather as the menstrual waste of another species :D

Are the majority of vegeterians pro-life?
vegetarianism is a dietary stance not an ethical one - though many vegetarians are that way for ethical reasons. the three primary reasons to go veg are health, environment, ethics. so it is certainly possible to be a vegetarian and still wear leather or fur, hunt for sport, and clearcut forests. however, most vegetarians probably don't do these things.

What reasoning is placed against drinking milk and eating cheese?
here are a few:
1) animal protein consumption lead to inflammatories such as eczema, asthma and arthritis
2) calcium depletion (ya i know they tell you the opposite LOL) leading to osteoporosis
3) the chemicals, steroids and hormones that wind up in it causing allergies, acne, premature pubescence (and we haven't even to the cow pus!)
4) destruction of the environment and pollution (got to keep those cows somehow)
5) the veal industry (can't have male calves sucking up all that milk)
6) cheese addiction:
Several scientific teams have shown that the principal protein in cheese, casein, breaks apart during digestion to produce abundant amounts of morphine-like compounds called casomorphins. Biologically, these opiates appear to be responsible for part of the mother-infant bond that occurs during nursing.
http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary030519.html

for more stuff see http://www.notmilk.com

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec5-04, 02:04 PM

Eat meat. It's healthy ... So think about the pro-meat arguments before you dismiss them. Thank you.
this is hardly a convincing argument especially in light of the excellent posts several people have made throughout the thread against meat consumption.

Cruel practises involved in these industries must be stopped, but they can really only be stopped in any good measure through the law. Boycotting only works to some extent and rarely forever (not saying anyone should give up).
i agree that cruel practices must be stopped - the law and boycotting can both be very effective.

And I noticed a dog in the middle of the video, did he eat a vegetarian diet?
dogs do extremely well on veg diets - and tend to be free from problems non-veg diets cause (and there are quite a few of these). here are 2 links for veg dogs if anyone is interested:
http://www.vegetariandogs.com/
http://www.veggiepets.com/
there are lots of others and even big commercial petfood manufacturers - natural life and nature's choice (i think) - provide a vegetarian dog food since some dogs are actually allergic to meat by-products. of course, there are pure veg petfood companies as well such as evolution (http://www.petfoodshop.com/) and hoana (http://www.vegepet.com/ - provides veg supplementation) which are both excellent.

in friendship,
prad

abitofnothingleft

Dec5-04, 02:42 PM

I was just making sure that he was doing the same.

Eat meat. It's healthy.

I guess I have to say it 1000 times. We should eat meat, but that doesn't mean we have to be cruel to animals. We could even wear fur, but there is no excuse for the treatment most of these animals receive in the name of "saving money."

So think about the pro-meat arguments before you dismiss them. Thank you.

Ok, about the Peta thing. It wasn't some fringe part of PETA that threw paint on people, that was just a tactic that backfired and had to be labelled as "fringe." I applaud the naked campaign if it really had the results they claim.

I don't think anyone was really humiliated when they got the paint thrown on them. I would think it really pissed them off, and they were probably rich enough to sue.

Look, I'll just end it with this:
Eating meat, in and of itself, is not being cruel or unethical toward animals. Wearing fur, in and of itself, is not being cruel or unethical toward animals.
Cruel practises involved in these industries must be stopped, but they can really only be stopped in any good measure through the law. Boycotting only works to some extent and rarely forever (not saying anyone should give up).

And I noticed a dog in the middle of the video, did he eat a vegetarian diet?

i'd be pretty humiliated if i had to walk down the street drenched in paint

i have considered the pro meat arguements ...i did that before i became a veggie and even when i first read this topic and i still chooose to dismiss them.
eating meat and wearing fur is still supporting those industries which torture the animals so yes, it is being cruel and unethical.

kirkmcloren

Dec5-04, 03:32 PM

After burning 100¨s of thousands of animals in England there are so few cases if any, that they do not publisize it. Anyway the chances of getting mad cow disease were as high as going down in a jet liner at the height of the disease in those animals. Does anyone ever wonder why when virtually everyone is exposed to a disease only a few fall ill?
[8)]

It is a slow disease like scrapies or visna. Takes a 1/4 to 1/3 of an animals lifetime in most cases to show pathology.

Ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Bobby R

Dec5-04, 07:55 PM

When we lack some mineral or vitamin (If we tune in!) our body should tell us what we need to supplement. For example, a craving for a potato may signify a need for potassium while leafy veggies may reveal a need for chlorophyll. A well balanced diet should include meat and fish. To replace these food items with vitamins & minerals from the shelf doesn’t seem to me a smart healthy idea. Of course you can always eat anything you want and as much as you want as long as you eat in front of a bunch of naked fat people.
Bob Rollins
:rolleyes:

Coolblueflame

Dec5-04, 10:52 PM

Alkatran

Dec5-04, 11:55 PM

If we stop eating the cows, we might as well kill 99% of them off in the process, because they aren't exactly the most... intelligent... species.

The thing I don't understand about society is this massive urge to "Save the whales and pandas". Whales and Pandas' aren't EATEN by anything and generally have very little effect on other species (I'm sure there's some exception, here). So... what's the point of saving animals that devour soooo much food (haha, like us :surprised ) but don't actually get eaten that much? Couldn't all the money spent on this be better spent... stopping the rain forest from being cut down?

I watched "The Last Samurai" with my girlfriend. She slept through 50% of it, but in the final battle, after we'd been seeing killing of people off and on the ENTIRE movie, she saw a horse die. "Oh no! They're killing the horses!" explain the logic here? Those horses probably wouldn't have been alive if they weren't needed for war... some > none, right?

cAm

Dec6-04, 12:14 AM

I'm vegan myself, but my parents raised me vegan. Im not sure i CAN eat meat/dairy at this point, because my body has lived 16 years without it, it could have some reaction to it. I personally dont really like the thought of killing animals just so we can eat them and the like, but if i weren't raised vegan, i honestly don't know if i would become so or not.

gee

Dec6-04, 05:03 AM

Of course we should eat DOMESTICATED critters (after they are dead!) as we are all "OMNIVOURS" (multi-types of food) thats why we have the COMBINATION TYPE TEETH that Tear as well as Grind.....But my teeth prefer the marinated type dead animal...basted in BBQ sauce ...

Omnivours means "can eat everything" not "have to eat everything".
You're cool blue flame. You live in your wonderful powerful country eating some BBQ and you feel smart.
The day you will turn your head to see the other side of the story will be the best of your life or the worst. You will be smarter but you also will see the consequences of our behavior toward the rest of the world and animals.

And only then you will fully understand the word : Conditioning.

Nothing but ourselves can free our minds, said Mr Marley.

OneEye

Dec6-04, 09:08 AM

I suppose the question for me is, if humans are merely animals, and some animals eat meat, and humans by nature eat meat, then what's the big deal? In order to make any kind of case for "ethical" vegetarianism (vs. merely having a personal preference for vegetarianism), one would have to say, "People are in some essential way different from animals, and so ought not to exercise their gustatory impulses."

Another thought along these lines: If people are mere animals, and yet should not eat other animals, then should we try to reform all carnivorous and omnivorous species along with humanity, and teach all nature to stop eating meat?

The basic question is, why is it okay for a bear to eat a pig, while it's not okay for me to eat one?

(Someone has probably posted this thought already. Sorry, I didn't take time to read through the whole thread! If so, please point me at the relevant section of the discussion.)

learningphysics

Dec6-04, 12:32 PM

OneEye

Dec6-04, 01:30 PM

Along the same line of thought, why is it ok for a cat to eat its young whereas it is unacceptable for a human parent to eat its child?

Yeah! Right! And while we're at it, why is forcible copulation to be tolerated among, e.g., Orangutans (and, I am sure, countless other species) but not among humans? A common homosexual apologetic is that homosexuality is a natural behavior in the animal world, and therefore should be acceptable among humans. The next, short step is to allow humans to engage in any animalistic sexual behavior - including the most brutal.

And if birds are within their rights to kill each other's offspring - and if members of many species kill their brothers for personal benefit - then why do we not tolerate such behavior in humans? In the converse, if it is fair game to destroy a human embryo on the grounds that it is not really a human, then is it not equally acceptable to destroy, say, a cat's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really cats? Or a seal's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really seals? How about a panda's embryo?

Au courant among ethicists is the willingness to restrain human behavior toward animals on the grounds that "animals are people, too!" But that knife cuts both ways: If we must accord animals personhood, then cannot we allow humans to behave according to any bestial standard they find? To allow the first and deny the second is special pleading of the most brazen kind.

These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we all believe humans are different from all other animals, and thus subject to special considerations. Ironically, the ones who are most patently guilty of antichauvinistic doublethink are the animal right activists - for precisely the reasons stated above.

I conclude that we should all frankly admit that we really do believe in a double standard whereby humans and the other animals are considered and treated as different - and that we should all frankly cop to the fact that we really don't accept that humanity is just another kind of animal life - that we are, rather, special and different, only physically animal, and not essentially animal at all!

learningphysics

Dec6-04, 01:57 PM

Yeah! Right! And while we're at it, why is forcible copulation to be tolerated among, e.g., Orangutans (and, I am sure, countless other species) but not among humans? A common homosexual apologetic is that homosexuality is a natural behavior in the animal world, and therefore should be acceptable among humans. The next, short step is to allow humans to engage in any animalistic sexual behavior - including the most brutal.

And if birds are within their rights to kill each other's offspring - and if members of many species kill their brothers for personal benefit - then why do we not tolerate such behavior in humans? In the converse, if it is fair game to destroy a human embryo on the grounds that it is not really a human, then is it not equally acceptable to destroy, say, a cat's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really cats? Or a seal's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really seals? How about a panda's embryo?

Au courant among ethicists is the willingness to restrain human behavior toward animals on the grounds that "animals are people, too!" But that knife cuts both ways: If we must accord animals personhood, then cannot we allow humans to behave according to any bestial standard they find? To allow the first and deny the second is special pleading of the most brazen kind.

These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we all believe humans are different from all other animals, and thus subject to special considerations. Ironically, the ones who are most patently guilty of antichauvinistic doublethink are the animal right activists - for precisely the reasons stated above.

I conclude that we should all frankly admit that we really do believe in a double standard whereby humans and the other animals are considered and treated as different - and that we should all frankly cop to the fact that we really don't accept that humanity is just another kind of animal life - that we are, rather, special and different, only physically animal, and not essentially animal at all!

We are special and different in the sense that we have superior intelligence, which leads to power over the other species. That is all. That superior intelligence leads to an awareness of the pain and suffering of other species. None of this means that we are simply morally justified to do whatever we wish to other species.

The difference in humans may in fact make us responsible for protecting the other species in this world. The goal is not to simply make animals behave like humans, or humans behave like animals. The goal is to minimize pain and suffering.

Personally I don't think it's acceptable for a bear to eat a pig. But what's the practical solution to this problem? We are limited by our time and resources, so we do what we can.

Yes there is an essential difference (our intelligence). However I don't see how this translates to humans having any more "right" to exist than other animals.

Alkatran

Dec6-04, 02:03 PM

Yeah! Right! And while we're at it, why is forcible copulation to be tolerated among, e.g., Orangutans (and, I am sure, countless other species) but not among humans? A common homosexual apologetic is that homosexuality is a natural behavior in the animal world, and therefore should be acceptable among humans. The next, short step is to allow humans to engage in any animalistic sexual behavior - including the most brutal.

And if birds are within their rights to kill each other's offspring - and if members of many species kill their brothers for personal benefit - then why do we not tolerate such behavior in humans? In the converse, if it is fair game to destroy a human embryo on the grounds that it is not really a human, then is it not equally acceptable to destroy, say, a cat's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really cats? Or a seal's unborn embryos on the grounds that they are not really seals? How about a panda's embryo?

Au courant among ethicists is the willingness to restrain human behavior toward animals on the grounds that "animals are people, too!" But that knife cuts both ways: If we must accord animals personhood, then cannot we allow humans to behave according to any bestial standard they find? To allow the first and deny the second is special pleading of the most brazen kind.

These facts all lead us to the conclusion that we all believe humans are different from all other animals, and thus subject to special considerations. Ironically, the ones who are most patently guilty of antichauvinistic doublethink are the animal right activists - for precisely the reasons stated above.

I conclude that we should all frankly admit that we really do believe in a double standard whereby humans and the other animals are considered and treated as different - and that we should all frankly cop to the fact that we really don't accept that humanity is just another kind of animal life - that we are, rather, special and different, only physically animal, and not essentially animal at all!

Our morals are different this we are unique and different? Sounds like a pretty loose argument to me.

A cat can kill its young and eat it because if the baby was unlikely to survive it doesn't make sense to feed it for 2 more weeks. That doesn't make it right for us to do it, but it does make it right for the cat. (Unless you side with Kant)

Morals are like a societal evolution: morals that make everyone happy flourish and morals that make people sad but other happy die off.

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec6-04, 03:13 PM

What are the arguements against eating eggs?

shrumeo

Dec6-04, 04:52 PM

humans are very very selfish when it comes to anything. they prefer to be in control of everything they possibly can be. they want to be in control of what they eat, how juicy and thick the meat is, they want to be in an environment where they are the masters and controllers and the animals are the victims, the tortured, slaughtered victims. they cannot simply kill the animal, they mutate it and then kill it. they are mutating animals for their own pleasure....how selfish is that?

Can you name an animal that does not act this way?

this is hardly a convincing argument especially in light of the excellent posts several people have made throughout the thread against meat consumption.
Um, ok, so your emotions won't allow you to be open-minded. It's understandable so I don't mind. :rolleyes:

i agree that cruel practices must be stopped - the law and boycotting can both be very effective.
A boycott on meat would NEVER work in a million years. You couldn't get enough people to give up meat. It's a natural instinct for them to crave it. Besides, we don't want to do away with the meat industry. We'd just like to reform it to be less cruel.

dogs do extremely well on veg diets - and tend to be free from problems non-veg diets cause (and there are quite a few of these). here are 2 links for veg dogs if anyone is interested:
http://www.vegetariandogs.com/
http://www.veggiepets.com/
there are lots of others and even big commercial petfood manufacturers - natural life and nature's choice (i think) - provide a vegetarian dog food since some dogs are actually allergic to meat by-products. of course, there are pure veg petfood companies as well such as evolution (http://www.petfoodshop.com/) and hoana (http://www.vegepet.com/ - provides veg supplementation) which are both excellent.

in friendship,
prad

Thank you for saying what I wanted you to say.
Dogs need meat if they need anything. Meat and bones.
My dog wouldn't dream of eating vegetables (unless it's got meat wrapped around it). And actually, he did develop an allergy.. to wheat and corn. I won't let him have any dog food that contains any of it. It has to be meat based, (and maybe a rice filler). It's the only thing that won't set his skin aflame and start him shedding all over the place.

Well, what I really wanted to ask, Is it being unethical toward the dog to force him to eat vegetables? What if the dog refuses (I know my dog would). What then? Am I to starve my dog because I refuse to feed him meat based food?

Along the same line of thought, why is it ok for a cat to eat its young whereas it is unacceptable for a human parent to eat its child?
Cats don't have police.

Personally I don't think it's acceptable for a bear to eat a pig.
I'm sorry , but this is just retarded.

Dissident Dan

Dec6-04, 05:23 PM

What are the arguements against eating eggs?

The birds kept for eggs are among the most abused animals on the planet. They are kept in wire changes where they cannot walk or stretch their wings for the few years that they are kept alive. The cages are stacked one on top of the other for many layers, and the rows stretch as far as the eye can see. The birds on the layers above excrete on the birds below. The whole place smells of ammonia. The birds are kept in the dark and fed antiobiotics. When their egg production wanes, they are starved to force them into a process called molting.

For pictures, check this out:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/battery.html

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec6-04, 06:07 PM

What about the philosophy of working within the system rather than condemning it? An example is Atticus Finch, from "To Kill A Mockingbird" if you've read it.

If animals were treated correctly is egg consumption justifiable? Should I suffer a lack of an alternate protein source because of the misdeeds of others? Wouldn't it be better to push for better treatment of egg-laying birds rather than trying to unrealistically stop eating eggs with the belief that it will create change, or is this belief realistic?

For those wondering if they have made a difference, I am currentlye experimenting with vegeterianism. I'm eating eggs and found Tofu to be undesirable - perhaps because of my lack of experience in cooking it. Tonight I shall engage peanut butter in the form of an apple spread!

learningphysics

Dec6-04, 06:25 PM

Can you name an animal that does not act this way?

Um, ok, so your emotions won't allow you to be open-minded. It's understandable so I don't mind. :rolleyes:

A boycott on meat would NEVER work in a million years. You couldn't get enough people to give up meat. It's a natural instinct for them to crave it. Besides, we don't want to do away with the meat industry. We'd just like to reform it to be less cruel.

Thank you for saying what I wanted you to say.
Dogs need meat if they need anything. Meat and bones.
My dog wouldn't dream of eating vegetables (unless it's got meat wrapped around it). And actually, he did develop an allergy.. to wheat and corn. I won't let him have any dog food that contains any of it. It has to be meat based, (and maybe a rice filler). It's the only thing that won't set his skin aflame and start him shedding all over the place.

Well, what I really wanted to ask, Is it being unethical toward the dog to force him to eat vegetables? What if the dog refuses (I know my dog would). What then? Am I to starve my dog because I refuse to feed him meat based food?

Cats don't have police.

I'm sorry , but this is just retarded.

lol! Don't come crying to me if a bear tries to eat you.

Simple question: Why is it acceptable to eat animals that are not humans, but it's unacceptable to eat humans? I challenge you to give a moral justification.

OneEye

Dec6-04, 06:39 PM

Our morals are different this we are unique and different? Sounds like a pretty loose argument to me.

Please allow me to clarify my position:

Everyone here, including the animal-rights people (especially the animal-rights people), believes that a different moral code applies to humans than to animals - that humans are responsible to animals in ways that animals are not. This belief places mankind into a separate category from any other animal - the category of moral responsibility.

This is only an initial observation - the implications and development of that observation are broad and far-reaching. My only point in making the observation was to show the self-contradiction involved in animal-rights activists saying (essentially,) "We must not harm animals because animals are people, too."

I hope that this clears that up.

OneEye

Dec6-04, 06:42 PM

Simple question: Why is it acceptable to eat animals that are not humans, but it's unacceptable to eat humans? I challenge you to give a moral justification.

(Although your question wasn't directed to me...)

Here are two:

1) You might believe that God has said so.
2) As I mentioned above, it is fundamental human dogma that humans and animals are essentially different kinds of creatures. One of the practical effects of this might be to categorize non-humans as "food" while categorizing humans as "non-food".

Hope this helps!

splitendz

Dec6-04, 07:36 PM

I believe that humans have the deepest understanding and practice of empathy for others. This is manifested in everyday life. Maybe if we were all as simple as chickens for example then we would not think so deep as to concern ourselves with the rights that other animals on earth “should be” entitled to. Do chickens worry about our well being? Sometimes the human race takes the most general aspects of life and survival many steps too far.

OneEye

Dec6-04, 07:49 PM

Do chickens worry about our well being?

I am currently developing a new evolutionary theory entitled "Tastes Like Chicken."

The basis of the theory is that the entire sweep of evolutionary development has all aimed toward the production of a creature which tastes like - well - the chicken!

We are fortunate to live in the age in which the aim and goal of evolution has reached its fruition. Thus, the chicken (not man,) is the pinnacle of evolution!

Where does this place man?

Well, it seems that, all along, we have merely been "Chicken Helper."

learningphysics

Dec6-04, 08:13 PM

OneEye

Dec6-04, 10:33 PM

Nature has created an unfortunate situation where animals need to feed on other animals to survive. This is a great evil... and perhaps in the future humans or some other form of life can correct it. I don't know what form the solution would take. Till then isn't it only morally right that we do our best to minimize the suffering in the world?

Three things come to mind here:

1) There is clearly a tension between minimizing short-term and long-term suffering. I agree with minimizing suffering, but I tend to side with minimizing long-term suffering (vs. short-term). This only has a marginal impact on this discussion, but it is an important question when one takes on the question of defining "good" (a la, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people").

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

3) I found it highly provocative to see that you use "nature" and "moral" as sometime opposites. This means that you see morality as sometimes being the "unnatural" thing - and that what is "natural" is not necessarily moral. Hence, morality must be supernatural in the most limited sense: that morality is not defined by what is, but rather by what ought to be - and hence we judge nature by morality rather than judging morality by nature. This is a profound insight, and a powerful implication in discussing the nature of morality (pardon the pun).

OneEye

Dec6-04, 10:52 PM

The enormous pumpkin was getting kind of mushy on the doorstep, so we threw it in the back of the car and drove it down the road to LW's ranch. He had about a score of pigs kept by for the sale barn, and they could always use some more food. We slewed through the mud outside the pen and backed up to the fence. The pigs, at first curious, scattered away as the car approached. I got out of the car, and the pigs, guessing my errand, scrambled back toward the fence. I opended the trunk and heaved the huge pumpkin over the fence panel, and the pigs immediately set to, gouging at the pumpkin's flesh with their lower teeth, trying to scrape or tear away bits of pumpkin, and smacking their jaws with that wet sound peculiar to pigs.

There wasn't room for all the pigs to get at the pumpkin, so there were quite a few fights for a place at the pumpkin. The pigs showed no concern for each other, jostling and stepping on one another, totally selfishly absorbed in serving only their own interests - at the expense of their neighbor's. Two of the pigs in the pen had nasty, wheezing coughs, but the other pigs ignored this fact. The little boars clearly had the advantage over the gilts, but size was a determining factor as well. "Them that had, got, and them that hadn't, got none." Such are porcine ethics.

Such selfish brutishness is totally unwelcome among humans, of course. But it is the order of the day for pigs. A pig will even eat ham or sausage if you feed it to him. So, the question is: Do we treat the pig according to human ethics, or according to piggy law? Is it more moral to treat a pig with the sort of respect which a human expects, or should we treat the pig by its own way? Does the pig have a preference? And anyway, which should we prefer?

learningphysics

Dec7-04, 01:26 AM

jrs06

Dec7-04, 07:09 AM

so what do we have to eat then? (the plants? they are alive too)

lilboy

Dec7-04, 08:20 AM

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

Unaware? At least I'm sure a dog[f] will bite you if you harm its pups.

The enormous pumpkin was getting kind of mushy on the doorstep, so we threw it in the back of the car and drove it down the road to LW's ranch. He had about a score of pigs kept by for the sale barn, and they could always use some more food. We slewed through the mud outside the pen and backed up to the fence. The pigs, at first curious, scattered away as the car approached. I got out of the car, and the pigs, guessing my errand, scrambled back toward the fence. I opended the trunk and heaved the huge pumpkin over the fence panel, and the pigs immediately set to, gouging at the pumpkin's flesh with their lower teeth, trying to scrape or tear away bits of pumpkin, and smacking their jaws with that wet sound peculiar to pigs.

There wasn't room for all the pigs to get at the pumpkin, so there were quite a few fights for a place at the pumpkin. The pigs showed no concern for each other, jostling and stepping on one another, totally selfishly absorbed in serving only their own interests - at the expense of their neighbor's. Two of the pigs in the pen had nasty, wheezing coughs, but the other pigs ignored this fact. The little boars clearly had the advantage over the gilts, but size was a determining factor as well. "Them that had, got, and them that hadn't, got none." Such are porcine ethics.

Such selfish brutishness is totally unwelcome among humans, of course. But it is the order of the day for pigs. A pig will even eat ham or sausage if you feed it to him. So, the question is: Do we treat the pig according to human ethics, or according to piggy law? Is it more moral to treat a pig with the sort of respect which a human expects, or should we treat the pig by its own way? Does the pig have a preference? And anyway, which should we prefer?

You wouldn't be so different from them, if you were raised like them. So in that case, should we treat you with respect?

so what do we have to eat then? (the plants? they are alive too)

Plants differ in the sense that they don't have nerve cells like animals.
However, eat whatever you like. There's no point forcing yourself to a diet just because it's the "right" diet. It's not worth it.

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

Nevertheless, animal youngs like kittens, calves, and chicks are dependent on their parents. When we slaughter a hen, we take away from the chicks their mother.

Is getting that extra satisfaction from meat really worth it?

Advice: Eat what you need.

Of course, not forgetting those who ARE dependent on meat: Unless you are a saint, eating meat is definitely a better option compared to getting sick yourselves.

Advice: Eat what you need.

OneEye

Dec7-04, 08:46 AM

Unaware? At least I'm sure a dog[f] will bite you if you harm its pups.

Allow me to clarify what I am saying: We know that animals experience pain, and we know that they react to pain. What is not clear is that animals are aware of their pain. When you and I are hurt, we not only feel and react to the pain, we can also reflect on the pain: We know that we are feeling pain, and we can analyze and rationalize both the experience of pain and the knowledge of it. We do not know whether animals have that faculty or not. In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience. This, we cannot do.

You wouldn't be so different from them, if you were raised like them.

Interesting assertion. How do you back it up? This statement cannot be justified on any view of the nature of man: Even in an evolutionary context, which regards man as nothing more than an animal, one would have to conclude that human morality is "in the genes" in order to explain its existence at all, and especially in order to explain the universal phenomenon of morality among all human groups. You would have to invent a new religion in order to create a basis for your statement.

My contention - the idea that I have been developing in this thread - is that there is a fundamental, essential difference between humans and animals which ultimately does not seem to be either nature or nurture. I feel that this is the best conclusion from both the external evidence and from the internal experience of being human myself.

Please see this post (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=393945&postcount=692) for the beginning statement of my position.

Kerrie

Dec7-04, 10:38 AM

The birds kept for eggs are among the most abused animals on the planet. They are kept in wire changes where they cannot walk or stretch their wings for the few years that they are kept alive. The cages are stacked one on top of the other for many layers, and the rows stretch as far as the eye can see. The birds on the layers above excrete on the birds below. The whole place smells of ammonia. The birds are kept in the dark and fed antiobiotics. When their egg production wanes, they are starved to force them into a process called molting.

For pictures, check this out:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/battery.html

very informativ Dan, but i believe the question was being asked in the context of are eggs okay to eat from the vegetarian standpoint...there are many organic farms that claim they treat their chickens well, thus a better option for those vegetarians who eat eggs but are concerned with animal treatment...

there seems to be a difference in reasons as to why people decide on vegetarianism...for example, my dad does not eat meat hardly ever for health reasons, others don't because of the animal treatment involved...both valid reasons. i think the best an advocate of animal rights can do is educate the public (such as dan does) in how they are treated so the mass consumer can eat.

those who choose to still eat meat but are concerned with animal treatment might choose their grocer based on how they obtain their products.

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 11:01 AM

A boycott on meat would NEVER work in a million years. You couldn't get enough people to give up meat. It's a natural instinct for them to crave it. Besides, we don't want to do away with the meat industry. We'd just like to reform it to be less cruel.

doing away with cruelty is a good idea, but boycotts do work. however, you are confusing the purpose of the boycott on meat. it is not to eliminate meat eating which would be rather redundant. the boycott would be to do away with cruelty in the industry.

Thank you for saying what I wanted you to say. Dogs need meat if they need anything. Meat and bones.

i don't think either of us really know what you wanted me to say :D. if you look at the links you will see that dogs do very well on non-meat based diets. they don't need meat and they don't need bones (in fact, some vets warn against giving dogs bones because broken ones can get stuck in the throat). in the earlier post, i provided 'evidence' that they don't need meat through the links, through the fact that lots of dogs (like mine) are vegetarian, as well as through the reality that even large commercial petfood companies do provide a vegetarian alternative - not to appease human vegetarians, but because some dogs just don't handle the meat products in dogfood too well.

there is nothing 'natural' about dog food anyway. in fact, the vegetarian dogfoods are eagerly eaten by dogs simply because they really don't have any idea that there is no meat in it. it's not like they go around thinking i must have meat or i'll find myself depleted of dietary nutrients.

as for your question regarding is it cruel to force a veg dogfood on a dog who you don't seem to think would want it, you might ask the similar question is it cruel to force a different brand of dogfood on a dog who doesn't want it. the issue really has nothing to do with meat.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 11:19 AM

Such selfish brutishness is totally unwelcome among humans, of course. But it is the order of the day for pigs.
such selfish brutishness is unwelcome anywhere, but it is also the order of the day for many humans: take a look at people shopping at this time of year (there are far more gruesome examples such as refugee camps, but christmas shoppers should suffice to make the point).

Allow me to clarify what I am saying: We know that animals experience pain, and we know that they react to pain. What is not clear is that animals are aware of their pain.

this is really a typical specieist argument just one step removed from descartes' animals are mere automatons who can't even feel pain. it tries to by-pass the reality of pain with allusions of awareness (it used to 'justify' pain therapies to people in insane asylums as well, till more humane methods were enforced). unfortunately, the fear of anthropomorphism clouds much rational thinking.

We do not know whether animals have that faculty or not. In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience.
you could say the same about people then. you cannot enter into another's experience, therefore you cannot conclude definitively that another person is aware. however, since we give the other person the benefit of the doubt (sometimes anyway - slaves and jews, for instance, weren't always given the benefit of that doubt), it should not be so difficult to do the same for other beings who we know "experience pain, and ... react to pain" just like we do.

My contention - the idea that I have been developing in this thread - is that there is a fundamental, essential difference between humans and animals which ultimately does not seem to be either nature or nurture. I feel that this is the best conclusion from both the external evidence and from the internal experience of being human myself.
there have been more than 3 decades of research into animal sentience (eg see Masson's When Elephants Weep for one of several sources) that provide 'external evidence' along the lines that there are 'fundamental and essential' similarities between humans and animals. in any case, if we are to put humans on a pedestal, let us at least acknowledge that empathy and compassion are primary grounds for doing so (these traits apparently are demonstrated by animals as well), and hence, it can be concluded that since humans have the capacity for empathizing with the suffering of others, they should also be able to extend their compassion.

in friendship,
prad

kirkmcloren

Dec7-04, 11:49 AM

Allow me to clarify what I am saying: We know that animals experience pain, and we know that they react to pain. What is not clear is that animals are aware of their pain. When you and I are hurt, we not only feel and react to the pain, we can also reflect on the pain: We know that we are feeling pain, and we can analyze and rationalize both the experience of pain and the knowledge of it. We do not know whether animals have that faculty or not. In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience. This, we cannot do.

We can observe them. Humans share speech and communicate an experience. Without language we have to observe. I offer the following story

Roy Chapman Andrews was the fellow who discovered the first dinosaur eggs. He was in the Gobi desert at the time. Roy and his dog, a Samoyed, were inseparable. The dog showed up at camp without Roy and seemed agitated, barking and tugging on peoples pant legs. He would run from the camp and then run back repeating this strange behavior. A couple of the men got into a truck and the dog ran before them and led them to where Roy, who had been scratching dirt away from the base of a rock, had gotten stuck when the same rock moved.

What is significant is that the dog led them there not by the shortest route but by the shortest route the truck could go. I think the human race by and large sees little and lives in its own world. Thus they practice insensitivity and cruelness because they lack awareness.

learningphysics

Dec7-04, 12:03 PM

In order to definitively conclude that animals are aware, we would have to actually be able to enter into their experience. This, we cannot do.

I must repeat what physicsphirst said here... the same can be said for other humans. We cannot enter into another human's experience. We simply assume that he/she shares similar experiences to what we do. Why do we not make the same assumption about animals?

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 12:05 PM

I think the human race by and large sees little and lives in its own world. Thus they practice insensitivity and cruelness because they lack awareness.
i think you have hit it right on. throughout history we have the predominance of the egocentricity - most dramatically manifested perhaps by the geocentric theory in which not only the earth but man ends up at the center of the universe. as awareness increased, other realities become possible.

for instance, the idea of abusing your pets is 'illegal' in many parts of the world now - it was not so 100 years ago. people are working towards better conditions for farm animals presently, because the awareness has developed that these beings can and do suffer immensely.

there will be progress made in various areas - despite arguments to the contrary based on finance, vanity, anthropomorphism, absurdity etc - because people do become aware, they do empathize, and eventually they do act. it just seems to take a long, long time.

in friendship,
prad

russ_watters

Dec7-04, 12:08 PM

I must repeat what physicsphirst said here... the same can be said for other humans. We cannot enter into another human's experience. We simply assume that he/she shares similar experiences to what we do. Why do we not make the same assumption about animals? Its probably too convenient for your liking but since humans can vocalize their experiences, they can be shared. That doesn't prove that other animals don't experience, but neither can it be proven that they do unless they can vocalize it for us.

kirkmcloren

Dec7-04, 12:15 PM

see Masson's When Elephants Weep for one of several sources) that provide 'external evidence' along the lines that there are 'fundamental and essential' similarities between humans and animals.

in friendship,
prad

I found http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Oaks/3538/elephants.html
very touching

In Memory of Damini

learningphysics

Dec7-04, 12:22 PM

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 12:25 PM

Its probably too convenient for your liking but since humans can vocalize their experiences, they can be shared. That doesn't prove that other animals don't experience, but neither can it be proven that they do unless they can vocalize it for us.
it would seem then that more than a couple of hundred years ago, a black man recently brought from africa to be forced to be a slave could not prove they were really suffering because they couldn't vocalize in english to the slave owner that they were indeed unhappy at being taken from their homeland, stowed away in unimaginably filthy conditions for weeks on a slave ship, sold in chains at an auction and whipped into obedience.

it is interesting that so sure was the slave owner that he wasn't being cruel and unkind to this subhuman devoid of feelings and sensitivities typical humans are thought possess (presumably because they can vocalize), that even after his slave learned the english language, did vocalize his discontent, tried to escape, the slave owner still refused to acknowledge that it might be possible that his slave really would prefer a different lifestyle. possibly, some slave owners thought those who spoke out against such cruelty to black were being blatantly anthropomorphic?

perhaps the real problem is not that the oppressed can't vocalize, but that the oppressors don't want to listen.

in friendship,
prad

russ_watters

Dec7-04, 01:27 PM

If a human is incapable of speech, would we say he may or may not experience pain? Helen Keller did quite well - and besides, we can conclude humans experience becaue they are humans an all other humans can. We do, of course, have different rules for people in terminal comas precisely for that reason: they do not experience. it would seem then that more than a couple of hundred years ago, a black man recently brought from africa to be forced to be a slave could not prove they were really suffering because they couldn't vocalize in english to the slave owner that they were indeed unhappy at being taken from their homeland, stowed away in unimaginably filthy conditions for weeks on a slave ship, sold in chains at an auction and whipped into obedience.That argument is flawed at its most basic level: Blacks are humans. Animals are not.

But then, that's not really the purpose of that argument, is it? Its an appeal to emotion at the expense of reason.

shrumeo

Dec7-04, 01:40 PM

Nature has created an unfortunate situation where animals need to feed on other animals to survive. This is a great evil...
Why is unfortunate and why is it evil?
It's the way things are. You can't have uncontrolled population growth.
Some animals reproduce very rapidly. It's actually fortunate that these are the things that more often tend to be prey animals.

doing away with cruelty is a good idea, but boycotts do work. however, you are confusing the purpose of the boycott on meat. it is not to eliminate meat eating which would be rather redundant. the boycott would be to do away with cruelty in the industry.
So you are saying that you can round up enough people to boycott meat so that the meat industry will take notice and change their policies?

GOOD LUCK (it'll never happen)

Maybe, and it's a long shot, but it has to be done. Congress (or state govts) could be relentlessly lobbied (which they are now) to change the laws in these cases.

i don't think either of us really know what you wanted me to say :D.
No, I was hoping you'd say something inane like "turn dogs into vegetarians."
It even SOUNDS stupid.

if you look at the links you will see that dogs do very well on non-meat based diets.
Not my dog. Did you read what I wrote? he has allergies to these things. he must have a meat based diet.

they don't need meat and they don't need bones (in fact, some vets warn against giving dogs bones because broken ones can get stuck in the throat).
A wives tale that has crept into common vet 'knowledge.'
If a dog is too hasty in eating anything it'll get caught in the throat. But that doesn't mean that in the wild, bones would be a primary source of nutrition (and tooth maintenance).

through the fact that lots of dogs (like mine) are vegetarian,
i feel sorry for your dog. don't you feel like it's cruel to deny him what he wants? I'll bet if you put your veggy food next to some hamburger meat, he'd head straight for the meat. Who's being cruel to animals now?

there is nothing 'natural' about dog food anyway. in fact, the vegetarian dogfoods are eagerly eaten by dogs simply because they really don't have any idea that there is no meat in it. it's not like they go around thinking i must have meat or i'll find myself depleted of dietary nutrients.
Right MOST commercial dog food is crap. you have to buy the expensive MEAT based foods. the grain and veggie based ones are bad for the dog's skin coat and teeth. But, as i stated above, it doesn't matter what they think is nutritious. they'll eat just about anything if they are hungry enough, but put the veggie food next to some real meat and see which one the dog scarfs down first.

as for your question regarding is it cruel to force a veg dogfood on a dog who you don't seem to think would want it, you might ask the similar question is it cruel to force a different brand of dogfood on a dog who doesn't want it. the issue really has nothing to do with meat.
it does have to do with meat. i think it's "cruel" to feed a dog something that's not healthy for it to eat. Kibbles & Bits (and the like) is terrible

something higher quality is what they need.

but really, if we are going to kiss the dog's ***, we might as well feed them steaks and chickens all the time.

shrumeo

Dec7-04, 01:53 PM

Its probably too convenient for your liking but since humans can vocalize their experiences, they can be shared. That doesn't prove that other animals don't experience, but neither can it be proven that they do unless they can vocalize it for us.

Are we talking about pain here?

Of course, animals vocalize their pain. Well, some don't or can't, but most mammals, reptiles, and birds that I can think of can vocalize their pain (just step on a cat's tail). I don't think a fish can vocalize anything, but I could be wrong.

shrumeo

Dec7-04, 01:59 PM

Three things come to mind here:

1) There is clearly a tension between minimizing short-term and long-term suffering. I agree with minimizing suffering, but I tend to side with minimizing long-term suffering (vs. short-term). This only has a marginal impact on this discussion, but it is an important question when one takes on the question of defining "good" (a la, "the greatest good for the greatest number of people").

2) Although animals are clearly "sensate" (can feel pain), it is not at all clear that animals are "aware" (know they are feeling pain, as you and I do). Evidence could be construed on either side of the case. Thus, though animals can experience pain, it is probably unwarranted anthropomorphism to believe that animals suffer.

3) I found it highly provocative to see that you use "nature" and "moral" as sometime opposites. This means that you see morality as sometimes being the "unnatural" thing - and that what is "natural" is not necessarily moral. Hence, morality must be supernatural in the most limited sense: that morality is not defined by what is, but rather by what ought to be - and hence we judge nature by morality rather than judging morality by nature. This is a profound insight, and a powerful implication in discussing the nature of morality (pardon the pun).

Ok, the only reason that we think that the causation of pain and suffering are "immoral" is because we do not want to experience these things ourselves. The whole purpose of pain and suffering is to tell individual organisms that they are in trouble. The goal is survival and procreation. Pain and suffering are directing agents in this aim.

Without pain and suffering in the animal world, natural selection would have to find some other mechanism to make an individual organism know that it's survival has been compromised and to avoid it. Then we'd probably start wanting to end that.

The reason we have such a problem with seeing pain and suffering in other beings is because we (like some other animals) are social and we want to keep the society in tact. We respond to seeing others suffering negatively (most of the time). We transpose this onto just about everything (even dolls when we are kids) and call it "compassion" and "empathy."

Bottom line, pain and suffering are necessary tools for survival and natural selection.

OneEye

Dec7-04, 02:04 PM

this is really a typical specieist argument just one step removed from descartes' animals are mere automatons who can't even feel pain. it tries to by-pass the reality of pain with allusions of awareness (it used to 'justify' pain therapies to people in insane asylums as well, till more humane methods were enforced). unfortunately, the fear of anthropomorphism clouds much rational thinking.

russ_watters has effectively answered this question in what I think to be the correct way: Because I am a human, and I know the nature of my experience, I most reasonably extrapolate that experience to others of my kind. But Occam's razor allows (requires?) us to doubt the existence of such experiences in non-humans - for precisely the same reason that we lay a moral burden on humans which we place on no other species.

Elephant tears aside, I do not think it advances the argument to commend Fido or Garfield as examples of animal empathy. Animals which are heavily human-imprinted (like dogs and cats) can be expected to mimic human behavior to the best of their ability. Examine the wild variety for a truer picture of their natural behavior.

In addition, have you ever been around a maimed dog? They yelp with pain for a very short time, but thereafter make no complaints about ongoing pain. They nurse and lick the wound, but otherwise make every effort to live normally. Quite unlike a human. Anyone who has ever seen a young bull made into a steer has been shocked at the fact that the steer jumps up and runs away immediately upon its release - and otherwise acts as though it were insensate. A human would remain on the ground, suffering and grieving, for hours - and would thereafter live for weeks or months with ongoing manifestations of pain and debilitation.

Collations of elephant tears usually overlook facts like this - are, in fact, writings which uniformly take one side of the question. They look more like propaganda than anything else. I don't mind injecting that evidence into the discussion. But I do mind tendentious reasoning which concludes all skeptics as brutal "speciesists." (For the record, I also feel that this sort of slur slinging is not helping the discussion, but seems to have the aim of preventing open discussion. I would appreciate it if, in the future, we could avoid labelling people and instead deal with the issues.)

OneEye

Dec7-04, 02:05 PM

The following is not the author's opinion. It is merely provided as an antithesis to help inform the discussion.

If our goal of animal husbanbdry is "the largest number of pleasant experiences for the largest number of creatures," ranching may be the best way to achieve this.

Consider: All of the animals on the ranch are going to die and be eaten, but so are all of the beasts of the field. And, while the life of the average meat animal is shorter than its field counterpart, consider these facts: (1) The meat animal is better fed, better cared for, better protected from predation and disease, and is not required to scratch or run for its survival. (2) The meat animal is killed more quickly than the wild animal. (3) The meat animal is far less likely to suffer from the effects of old age or decrepitude. (4) While ranch animals don't live as long, intensive ranching techniques allow many more ranch animals - so the total animal-years for ranch animals is probably greater than the animal-years for field animals.

Given these considerations, it seems reasonable to believe that the utilitarian equation may be better served for ranch animals than for beasts of the field. Could ranching actually be more moral than vegetarianism?

P.S. You may think this an extreme view. That is precisely what it is. The aim is not to make a conclusion, but to balance the debate.

learningphysics

Dec7-04, 02:06 PM

Helen Keller did quite well - and besides, we can conclude humans experience becaue they are humans an all other humans can. We do, of course, have different rules for people in terminal comas precisely for that reason: they do not experience. That argument is flawed at its most basic level: Blacks are humans. Animals are not.

But then, that's not really the purpose of that argument, is it? Its an appeal to emotion at the expense of reason.

If some humans can experience pain, then all of them can? You are allowed to make this generalization, but I can't make the generalization.... if some lifeforms experience pain then all of them can?

Why is your generalization justified, and mine is not?

Why is being part of a particular species where the line is drawn? Is this simply an arbitrary line?

OneEye

Dec7-04, 02:13 PM

The whole purpose of pain and suffering is to tell individual organisms that they are in trouble. The goal is survival and procreation. Pain and suffering are directing agents in this aim.

No contention intended, but please be advised that not everyone accepts this Darwinistic analysis. (Actually, at the gut level, I don't think anyone does.) In fact, the case I am building concludes that we may not adopt the Darwinian view of ethics or compassion - on grounds that everyone here finds acceptable.

OneEye

Dec7-04, 02:16 PM

Are we talking about pain here?
No, we're talking about awareness of pain. We know that animals experience pain, and react accordingly. The question is, do animals have conscious awareness of the experience? Do they have the self-awareness, the cognizance to know that they are experiencing pain?

This is the question - which we are unlikely to be able to answer.

learningphysics

Dec7-04, 02:25 PM

russ_watters has effectively answered this question in what I think to be the correct way: Because I am a human, and I know the nature of my experience, I most reasonably extrapolate that experience to others of my kind. But Occam's razor allows (requires?) us to doubt the existence of such experiences in non-humans - for precisely the same reason that we lay a moral burden on humans which we place on no other species.

I don't see the justification for this type of reasoning.... how do you extrapolate your experience to others.... and what exactly is "your kind"... why is "your kind" only humans. Chimpanzees are remarkably similar to humans... would they also be your kind? Why is the line drawn to the level of "species"?

OneEye

Dec7-04, 02:37 PM

I don't see the justification for this type of reasoning.... how do you extrapolate your experience to others.... and what exactly is "your kind"... why is "your kind" only humans. Chimpanzees are remarkably similar to humans... would they also be your kind? Why is the line drawn to the level of "species"?

I think that this line of thought has about reached its peak. When we start asking what constitutes humankind and whether humankind can be distinguished from other species (a distinction so simple that even our insensible genes can accomplish it), we have left the discussion of ethics and entered into epistemology.

Can we all agree, as a fundamental rule, that we know the difference between humankind and other kinds of animals?

(By the way, a thumbnail distinction of remarkable utility might be: A human can be arrested and tried for murder. A chimpanzee cannot. This may seem a silly distinction, but if we can progress in the discussion, it will turn out to be a vital datum.)

kirkmcloren

Dec7-04, 03:11 PM

In addition, have you ever been around a maimed dog? They yelp with pain for a very short time, but thereafter make no complaints about ongoing pain. They nurse and lick the wound, but otherwise make every effort to live normally. Quite unlike a human. Anyone who has ever seen a young bull made into a steer has been shocked at the fact that the steer jumps up and runs away immediately upon its release - and otherwise acts as though it were insensate. A human would remain on the ground, suffering and grieving, for hours - and would thereafter live for weeks or months with ongoing manifestations of pain and debilitation.

When there is no benefit from malingering such behavior is not indulged in. 2 examples come immediately to mind.
1. Prisoner behavior in "Gulag Archipelago"
2. My own physical therapy. I remembered cows getting up in 24 hours or never getting up. So I applied myself to physical therapy. Other comments I heard in that room were "If I had known it would hurt so much I would have told them to cut it off"
As a result I was making good advances while their muscles atrophied.

Grieving from physical pain is a state of mind.

learningphysics

Dec7-04, 03:23 PM

No, we're talking about awareness of pain. We know that animals experience pain, and react accordingly. The question is, do animals have conscious awareness of the experience? Do they have the self-awareness, the cognizance to know that they are experiencing pain?

This is the question - which we are unlikely to be able to answer.

Have you ever experienced pain without being consciously aware of it? I haven't. The experience of pain seems to me entails being aware of it. Is there such a thing as experiencing pain without being aware of it?

russ_watters

Dec7-04, 03:27 PM

Are we talking about pain here?

Of course, animals vocalize their pain. Well, some don't or can't, but most mammals, reptiles, and birds that I can think of can vocalize their pain (just step on a cat's tail). I don't think a fish can vocalize anything, but I could be wrong. No, we're not just talking about a vocal reaction to pain, we're talking about vocalizing (explaining) the experience of pain. There is a big, big difference between those two things. OneEye explained it pretty well in post 712. That yelp the cat lets out can be related to any stimulus-response in any animal, plant, paramecium (you), etc. displays. It has nothing to do with sentience.

The other thing that gets me in this argument is the double-standard of the vegitarians OneEye pointed out in post 702: we're both above the animals and the same as the animals at the same time. We've been over this ground before (I said many of the same things 6+ months ago), but it is a long thread...

hitssquad

Dec7-04, 03:37 PM

No, we're not just talking about a vocal reaction to pain, we're talking about vocalizing (explaining)According to the M-W Unabridged, vocalization only has to do with creation of sounds. To verbalize is to "express in speech : name or describe in words."

kirkmcloren

Dec7-04, 03:45 PM

No, we're not just talking about a vocal reaction to pain, we're talking about vocalizing (explaining) the experience of pain. There is a big, big difference between those two things. OneEye explained it pretty well in post 712. That yelp the cat lets out can be related to any stimulus-response in any animal, plant, paramecium (you), etc. displays. It has nothing to do with sentience.

The other thing that gets me in this argument is the double-standard of the vegitarians OneEye pointed out in post 702: we're both above the animals and the same as the animals at the same time. We've been over this ground before (I said many of the same things 6+ months ago), but it is a long thread...

Is the test of sentience learning? Also extrapolating that concept of danger to dissimilar situations?

I have seen animals exhibit more cognizance of danger than many humans.

Actually humans are animals -- and like all animals a huge spread exists in their mental acuity. Just because your experience with some bred down canis is representative of what the specie is capable of would be like comparing some bred down breed of human that was selected for slave characteristics. I feel safe in assuming self reliance and high IQ would not be bred for. But to say these "slave men" weren't cognizant of pain even though they had an average IQ of say 70 would be wrong.

hitssquad

Dec7-04, 03:55 PM

Actually humans are animalsHuman beings are members of the kingdom Animalia. Animal also means, "...one of the lower animals : a brute or beast as distinguished from man : any creature except a human being." (M-W Unabridged Dictionary v3.0.)

kirkmcloren

Dec7-04, 04:16 PM

Human beings are members of the kingdom Animalia. Animal also means, "...one of the lower animals : a brute or beast as distinguished from man : any creature except a human being." (M-W Unabridged Dictionary v3.0.)

Well, I was pretty sure we weren't vegetable or mineral.

russ_watters

Dec7-04, 05:23 PM

According to the M-W Unabridged, vocalization only has to do with creation of sounds. To verbalize is to "express in speech : name or describe in words." Fair enough - wrong word choice, sorry.

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 06:12 PM

That argument is flawed at its most basic level: Blacks are humans. Animals are not.
russ, what is flawed is this idea that because animals don't do things the same way humans do, they should not be extended them basic courtesies. however, considering certain humans have not done such a great job extending basic courtesies to other humans, it is understandable that this awareness may take a while.

But then, that's not really the purpose of that argument, is it? Its an appeal to emotion at the expense of reason.
the idea isn't to get emotional about this. in fact, it is actually an appeal to reason.

the difficulty you are presenting merely has to do with drawing the line. you figure that those categorized as humans should have certain 'rights' (for lack of a better word). yet the only criteria you are setting for those 'rights' is that they are human even though you try to admit abilities like being able to 'vocalize'. so if i find say a primate who can communicate (vocalize) their feelings say through sign language, you will still say that such evidence is inadmissible by virtue of the fact that the gorilla is not human. on the otherhand, you will claim that it is not necessary for a severely disabled individual to communicate (vocalize) their discontent by virtue of the fact that they are human. hence, all this has nothing to do with vocalization - it only hinges on whether a creature is human or not rather than whether they have feelings or sensitivities.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 06:32 PM

So you are saying that you can round up enough people to boycott meat so that the meat industry will take notice and change their policies?

GOOD LUCK (it'll never happen)
actually it does happen and not all that infrequently either. for instance, protests against the veal industry have led several restaurants into eliminating veal from their menu. so if people say we won't buy meat at your store because you get your stuff is factory farmed, policies may change. similarly, protests have resulted in actions against foie gras.

No, I was hoping you'd say something inane like "turn dogs into vegetarians." It even SOUNDS stupid.

well i hope i didn't disappoint you :D.
dogs really are very good vegetarians. to think otherwise in light of the evidence and the reality is merely adherence to outdated beliefs like "meat is healthy". there is an adage, "you can't teach some old humans new tricks." ;)

Not my dog. Did you read what I wrote? he has allergies to these things. he must have a meat based diet.
well if your dog's diet is only meat-based then obviously there are things other than meat in it. hence, he really can't be allergic to these other things as you are trying to claim.

i feel sorry for your dog. don't you feel like it's cruel to deny him what he wants? I'll bet if you put your veggy food next to some hamburger meat, he'd head straight for the meat. Who's being cruel to animals now?

what a strange indicator of health! if you put some kids in front of an apple and candy, they may choose the candy first. i presume you weren't seriously expecting an answer to the question you asked though.

the grain and veggie based ones are bad for the dog's skin coat and teeth. it does have to do with meat ... i think it's "cruel" to feed a dog something that's not healthy for it to eat etc etc etc
it is evident that you have not looked and refuse to look at the realities here. dogs do extremely well on veg diets and their coat and teeth flourish. it's only some people who don't do too well with dogs having a veg diet. but then some people still think humans don't do too well without meat, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

in friendship,
prad

learningphysics

Dec7-04, 06:51 PM

I think that this line of thought has about reached its peak. When we start asking what constitutes humankind and whether humankind can be distinguished from other species (a distinction so simple that even our insensible genes can accomplish it), we have left the discussion of ethics and entered into epistemology.

Can we all agree, as a fundamental rule, that we know the difference between humankind and other kinds of animals?

(By the way, a thumbnail distinction of remarkable utility might be: A human can be arrested and tried for murder. A chimpanzee cannot. This may seem a silly distinction, but if we can progress in the discussion, it will turn out to be a vital datum.)

I think you might have misunderstood where I was going with this. I was asking why you were extrapolating your experience of pain to other humans only... not to all mammals.... or to all primates... but just to all humans. Wouldn't occam's razor dictate that the experience is the same for all beings (until we have evidence that shows the contrary)?

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 07:04 PM

Because I am a human, and I know the nature of my experience, I most reasonably extrapolate that experience to others of my kind. But Occam's razor allows (requires?) us to doubt the existence of such experiences in non-humans - for precisely the same reason that we lay a moral burden on humans which we place on no other species.

the reason we lay this 'moral burden' on humans is because we recognize that other beings can suffer. it doesn't take a great deal of extrapolative power to understand that animals a) feel pain and b) probably have no more wish to feel pain than you or i do.

Examine the wild variety for a truer picture of their natural behavior.
if you take a look at masson's book, you will see that his examples are from animals in their natural habitat as well as from zoos, research labs, domestic situations. it is a very varied compilation.

Collations of elephant tears usually overlook facts like this - are, in fact, writings which uniformly take one side of the question. They look more like propaganda than anything else.
considering the variety of sources as well as the repute of the scientists involved in the book, i do not think it can be called propaganda. masson also shows that animals, just like humans can be quite brutal as well as compassionate.

But I do mind tendentious reasoning which concludes all skeptics as brutal "speciesists." (For the record, I also feel that this sort of slur slinging is not helping the discussion, but seems to have the aim of preventing open discussion. I would appreciate it if, in the future, we could avoid labelling people and instead deal with the issues.)
no one has been labelled - only the argument has. here's what i wrote (that i presume you are taking exception to): this is really a typical specieist argument just one step removed from descartes' animals are mere automatons who can't even feel pain ... i think you may be in too much of a hurry to complain that you have been labelled when in fact you haven't been.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 07:11 PM

I was asking why you were extrapolating your experience of pain to other humans only... not to all mammals.... or to all primates... but just to all humans. Wouldn't occam's razor dictate that the experience is the same for all beings (until we have evidence that shows the contrary)?
now that is a excellent usage of the razor!
in fact, that was rather along the line of voltaire's refutation of descartes' idea that animals really don't feel pain - he said that why would they have the same mechanisms as humans do and not feel the same pain. the argument (suggested earlier) that animals really aren't aware of their pain even though they are in pain is indeed curious.

Can we all agree, as a fundamental rule, that we know the difference between humankind and other kinds of animals?

i'm sure it would be easier to agree on this provided you can establish what specifics you want to establish differences on. for instance, in post #702 as russ pointed out, you claim that AR folks (who aren't necessarily veg, btw) say "a different moral code applies to humans than to animals - that humans are responsible to animals in ways that animals are not." Now are you claiming that this code should not be applied, given that you want to establish this difference between humankind and other kinds of animals? or are you claiming that this difference is such that humans can pick and choose when they are and in which way they are 'different' from animals?

while we are at it, perhaps, we can also agree, as a fundamental rule, that we also may know the similarity between humankind and other kinds of animals - stuff like neither appreciate being bashed around, kept in filthy cramped housing, having their throats slit while hanging upside down (or right side up) and several other things like that.

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

Dec7-04, 10:44 PM

I think you might have misunderstood where I was going with this. I was asking why you were extrapolating your experience of pain to other humans only... not to all mammals.... or to all primates... but just to all humans. Wouldn't occam's razor dictate that the experience is the same for all beings (until we have evidence that shows the contrary)?
Once again: I am not saying that other animals do not experience pain, but rather that we cannot confidently conclude that they are aware of pain - a distinction which seems to be eluding some of the participants in this discussion.

It is apparent that one can experience and react to pain without being aware of it (e.g., when one is unconscious but not comatose). Thus, the ability to experience and react to pain stimulus does not automatically equate to awareness.

Some creatures which are clearly not aware can experience and react to harmful stimuli. For instance, a sea cucumber will eject its gastric tract when threatened, and yet sea cucumbers, though sensate to some degree, cannot on any estimation be called aware - unless we are willing to water down the definition of awareness to the point of meaninglessness.

Here is my analysis of the situation: I am a human, and can not only experience and react to pain, but am aware of it. It would be unreasonable for me to believe that I am the only human with this capability, but not completely out of the question. Had I no other evidence, I would be justified in using (required to use?) Occam's razor to doubt the existence of something which I have no way to verify - to wit, the presence of awareness in my fellow humans. Fortunately, my fellow humans are able to communicate with me in ways which convince me of their awareness. Since the incidence rate of awareness in humans apparently approaches unity, I am justified in believing that awareness is a natural human trait.

I might question whether other animals share this capacity, but my observation of the profound and sweeping lifestyle differences between humans and other species - differences hinging on the voluble communication of self-aware messages among humans - leads me to strongly doubt the existence of self-awareness in other creatures. At the same time, there are animals which are clearly not self-aware, and so Occam's razor leads me to not assert what I cannot demonstrate - to wit, the self-awareness of other animals.

Finally, we have the double standard which says that humans, as aware creatures, should not harm other animals - while other animals are at liberty to behave according to their impulses. This is an argument against animals having awareness which is, ironically provided to us by animal rights activists, who have a vested interest in assigning awareness to non-human animals.

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 11:13 PM

Finally, we have the double standard which says that humans, as aware creatures, should not harm other animals - while other animals are at liberty to behave according to their impulses. This is an argument against animals having awareness which is, ironically provided to us by animal rights activists, who have a vested interest in assigning awareness to non-human animals.
this really isn't quite the argument put forth by AR - though it is sometimes used to claim a contradiction. it's more like if we know that we as humans can cause suffering, should we not make an effort to not do so? i think AR is generally more interested in what humans do to animals (including humans) than what animals do to each other.

however, let's go with it anyway. so
humans are aware, therefore they should not harm other creatures and
animals are aware, but it is ok for them to harm other creatures.

so since both animals and humans harm other creatures, can we discern the degree of awareness from the amount of harm caused? is it possible that the more harm caused (except for sustenance, say) is reflective of the degree of lack of awareness? for instance, some humans cause harm for sport, entertainment, food (that they don't need or even eat). no animal seems to do this to the same degree. does that make animals more aware than some humans? on the otherhand, you have some humans who spend a great deal of time and effort (eg AR activists and others) to stop or minimize harm to others (animals and humans). are these people more or less aware than those humans who do cause harm?

or

is it possible that humans can be sufficiently aware of an animal's sentience to realize that it doesn't want to be harmed, but an animal has sufficient sentience to know that it doesn't want to be harmed, but not enough awareness (like some humans) to realize that other animals also may not want to be harmed.

anyway, since you seem to be interested in AR philosophy below are some nice summaries of ideas of several prominent AR philosophers. they show that there exists a variety in approachs, thought and rationale, but the goals seem to be fairly coherent.

in friendship,
prad

Peter Singer
a utilitarian approach in which there is no presumption of inherent animal rights, but that the interests of animals should be given proper consideration.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_singer.htm

Tom Regan
establishes the rights of animals on the basis that they have complex mental lives, including perception, desire, belief, memory, intention, a sense of the future and because an animal cares about its life, that life has inherent value.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_regan.htm

Carol J. Adams
brings a feminist's perspective to animal rights linking the objectification of women and other non-dominant humans to a similar attitude towards animals.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_adams.htm

James Rachels
argues that scientific knowledge such as the evolution of species and the heliocentric theory alters antiquated views of morality in which only humans have moral worth and that the ability to reason is not usually relevant to moral consideration.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_rachels.htm

Steve Sapontzis
uses traditional moral principles such as fairness, protecting the weak, the reduction of suffering cannot be limited to humans because suffering and pain are not exclusively human.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_sapontzis.htm

OneEye

Dec7-04, 11:16 PM

while we are at it, perhaps, we can also agree, as a fundamental rule, that we also may know the similarity between humankind and other kinds of animals - stuff like neither appreciate being bashed around, kept in filthy cramped housing, having their throats slit while hanging upside down (or right side up) and several other things like that.
And here, you again make the disagreeable assumption of awareness in animals. "Appreciate" is an awareness term. We do not know whether animals have the faculty of awareness which allows them to make value judgments of that sort.

for instance, in post #702 as russ pointed out, you claim that AR folks (who aren't necessarily veg, btw) say "a different moral code applies to humans than to animals - that humans are responsible to animals in ways that animals are not." Now are you claiming that this code should not be applied, given that you want to establish this difference between humankind and other kinds of animals? or are you claiming that this difference is such that humans can pick and choose when they are and in which way they are 'different' from animals?
I am not making any claims about whether a code exists or should be applied. For the record, I believe that humans have a responsibility to animals which animals do not have toward humans or toward any other species, including their own kind. This is not my point.

My point is that the argument which says, "(1) Humans are merely another kind of animal, but (2) humans are not allowed to behave like any other animal, (3) animals are not obliged to behave like humans, and (4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom," is a self-contradicting arguments. Point (1) is completely contradicted by points (2) through (4).

All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone. The question is, "What does one do with this fact?"

One might completely discard the ethical vegetarian/animal rights view on the grounds that it is self-refuting. And, one might say, "Humans are just another sort of animal, and since some animals eat meat (as humans, historically, have), then there is no particular moral weight regarding the eating of meat, and so we might as well live out our animal nature and continue eating meat. Fire up the barbie!" This approach might well be called, "Giving up on the issue."

Or, one might look for a better viewpoint which is actually consistent. I prefer this option. In this approach, we would say, "Different rules apply for humans than for all other creatures. This must mean that there is a fundamental difference between man and animal - that the two are essentially different - that man is more than mere animal, in ways which transcend physical nature. How provocative! Let's examine this fact, and attempt to comprehend this extraordinary difference." In this approach, one might or might not choose to be a vegetarian, one might come to various conclusions regarding animal rights - but one would certainly be regarding the evidence with the utmost gravity.

P.S. A request: Please do away with annoying terms like "typical speciesist argument". They help nothing, and make you look bad.

learningphysics

Dec7-04, 11:17 PM

Once again: I am not saying that other animals do not experience pain, but rather that we cannot confidently conclude that they are aware of pain - a distinction which seems to be eluding some of the participants in this discussion.

Yes, I'm having troubling seeing the distinction. When you use the word "experience" I'm assuming that you're using it in the sense of feeling, sensation... not simply the body's reaction to a stimulus.

Is experiencing pain without being aware of it mean that the body is simply reacting to some stimulus without any corresponding inner feeling?

I think my definitions of pain, experience and awareness are different from yours. I don't see how an unconscious person can experience pain. Isn't that what anasthetics do? Render you unconscious so that you can't feel pain?

physicsisphirst

Dec7-04, 11:37 PM

And here, you again make the disagreeable assumption of awareness in animals. "Appreciate" is an awareness term. We do not know whether animals have the faculty of awareness which allows them to make value judgments of that sort.
i don't see why this is disagreeable. all you seem to conclude is that despite their physiology, their reactions, and the awareness of many humans (which also include 3 decades of recent research) that animals are sentient, you can't be convince that animals have awareness.

For the record, I believe that humans have a responsibility to animals which animals do not have toward humans or toward any other species, including their own kind.
that's fine with me, but i don't think we can establish the level of responsibility animals have towards other beings. however, we can do a fair bit about ourselves.

All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone. The question is, "What does one do with this fact?"
well it really isn't a fact since it really isn't the AR position (though it may be a position some AR people as well as some non-AR people take). either way, i don't think the movement is in any great jeopardy somehow.

P.S. A request: Please do away with annoying terms like "typical speciesist argument". They help nothing, and make you look bad.
thanks, but i'll take my chances. :D (and i also presume by your statement that you do acknowledge that no one called anyone a "brutal speciesist" as you seemed to postulate earlier)

speciesism happens to be a very relevant and important term coined actually by peter singer. overcoming speciesism may be the final frontier!

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

Dec8-04, 01:06 PM

I don't see how an unconscious person can experience pain. Isn't that what anasthetics do? Render you unconscious so that you can't feel pain?
No, the body still experiences pain - the neural signal travels to the brain, just as it does in a conscious person. And, in some unconscious states, the body may still flinch because of the pain signal. This is most obvious in a sleeping person. Pain is still experienced, there is an unconscious reaction to the pain, but there is no conscious awareness of pain.
Yes, I'm having troubling seeing the distinction. When you use the word "experience" I'm assuming that you're using it in the sense of feeling, sensation... not simply the body's reaction to a stimulus.
Okay. I'll try to clarify.
I think my definitions of pain, experience and awareness are different from yours.
Almost certainly true.
Is experiencing pain without being aware of it mean that the body is simply reacting to some stimulus without any corresponding inner feeling?
The difference is between sentience (the ability to experience something - literally, the capacity to "sense") and awareness (the cognitive self-knowledge of having the experience). A sentient being will experience and react to pain; an aware being will be able to contemplate its pain, and may decide (e.g.,) to choose the more painful path.

We easily have the technology to make an artficial sentience. Between sensor pads, stepper motors, a little circuitry, and some insightful programming, we could manufacture a little robot which responds to physical stimuli. (In fact, Nintendo has a new portable game console which is "sentient" and "responds" to touch stimuli according to these definitions.)

However, we do not have the technology to produce a truly aware automaton. In fact, I believe that this goal is essentially impossible, because I believe that awareness is intangible, immaterial - literally, supernatural. We may emulate and imitate awareness, but we cannot produce it.

A tremendous amount of confusion regarding these terms is to be found in books and movies of the science fiction genre. A significant part of that confusion comes from the hidden assumption that man is merely mechanism: That the whole of human nature is comprehended in the human body, and that all of human behavior is a product of physical actions and reactions. This view, though common and usually unquestioned, turns out to be the least likely conclusion given the evidence.

But regardless of that question, the above definitions of sentience and awareness are pretty much the generally-accepted versions (with, perhaps, a little local color added!).

Hope this helps!

physicsisphirst

Dec8-04, 01:32 PM

some helpful clarifications in your above post, oneeye!
i have a couple of questions below.

A sentient being will experience and react to pain; an aware being will be able to contemplate its pain, and may decide (e.g.,) to choose the more painful path.
sometimes animals choose a more painful path. for instance, an otter caught in a trap will bite through its arm. a dog will run into a burning building to rescue its owner. some primates when offered food only through a mechanism that delivers a painful shock to a fellow primate, will choose to starve. does this demonstrate contemplation and awareness?

A significant part of that confusion comes from the hidden assumption that man is merely mechanism: ... This view, though common and usually unquestioned, turns out to be the least likely conclusion given the evidence.
i am inclined to agree with you on this. however, can you say more about what this evidence is?

in friendship,
prad

russ_watters

Dec8-04, 02:00 PM

All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone. The question is, "What does one do with this fact?" Obvious or not, I think they are afraid to acknowledge the flaw because they think it undermines their position. I'm actually unsure if it does or not: I'm not sure if I would respect the animal rights position more or less if the contradiction was acknowledged and logically argued away. But then, part of the reason for that is I've yet to see an animal rights activist actually try to deal with the contradiction.

physicsisphirst

Dec8-04, 02:22 PM

Obvious or not, I think they are afraid to acknowledge the flaw because they think it undermines their position. I'm actually unsure if it does or not: I'm not sure if I would respect the animal rights position more or less if the contradiction was acknowledged and logically argued away. But then, part of the reason for that is I've yet to see an animal rights activist actually try to deal with the contradiction.
russ please see post #748 where i wonder why you and oneeye claim that this 'contradiction' is the AR position.
can you show me how you come to this conclusion? are there specific posts in this thread? does it exist in some book? does it appear on a website?

AR is very diverse with the ideas of several prominent philosophers. it would seem to me that anyone of those i listed in that post would have spotted this 'contradiction' if it really did exist in their philosophy.

i even made an attempt to accept and deal with the 'contradiction' anyway - just for fun.
i am reposting it below for convenience.
i would appreciate your comments on it.

in friendship,
prad

however, let's go with it anyway. so
humans are aware, therefore they should not harm other creatures and
animals are aware, but it is ok for them to harm other creatures.

so since both animals and humans harm other creatures, can we discern the degree of awareness from the amount of harm caused? is it possible that the more harm caused (except for sustenance, say) is reflective of the degree of lack of awareness? for instance, some humans cause harm for sport, entertainment, food (that they don't need or even eat). no animal seems to do this to the same degree. does that make animals more aware than some humans? on the otherhand, you have some humans who spend a great deal of time and effort (eg AR activists and others) to stop or minimize harm to others (animals and humans). are these people more or less aware than those humans who do cause harm?

or

is it possible that humans can be sufficiently aware of an animal's sentience to realize that it doesn't want to be harmed, but an animal has sufficient sentience to know that it doesn't want to be harmed, but not enough awareness (like some humans) to realize that other animals also may not want to be harmed.

OneEye

Dec8-04, 05:24 PM

so since both animals and humans harm other creatures, can we discern the degree of awareness from the amount of harm caused?
(Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I had meant to answer it. Just a little busy.)

The answer to your question is, No. Awarenesss is not defined as the ability or propensity to cause harm. Awareness is cognizance of one's state. When I am awake, I am aware (okay, so mostly). When I am asleep, I am sensate and reactive, but not aware.

You almost seem to want to turn "awareness" into some sort of measure of virtue. Evil people are fully aware. Dear little Binkie is not (presumably - anyway, we are not able to tell, and have reasons to doubt).

russ please see post #748 where i wonder why you and oneeye claim that this 'contradiction' is the AR position.

Here, for the record, is the contradiction in dialogue form:

Plato: I think I'll get a hamburger.

Aristotle: Don't do that! That would be eating an animal!

Plato: Is that wrong?

Aristotle: Yes, because people are animals, and so should not eat other animals. So killing an animal is a form of murder, and eating it is basically a form of cannibalism.

Plato: Oh.

Aristotle: Hmph.

Plato: But... Animals kill and eat animals.

Aritstotle: Yes, but you shouldn't.

Plato: Why?

Aristotle: Because you are a human, and so you should know better.

Okay?

russ_watters

Dec8-04, 06:28 PM

I never liked Aristotle.

physicsisphirst

Dec8-04, 07:39 PM

(Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I had meant to answer it. Just a little busy.)
no problem - i am too and i do appreciate your efforts to make substantial and informative posts.

The answer to your question is, No. Awarenesss is not defined as the ability or propensity to cause harm. Awareness is cognizance of one's state.
perhaps i was not sufficiently clear previously in asking so since both animals and humans harm other creatures, can we discern the degree of awareness from the amount of harm caused?

what the question is asking is whether the propensity to cause harm is reflective of the degree of awareness. in other words, as someone becomes 'more aware' of the suffering of another being, perhaps that person will be less inclined to cause that suffering. similarly, if one is to cause pain, it is perhaps necessary to lessen our awareness (sometimes through outright denial) of the suffering of the other being.

a good example of the latter is demonstrated by a placard held by a black man during the 60's civil rights marches which read "I am a man". the idea behind it of course was that as a black he was not being regarded as a man by the oppressing faction who would naturally find it simpler to abuse and exploit a 'non-man' provided they could reduce their state of awareness sufficiently.

that is what i was getting at regarding awareness.

i understand you are busy but i am very interested in your comment from post #752:

A significant part of that confusion comes from the hidden assumption that man is merely mechanism: That the whole of human nature is comprehended in the human body, and that all of human behavior is a product of physical actions and reactions. This view, though common and usually unquestioned, turns out to be the least likely conclusion given the evidence.

i asked you what this evidence was and look forward to hearing what you have to say.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec8-04, 08:06 PM

Here, for the record, is the contradiction in dialogue form:
...
Okay?
no that's not okay at all.

you (and russ) are claiming that the AR position entails a contradiction whereby AR says

(1) Humans are merely another kind of animal, but
(2) humans are not allowed to behave like any other animal,
(3) animals are not obliged to behave like humans, and
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom," is a self-contradicting arguments. Point (1) is completely contradicted by points (2) through (4).

(from post #749)

then you go on to say

All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone. The question is, "What does one do with this fact?"

my question to you (and russ) wasn't for a dialogue clarification of the above. here is what my question was again:

i wonder why you and oneeye claim that this 'contradiction' is the AR position.
can you show me how you come to this conclusion? are there specific posts in this thread? does it exist in some book? does it appear on a website?

since
1) you have worded the 'contradiction' and
2) you claim it is an obvious flaw in the AR position

i am asking you
what AR source you got this information from or more specifically on what grounds do you claim that this is the AR position.

once you can establish that for me we can take a closer look at your interesting 'contradiction' itself ;)

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

Dec8-04, 09:43 PM

i am asking you
what AR source you got this information from or more specifically on what grounds do you claim that this is the AR position.
My representation of the contradiction is the summary of reviewing a variety of animal rights materials over the past ten years or so. I have not made an active course of study out of it; rather, I have merely gathered the information which came along to me. I should say that it only amounts to a few hundred hours of exposure to various animal rights communiques and summaries thereof (including, e.g. some of Dr. Singer's writings).

I do not claim to have exhaustively researched this. However, I do stand by what I am saying as being a true rendition of all of the animal rights materials I have seen. I welcome correction. I have, several times, presented syllogisms to you which show the inherent contradiction in the animal rights position. These syllogisms are open to the usual critiques: Either show that the propositions are invalid, or show that the conclusion does not follow from the propositions. The simplest one to take on would be the two-proposition syllogism in the dialogue. The conclusion there is an implied one: "Therefore, the animal rights view is inherently self-contradicting."

Personally, I think that you will agree with both of the propositions of the dialogue. And, the conclusion is a lead-pipe cinch given the propositions. But I welcome your critique.

what the question is asking is whether the propensity to cause harm is reflective of the degree of awareness. in other words, as someone becomes 'more aware' of the suffering of another being, perhaps that person will be less inclined to cause that suffering.
Here, again, you are mixing the idea of awareness (an amoral faculty) with the idea of goodness. The most obvious way of separating your mixture is to inject a sadomasochist - a person who exults in suffering. For such a person, an increase of awareness would facilitate an increase in suffering - which, to the sadomasochist, would be the ideal.

A significant part of that confusion comes from the hidden assumption that man is merely mechanism: That the whole of human nature is comprehended in the human body, and that all of human behavior is a product of physical actions and reactions. This view, though common and usually unquestioned, turns out to be the least likely conclusion given the evidence.
i asked you what this evidence was and look forward to hearing what you have to say.

It will be my pleasure to discuss this. Here are three observations:

1) It is well-observed and demonstrated that free will, as such, cannot be the product of mechanism. This should be obvious on the first statement of the case, but usually requires a little thinking through to really grasp.

2) The research is against it: Studies of behavioral correspondence between siblings show that nature and nurture together only account for about 50% of human behavior. Behavioral correspondence is somewhere on the order of 15% for adopted siblings, 20+% for ordinary brothers, 30+% for fraternal twins, and 40+% for identical twins raised together. This means that the most significant determinant of behavior is neither nurture nor nature. This is substantiated by the fact that twins raised apart have a higher behavioral correspondence than twins raised together - implying that the twins raised together consciously exercised their will to overcome both nature and nurture.

3) Humans automatically assign themselves to a different category from that of animals (as we have been discussing.) Far from being mere speciesism, this testifies to important essential differences between animals and humans.

This is a fair enough thumbnail sketch of the issue for now, I think.

russ_watters

Dec8-04, 09:50 PM

If you disagree with our assessment of the position, could you try to clear it up for us?

In answer of your question, we've seen this position argued right here in this thread. I participated in the first 10 or 20 pages and it went round and round in circles because of that contradiction.

Real debate on the issue of why started on page 4, post 59: I think an issue that has been only lightly touched on thus far is the lack of difference between animals and humans. That is to say, animals are not sufficiently different and therefore discrimination is not justified. This is echoed by a number of people over the next few pages. The contradiction was first pointed out on page 5, post 61: dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest... But not only was the contradiction not addressed, it was re-affirmed: Sure, the cheetah eats animals, and a raper rapes women. If you can use what a cheetah does to justify your actions, then by the same mechanism, I can use a raper's actions to justify mine. Obviously, this is absurd. One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

I am not making any startling or arrogant claim. It is rather obvious that we have the mental ability to consider others' feelings. I say that we should use it and use it consistently. So there it is:

Quote 1. We are just like the animals.
Quote 2(3). We are not just like the animals.

Regarding late developments:
russ please see post #748 where i wonder why you and oneeye claim that this 'contradiction' is the AR position. Here is what you said in 748: this really isn't quite the argument put forth by AR - though it is sometimes used to claim a contradiction. it's more like if we know that we as humans can cause suffering, should we not make an effort to not do so? i think AR is generally more interested in what humans do to animals (including humans) than what animals do to each other. But that's exactly the point! You ignore the other side of the coin! That's an oversimplification designed to avoid dealing with the contradiction. You can't just make it go away by not adressing it.

We know humans can cause suffering. We know animals can cause suffering. Why should we ignore suffering caused by animals? If you don't put out mousetraps for mice in your house shouldn't you also try to prevent your cat from catching mice? Eagles kill hundreds of fish a year - we had the bald eagle near extinction once, shouldn't we exterminate all of them?

Ok, so you say the AR movement typically doesn't address this issue - and though some people in here have adressed it, you have done a good job of avoiding answering it. If you don't want to answer my hypotheticals, tell me why.

physicsisphirst

Dec8-04, 10:55 PM

My representation of the contradiction is the summary of reviewing a variety of animal rights materials over the past ten years or so. ... I have merely gathered the information which came along to me.
the problem with 'merely gathering the information which came along to you' is that you are taking bits and pieces and formulating your personal AR theory which you then claim to be the AR contradiction. you are assuming that AR has 1 philosophy which of course it doesn't as i tried to show you in an earlier post.

for instance, singer who is a utilitarian doesn't accept that animals have inherent rights. on the otherhand, regan has a more deontologic approach where he argues that they do. now, if i wanted to i could say "hey! look at that! 1) animals don't have inherent rights 2) animals do have inherent rights - guess what! i found a contradiction therefore the AR movement is fundamentally flawed!!" (frankly, i think the above actually has a little more ooomph as far as a 'contradiction' goes than what you put together, but we shall see).

so what needs to be understood is that in any body of knowledge there are differing philosophies, approachs and rationale even if the goals are more or less the same - the AR movement isn't any different (neither is even physics for that matter). still, never have i seen the 4 point compilation you admit to having put together though i won't argue that it hasn't been done before by somebody (perhaps even in the AR movement).

I do not claim to have exhaustively researched this. However, I do stand by what I am saying as being a true rendition of all of the animal rights materials I have seen.
well it really can't be a true rendition of the AR movement - only a true compilation by you.

The simplest one to take on would be the two-proposition syllogism in the dialogue. The conclusion there is an implied one: "Therefore, the animal rights view is inherently self-contradicting."
again, since there really isn't one single AR view, your statement of there being a contradiction has little relevance. saying that your dialogue represents the AR view hardly makes it so.

Personally, I think that you will agree with both of the propositions of the dialogue. And, the conclusion is a lead-pipe cinch given the propositions. But I welcome your critique.
i think the dialogue is cleverly constructed and it does make the point you are trying to get across, but it really is not the AR stance. it may be useful for an AR activist to examine it though.

i'll respond to the rest of your comments in subsequent posts after some of this is cleared up.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec8-04, 11:24 PM

If you disagree with our assessment of the position, could you try to clear it up for us?
i will try and thank you for going back in the thread and digging up the stuff.

You can't just make it go away by not adressing it.
well i did address somewhat by pointing out that it really can't be taken as the AR view. now if you say that some ARists maintain that view then we can ask those how they would explain the 'contradiction'. perhaps, dissident dan would be willing to elaborate on it further.

in any case, i will take a different stab at it in my next post so rest assured that i am not trying to avoid it - in fact, quite the contrary.

but first ...

[i]Why should we ignore suffering caused by animals? [/quote]
i'm not sure we do ignore it - but it may depend on what that suffering is. for instance, if a cheetah kills for food it would seem inappropriate to stop it unless you could get it a large supply of veg catfood. if a human kills for sustenance as may happen in situations where it may be impossible to find suitable crops then again it would seem inappropriate to stop this. however, the vast majority of humans who eat meat don't kill for food (though many may kill themselves with it) - in fact, they get the factory farms to do the whole dirty thing for them. this is probably why AR groups (and small farmers in fact) target this sort of killing especially in light of the reality that this same majority of humans have no need whatsoever to eat meat since there are so many alternatives available. (i hope this also answers the fish-eagle and mice-cat questions - and btw we do stop our cat from catching mice or birds since around here we are not supposed to let cats stray).

you have done a good job of avoiding answering it.
i hope it is clear to you that your 'it' is not being avoided at all. if you find an answer insufficient, please say why and i'll try again.

in friendship,
prad

Dissident Dan

Dec8-04, 11:38 PM

This "contradiction" has already been discussed before, if I remember correctly.

The case is that humans and other animals have very similar capacity for experience-pleasure and suffering, and, regardless of how similar our experiences are, we all do experience. That similarity is why we should treat other species of animals similarly to how should treat other humans, in that we should respect them as beings that can experience and take their interests into consideration.

The differences between humans and other animals that are relevant here are that we are so much more intelligent and that we, being humans ourselves, can communicate with each other much better than we can with other species. This means that we have better ability to consider the ethical effects of our actions upon others (including other species) than do members of other species. We can discuss amongst ourselves and try to persuade each other. We cannot do that with members of other species, except perhaps in very limited ways with other primates (and maybe dolphines, porpoises).

To sum up, we (humans and other animal species) are similar in that we all have the ability to experience. We are different in that we have much greater cognitive ability. This gives give rise to the differences in hopes that AR people have for the behavior of humans and the behavior of other animals--not arbitrary discrimination, but discrimination based on relevant differences.

(Note: I know that there are some organisms that are technically animals that do not experience, such as sponges. I am not including them when I refer to "animals" in this post. The term "animal" is used for simplicity.)

physicsisphirst

Dec9-04, 12:05 AM

My representation of the contradiction
so let's look at the 'contradiction' you created:

(1) Humans are merely another kind of animal, but
(2) humans are not allowed to behave like any other animal,
(3) animals are not obliged to behave like humans, and
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom," is a self-contradicting arguments. Point (1) is completely contradicted by points (2) through (4).

your statements just don't jive together as you'll see.

(1) says that humans are part of the set of animals and therefore a subset of the set animals
(2) says that the particular subset of animals, known as humans should not, for whatever reason, behave like other subsets of the set animals such as cats or whales

both the above are quite reasonable and logical because humans can be considered part of the animal kingdom and there is no reason to expect that any one subset of the set animals should behave like another (even individuals don't)

(3) results in a problem, because it is rather meaningless to say that the set of animals are not obliged to behave like its own subset humans - that's a roundabout way of saying that humans aren't obliged to behave like humans. what i think you need to say is that all subsets of the set animals that are not the subset humans are not obliged to behave as humans.

so, after the modification, this too makes sense and is quite consistent with (1) and (2)

(4) now is perfectly ok too because the subset humans has been given a particular behavioral criteria that is different from other subsets and it still remains within the set animals.

the problem that created your 'contradiction' stemmed from

a) making humans part of animals then
b) giving humans behavioral criteria distinct from other members also part of animals then wanting
c) that all animals (which must therefore include humans) not have that behavioral criteria

if you say that all animals are not obliged to follow the human behavioral criteria, then you must also accept that humans (since they are part of animals) don't need to follow the same criteria you gave them in the first place.

alternatively, you say humans, who are part of animals, must behave a certain way. then you say that animals don't need to behave in that same way somehow removing humans from being part of animals at that moment. but since humans are part of animals (by your first statement), you must either accept that as animals they do not need to behave the way they used to or you must modify your "animals are not obliged to behave like humans" to "non-human animals are not obliged to behave like humans".

so it is really your inconsistent formulation that made you think there was a contradiction.

in friendship,
prad

learningphysics

Dec9-04, 01:02 AM

OneEye

Dec9-04, 09:40 AM

I think the discussion will go along better if we can rewrite this statement more specifically:
1) Humans are merely another animal.

with another. The statement is trying to say something more than just "Humans are animals" but what exactly...

It is like saying "1 is merely another positive integer". The statement is trying to say something more than just "1 is a positive integer", but what exactly?

I believe something like "Humans are not unique in their awareness of pain and morality." (or something of this sort, that is more specific)
I am glad to see you working your way through this. Others might give up. Stick to it!

First, as to your complaint, "This is not an animal rights position": Yes, I know that this statement of contradicition is not an animals rights statement. No-one wants to knowingly hold a self-contradictory position. But I am not misrepresenting the animal rights position if I use facts which came from the animal rights database and show that they produce a self-contradicting view. (BTW, I have written Dr. Singer about this, and am awaiting a reply.)

My method is simple syllogism - freshman logic techniques which we all should be aware of. I am not engaging in misdirection here. I am simply arranging propositions syllogistically, and showing that they produce a self-refuting thought system. Rather than complaining that I am not using a "real animal rights position", I would like you to deal with the logic in the usual way: Either demonstrate that the premisses are not true, or show that the syllogism is badly-formed. So far, you have agreed with all of the premisses, so you will have to show that my construct is invalid - unless you want to go back and revisit the premisses (which you seem want to do in this latest message). You cannot show that my constuction is invalid by observing that some of the premisses contradict each other, since this would simply be agreeing with my conclusion.

I would like you to either agree or disagree with the following:

Humans are merely animals.

That is to say, "Humans are nothing more and nothing less than members of the kingdom Animalia (i.e., there is no reason to believe the 'speciesist' claim that humans are fundamentally different from the animals.)"

Second, observe the following syllogism, the converse of previous syllogisms:
Humans are merely another kind of animal.
Some animals kill and eat other animals.
----------------------------------------------------------
Humans may kill and eat other animals.

I welcome your reflections on this.

P.S. We are now entering into the "drudgery" stage of the discussion. I will endeavor to make this stage as interesting and entertaining as I can.

learningphysics

Dec9-04, 11:09 AM

I would like you to either agree or disagree with the following:

Humans are merely animals.

That is to say, "Humans are nothing more and nothing less than members of the kingdom Animalia (i.e., there is no reason to believe the 'speciesist' claim that humans are fundamentally different from the animals.)"

This is still unclear to me. Is this statement equivalent to "Humans are animals". If so then yes I agree with the statement. Check out physicsphirst post. If the first statement is taken as this then there is no contradiction.

What exactly is a "fundamental difference"? Every species is unique and can be taken to be fundamentally different.

Also, what exactly does it mean to be "more than another species" or "less than another species"?

I'm restating your argument here:
"
(1) Humans are merely another kind of animal, but
(2) humans are not allowed to behave like any other animal,
(3) animals are not obliged to behave like humans, and
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom," is a self-contradicting arguments. Point (1) is completely contradicted by points (2) through (4).
"

Until 1) is rewritten, I'll take it to say: "Humans are animals". As physicsphirst points out 2, 3 and 4 don't contradict 1.

I'm enjoying discussing this. Seems like we're getting to the nuts and bolts of the issue.

physicsisphirst

Dec9-04, 11:33 AM

My method is simple syllogism - freshman logic techniques which we all should be aware of. I am not engaging in misdirection here.

...

P.S. We are now entering into the "drudgery" stage of the discussion. I will endeavor to make this stage as interesting and entertaining as I can.
i don't know who you directed this to oneeye, since you quoted learningphysics, but i presume it was directed to me. there is no need to be entertaining though it is thoughtful of you to want to be and thanks for your encouragement for my 'sticking with it'.

i also don't see why you didn't respond to my post #765 (where i do 'deal with the logic in the usual way' as you ask) which shows that you have a problem in the way you interpret your creation. please take a second look at that post which shows you 2 ways the contradiction you claim really doesn't exist - it is your interpretation that is at fault.

here's another way to look at it that may be simpler to see.

let's start with your statements again:

(1) Humans are merely another kind of animal, but
(2) humans are not allowed to behave like any other animal,
(3) animals are not obliged to behave like humans, and
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom," is a self-contradicting arguments. Point (1) is completely contradicted by points (2) through (4).

now let us ask if the 'animal' in (1) is the same as the 'animal' in (3) and look at both possibilities.

A. NO. The animal in (1) is the set of all animals (ANIMALS) whereas the animal in (3) is the subset of all animals that are not human (animals). we can visually represent this as

ANIMAL
- humans
- animals
also let C be the characteristic that humans must behave morally

now let's follow your creation more concisely:

(1) Humans belong to ANIMAL
(2) humans possess C
(3) animals do not possess C
(4) humans have a moral responsibility to all animals which is unique in the animal kingdom.

as you can see there is no contradiction here since it is perfectly ok for humans to possess C, animals not to possess C and have animals and humans both be part of ANIMAL.

B. YES. Let's say that the terms are the same. now we have to consider that animals is the entire set of animals which include human and non-human animals ie ANIMAL

so let's try it again:

(1) Humans belong to ANIMAL
(2) humans possess C
(3) ANIMAL do not possess C

at this point humans also do not possess C because you have said that the entire set ANIMAL (of which humans are a part of) no longer possess C. this of course prevents (4) from even appearing since you have taken the moral responsibility away from humans by (3). [note that (3) must override (2) or you create your own contradiction between the two, thereby mangling the whole thing]. again there is no contradicition.

here is why you thought there was a contradiction:
you left (4) in after you removed the moral responsibility via (3).

i hope this as well as post #765 shows you that your contradiction only exists if you commit 'logical heresy' as explained in point B. if you do not see this, say so and i'll try again.

in friendship,
prad

ps i'd be happy to get to your 'speciesist claim' and 'converse syllogism' (both which suffer from the ambiguity of what is meant by 'animals') after we clear up this present issue.

Dissident Dan

Dec9-04, 03:30 PM

Please, let's skip all this and just read my post again.

OneEye

Dec9-04, 06:48 PM

I agree that my four-point syllogism is not the clearest statement of the case. Taken out of its original context, it is so vague and open to interpretation that it is useless for the discussion.

I want to answer all of the open issues which have been tabled by physicsfirst, learningphysics, and Dissident Dan. I think that the best way to do it is to develop a thesis which is not so prone to intepretation. This may seem too much like getting back to basics, but we will progress quickly.

Here is a two-point syllogism which, I hope, will clear up the matter completely:

It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

I welcome all responses to this syllogism. This would be the first response of a non-animal rights, non-ethical vegetarian to the ethical vegetarian/animal rights view - and it also turns out to expose the "fatal flaw" in the current state of animal rights reasoning.

For the less patient, here is a little snapshot of where we're going: Animals are not allowed to regulate human behavior according to their behavioral model, yet animal rights activists must ultimately allow any kind of animalistic behavior in humans, or must allow that humans have the moral authority to regulate the entire animal kingdom (in fact, the entirety of nature).

Key to my argument is to point out that there is a salient ("fundamental"/"essential") difference between humans and every other species. This difference is moral, and has to do with moral authority - the kind of moral authority which the animal rights movement expressly denies.

I don't want to spoil the discussion, though. I really would like someone - anyone to take on the three-plank argument above. I will be most pleased to see someone answer this question.

Justinius

Dec9-04, 07:32 PM

OneEye:

Good syllogism, but I would like to question, do animals really have morals?

Dont get me wrong here, I am a huge meat-eater. Humans definitely should eat meat, unless for some health reason they can't. To be completely non-philosophical here, and kind of nutritionist, look at the proteins we are given and the health value of the meats. Certain cultures are told religiously that certain types of meat should not be consumed, an example is pork. We must remember, however, that these laws are ancient, and in the case of Judaism more than 5000 years old. The reason these cultures are told not to eat these "unclean" meats is because their laws are stuck in time. 5000 years ago, how could people determine that pork had to be cooked to completely white in order not to get salmonella poisoning?

Nowadays, people say that we shouldn't eat meat because of the sanctity of the life of all living organisms. Aren't carrots living too? To take this argument to a reductio ad absurdum, if one believes this, then they should not wash their hands using antibacterial soap, because they will be slaughtering millions of bacteria while doing so.

Humans are not just animals. I understand what you were trying to get at, but the main difference here is that we have the ability to reason, animals run purely on instinct. Moving away from that, I agree that it is INSTINCTUAL for carniverous animals to eat meat, and since the human instinct (for lack of a better word) tells us that we are omniverous, there should be nothing wrong with eating meat.

physicsisphirst

Dec9-04, 07:50 PM

I agree that my four-point syllogism is not the clearest statement of the case. Taken out of its original context, it is so vague and open to interpretation that it is useless for the discussion.

i'm ok with that, oneeye.
your 4 statements weren't unclear, but the meaning of 'animal' was as you say 'open to interpretation'. thank you for taking the time to read through my 2 posts. i appreciate it.

i'm happy to move on to your next syllogism provided you and russ are satisfied that
a) your concerns about AR not addressing your 'contradiction' are alleviated
b) that your 4 point syllogism didn't entail a contradiction at all

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

Dec9-04, 08:05 PM

Certain cultures are told religiously that certain types of meat should not be consumed, an example is pork. We must remember, however, that these laws are ancient, and in the case of Judaism more than 5000 years old. The reason these cultures are told not to eat these "unclean" meats is because their laws are stuck in time.

Actually, the Jews were taught not to eat pork as a function of separation (a visible representation of their consecration to God). The peoples around them were successful and happy swineherders. And the book of Genesis (prior to the Mosaic dietary code) allows consumption of any animal.

It is a common mistake to try to find some pragmatic reason for laws like this (other examples include no fiber blends in their cloth, no mixed seed in their fields, and no mixed animals in the yoke). The Hebrew Bible demands that the Israelites regard these things as "abominations unto you". Other things are called "abominable" in and of themselves.

This is a very common misapprehension. Hope this clears that up.

OneEye

Dec9-04, 08:08 PM

i'm happy to move on to your next syllogism provided you and russ are satisfied that
a) your concerns about AR not addressing your 'contradiction' are alleviated
b) that your 4 point syllogism didn't entail a contradiction at all

No, I don't really agree with those statements, as we will see if we can progress as I plan. Animal rights views do not address the contradiction, and my four-point syllogism does embody a contradiction in the animal rights position, so long as you interpret the (admittedly vague) terms according to their original context.

It is precisely these two points (yours) which I am trying to demonstrate. And this, I will do, if you will indulge me. And seeing as you have been so vocal so far, I would like to see you answer this most recent syllogism.

physicsisphirst

Dec9-04, 08:36 PM

No, I don't really agree with those statements, as we will see if we can progress as I plan. Animal rights views do not address the contradiction, and my four-point syllogism does embody a contradiction in the animal rights position, so long as you interpret the (admittedly vague) terms according to their original context.

i'll deal with your amusing 3 pt syllogism after you recognize that there is no contradiction in your 4 pt syllogism. are you wishing to change your 4 pt item somehow or are you maintaining that it is fine the way you wrote it?

in friendship,
prad

learningphysics

Dec9-04, 08:59 PM

It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

I welcome all responses to this syllogism. This would be the first response of a non-animal rights, non-ethical vegetarian to the ethical vegetarian/animal rights view - and it also turns out to expose the "fatal flaw" in the current state of animal rights reasoning.

For the less patient, here is a little snapshot of where we're going: Animals are not allowed to regulate human behavior according to their behavioral model, yet animal rights activists must ultimately allow any kind of animalistic behavior in humans, or must allow that humans have the moral authority to regulate the entire animal kingdom (in fact, the entirety of nature).

Key to my argument is to point out that there is a salient ("fundamental"/"essential") difference between humans and every other species. This difference is moral, and has to do with moral authority - the kind of moral authority which the animal rights movement expressly denies.

I don't want to spoil the discussion, though. I really would like someone - anyone to take on the three-plank argument above. I will be most pleased to see someone answer this question.

I disagree with the first statement. I suppose some AR folks might replace the statement by saying "It is moral for non-human animals to eat meat if they so desire". Would this unveil the fatal flaw you're referring too. I'd disagree with this statement too.

My position is this: "Humans and animals should behave in the way that minimizes pain and suffering". Now, sometimes this may involve animals eating meat (in order to survive or prevent their own hunger), or sometimes it may involve animals not eating meat (like the vegetarian dogs referred to in this thread).

Humans do have a greater capacity to create change in the world... I'd say they have a greater moral awareness (I wouldn't say humans are more moral, but perhaps more apt to understanding morality). I would not take humans to be unique in their moral awareness. Just as intelligence is on a continuum from lower life forms to more complex ones, I'd take moral awareness to be on a similar continuum.

Why do humans talk about how other humans should treat animals, instead of how other animals should treat animals? Well, because we can more easily influence and communicate with other humans. We can get other humans to stop eating meat without creating much suffering. Is there any way to influence the animal community in this way? It would be much more difficult. It's not that animals are morally correct in eating other animals, but it's difficult to prevent without creating more suffering than would have existed if the animal did the eating in the first place.

I'm also not saying it is always immoral for animals to eat other animals... I'm saying it depends on how much suffering is prevented, and how much is created... weighing the pros and cons... For example dogs that are vegetarian is an example that has already been brought up in this thread.

OneEye

Dec9-04, 09:14 PM

i'll deal with your amusing 3 pt syllogism after you recognize that there is no contradiction in your 4 pt syllogism. are you wishing to change your 4 pt item somehow or are you maintaining that it is fine the way you wrote it?
If you want me to cop any plea for the 4-point syllogism, it will have to be nolo contendre. I do contend that, explained properly, the 4-point syllogism is accurate and valid. The three-point syllogism which I most recently proposed is the best way to prove that. So, if you want me to explain why I am sticking to my guns on the 4-point syllogism, the best way to do that is for you to answer the 3-point syllogism. If you want to accept my nolo contendre plea, you may then go on to deal with the 3-point syllogism. Either way, I think that the right way to go is for you to answer the 3-point syllogism. It at least has the benefit of being amusing.

physicsisphirst

Dec9-04, 09:28 PM

Either way, I think that the right way to go is for you to answer the 3-point syllogism. It at least has the benefit of being amusing.
oh alright then!
your 3 pt item is either incorrect or tautology. here's why:

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

let us consider exactly what "an animal" is.
it is either a) human or b) non-human.

so if it is the latter your syllogism reads:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

now you can probably see that 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. (hence incorrectness).

and if it is the former your sillygism becomes tautology and looks like this:

1. It is moral for a human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

which is like saying if you are redundant, then you are redundant. :rofl:

now, what do you want to do about your 4 pt thingy?

in friendship,
prad

Be Happy!

Dec9-04, 09:47 PM

It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

I welcome all responses to this syllogism.

I most certainly agree with the 2nd premise. Humans are animals!

However, I believe that your first premise is incorrect. Non-human animals are not capable of the complex morality that humans can exhibit and should not be held morally responsible for their actions because they don’t have the same process of deductive reasoning as the human animal. To say that it is moral for them to eat meat, implies that they are able to make such decisions. Non-human animals are not moral agents in the same sense as we are (tho they have been shown to exhibit certain qualities such as altruism that show some degree of morality) but they are not capable of the same types of moral reflections as ADULT humans (animal behaviorists show that some primates, birds and other animals have the cognitive abilities of children) and should not be held to the same level of responsibility for their actions, just as we don’t hold a small child or a severely mentally disabled person to the same level of responsibility as an adult human.

However, humans are moral beings and are capable of complex deductive reasoning and should be held responsible for their actions. So let’s take a quick look at meat eating amongst humans. Unlike with some non-human animals, we do not NEED flesh in order to survive. Many doctors now agree that our bodies are similar to an herbivore and that we thrive on a plant-based diet. (The China Study- the largest population study ever done (100,000 people participated), concluded that a plant based diet is the ideal diet for the human body- I can discuss this in further detail if you like).

Like I said earlier, we do not need meat, we do desire it because it is what many of us are raised with. Not very often do we think about where our meat comes from. Industry would rather you not know how the animal was raised (often in filthy, cramped conditions), how the animal was slaughtered, nor the devastating effect our desire to eat meat has had on the environment. Though it is not the topic at hand, I am happy to further discuss any of these topics.

So if we can live healthily on plant-based foods and we know that a plant-based diet is better for the environment and does not cause the needless suffering of non-human animals, then morally how can we justify eating meat? Try as we may, the “desire” for meat is not a sufficient moral justification for this cruel practice.

Furthermore, we do not look to non-human animals to define our morality so why do it here? Non-human animals have been known to exhibit barbaric behaviors which we would never find acceptable. So, I suggest that we define the morality of eating meat based on the facts at hand and not because some non-human animals do it.

In conclusion, I hope I have clearly explained why non-human animals should not be held accountable for their actions and why humans should. I think it’s important to this argument to note that in the US over 27 billions animals are killed for food and there is nothing natural about it. They exist in horrendous conditions living in their own filth, not being able to move freely, and denied everything that is natural to them. Then at long last comes an end to their miserable lives, but even that isn’t easy as many animals are slaughtered while they are still fully conscious. Though many people would hate to admit this, pigs, cows, and chickens are individuals with feelings—they can feel love, happiness, loneliness, and fear, just as dogs, cats, and humans do. If we knowingly cause another individual to suffer and die needlessly, we must recognize that we are committing nothing less than a moral atrocity.

Sincerely,

Sangeeta

ranjana

Dec9-04, 10:14 PM

Wow, Sangeeta !!!!!! Excellent post!

in peace
Ranjana

russ_watters

Dec10-04, 09:15 AM

OneEye

Dec10-04, 05:58 PM

Good syllogism, but I would like to question, do animals really have morals?

Thank you for your compliment, and a very good clarifying question. As it turns out that this is not really an important question in this discussion - as several people have already pointed out. The question of morality is obviously one for humans (and our developing thesis shows that it is only for humans, since humans are unique in their moral conception and responsibility here). So, it really doesn't matter whether animals have morals or not - the question remains the same.

Nowadays, people say that we shouldn't eat meat because of the sanctity of the life of all living organisms. Aren't carrots living too? To take this argument to a reductio ad absurdum, if one believes this, then they should not wash their hands using antibacterial soap, because they will be slaughtering millions of bacteria while doing so.

And even vegetarians ingest billions of microorganisms - at least some of the Animalia - a day. Some Tibetan Buddhist monks, by the way, apologize to the bacteria they are washing off as they take their baths.

Humans are not just animals. I understand what you were trying to get at, but the main difference here is that we have the ability to reason, animals run purely on instinct. Moving away from that, I agree that it is INSTINCTUAL for carniverous animals to eat meat, and since the human instinct (for lack of a better word) tells us that we are omniverous, there should be nothing wrong with eating meat.

I agree with much of what you say, but if we get much farther along, we will see that trying to explain a moral difference through natural characteristics does not work. Intelligence, self-awareness, other-awareness neither necessitate nor engender morality.

OneEye

Dec10-04, 06:22 PM

It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

All right. Here is where we stand so far:

Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent (i.e. the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses). Critiques of the syllogism come from people who (a) don't like the conclusion, and (b) intend to impeach one of the two premisses.

One group (learningphysics) says, "It it not moral for an animal to kill another animal." This would have to be called the extreme position in this discussion. Though the proponents of the position aim to be consistent, they are also engaging in a worse fallacy. For the time being, I wish to lay aside this view, and deal with the less extreme group.

The other group (physicsisphirst, Sangeeta) seem to take exception to the first proposition, but do so by dividing man from the other animals as being the only creature with the awareness and moral responsibility to choose not to kill and eat other animals. So, they are actually attacking the second premiss - which is as expected, and as it should be.

My thesis all along has been, "Man cannot be classed with other animals, since man has a unique moral responsibility." Everyone here is saying this (but will soon abruptly change course). So, everyone who has commented would like to somehow change the agument to conclude, "It is moral for an animal to eat meat if it is moral for that sort of animal to eat meat" - which really is a tautology.

Most animal rights apologetics begin by saying, "There is no fundamental, qualitative difference between man and the other animals - it is all just a matter of degrees - so our moral responsibility to our fellow animal is essentially the same as it is to our fellow man." Now, however, we see that everyone here agrees that there is at least one qualitative difference between man and the other animals: Moral responsibility toward other animals (and awareness of that moral responsibility).

Undoubtedly, there will be some thrashing over the above. But, for those who want to move on to the next step, here is a statement which I would like members to publicly reflect on:

Because humans have a moral faculty unique within the animal kingdom, they have a unique moral authority over the animal kingdom.

learningphysics

Dec10-04, 07:40 PM

Most animal rights apologetics begin by saying, "There is no fundamental, qualitative difference between man and the other animals - it is all just a matter of degrees - so our moral responsibility to our fellow animal is essentially the same as it is to our fellow man."

Are you sure animal rights apologetics are making the above statement? I've heard them talk about how animals and humans have the same rights... It seems like their argument is that there is no fundamental difference with regards to "natural rights". Within this context humans and animals are seen as the same. But I haven't heard them say that there is no fundamental difference at all. Wouldn't "There is no fundamental, qualitative difference between the natural rights of man and the other animals" be more representative of the AR position.

Ok... I'll take fundamental difference to mean, something that's there in the humans but not in any other species "to any degree" (unlike intelligence). And it is your contention that moral responsibility is such a characteristic.

Now, however, we see that everyone here agrees that there is at least one qualitative difference between man and the other animals: Moral responsibility toward other animals (and awareness of that moral responsibility).

Yes, a lot of vegetarians and AR reps would agree that the above is a fundamental difference in humans. I'm not sure sure though.

I agree that these two statements are in contradiction:

1) There is no fundamental difference between humans and other animals.
2) Humans are the only species that have moral responsibility and awareness.

I'm inclined to say 1) is true (especially because of our similarity to the apes) and 2) is false.

1) does not seem important to the AR position. The following statement would be extremely important though:
"There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals".

physicsisphirst

Dec10-04, 09:00 PM

Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent (i.e. the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses).
not everyone ;)

perhaps you missed my post #779. i've put it at the end (just in case you want to read it again). your 3 pointer can't be cogent unless you can create "an animal" that is human and non-human at the same time or at your convenience. LOL

The other group (physicsisphirst, Sangeeta) seem to take exception to the first proposition
wrong again!
i never took exception to your 1st proposition. in fact, it's a wonderful proposition - though perhaps not for your purposes.

in friendship,
prad

your 3 pt item is either incorrect or tautology. here's why:

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

let us consider exactly what "an animal" is.
it is either a) human or b) non-human.

so if it is the latter your syllogism reads:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

now you can probably see that 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. (hence incorrectness).

and if it is the former your sillygism becomes tautology and looks like this:

1. It is moral for a human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

which is like saying if you are redundant, then you are redundant. :rofl:

physicsisphirst

Dec10-04, 09:06 PM

(The China Study- the largest population study ever done (100,000 people participated), concluded that a plant based diet is the ideal diet for the human body- I can discuss this in further detail if you like).
sangeeta,

i'd like to hear more about the china study if you would care to elaborate.

great post too, btw.

finally, russ' point here "This isn't "right to kill" its "right to life." The right to life (if it applies) protects the deer from being killed" is actually quite an interesting one. i'm curious to see how it is answered by you and/or by learningphysics.

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

Dec10-04, 11:15 PM

your 3 pointer can't be cogent unless you can create "an animal" that is human and non-human at the same time or at your convenience. LOL
I hate to do this, because I am assuming that you already know this, but:

An argument is cogent ("valid") if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses. The argument need not be true in order for it to be cogent. Likewise, the presmisses may be false, and yet the argument may still be cogent, so long as the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses. The syllogism which I presented is of the classic, elementary form known as "Barbara". It is a cogent form so long as, in order to deny the conclusion, one must also deny at least one of the premisses (i.e., passes the general test for cogency). You seem to be using the street definition of cogency, which simply means "true."

I read and analyzed your critique of the 3-point syllogism, and included your critique in my recent summary. (See below.)
wrong again!
i never took exception to your 1st proposition. in fact, it's a wonderful proposition - though perhaps not for your purposes.
Had you read the entire paragraph, you could have saved yourself some typing:

The other group (physicsisphirst, Sangeeta) seem to take exception to the first proposition, but do so by dividing man from the other animals as being the only creature with the awareness and moral responsibility to choose not to kill and eat other animals. So, they are actually attacking the second premiss - which is as expected, and as it should be. (emphasis added)

As a final note: You may not substantially change the premisses of an argument (as you did) and claim to be critiquing the original argument. When you do this, you are actually not critiquing the other person's position, but one of your own invention. When you critique an argument, you must deal with it as it is.

OneEye

Dec10-04, 11:36 PM

Just wanted to put this latest proposition up front:

Because humans have a moral faculty unique within the animal kingdom, they have a unique moral authority over the animal kingdom.

I would love to hear some reflection on this from those involved.

physicsisphirst

Dec10-04, 11:58 PM

An argument is cogent ("valid") if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses.
well that's fine, but in the non-human animal case:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

the consequent (3) doesn't follow at all from the antecedents (1 & 2), therefore cogency exists not. (i guess you could say it is 'incogent' rather than 'incorrect'.)
it's like saying if 2*2=4, then new york is a large city (both the antecedent and the consequent are true, but there is no connection between the two and the latter doesn't flow from the former, hence it is incogent).

(the second situation ie human animal, resulting from your creation is of course true, but not particularly helpful.)

So, they are actually attacking the second premiss -
no one is attacking the second premise either. i like both your premises!
sangeeta liked it too! she wrote (#780):

I most certainly agree with the 2nd premise. Humans are animals!

you keep attributing statements "of your own invention" to movements and people regardless of whether they say it or not.

(btw, what this second premise "humans are animals" means is that humans belong to the set of animals. it doesn't mean that a human is a cat, platypus or any other non-human creature outside of the subset humans anymore than a cat is a platypus. this is really easy to see if you draw some venn diagrams.)

You may not substantially change the premisses of an argument (as you did) and claim to be critiquing the original argument.
i didn't change your premise at all. i merely clarified what "an animal" could possibly be. since it could be human or non-human, it results in tautology or incogency respectively as already shown. (of course, it could be cats and non-cats or fleas, cats and non-fleas, non-cats, but those wouldn't have anything to do with what we are talking about since the focus is on humans, right?)

in any case, if there are no more syllogisms forthcoming, i will direct my energies elsewhere.

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

Dec11-04, 11:52 AM

well that's fine, but in the non-human animal case:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

the consequent (3) doesn't follow at all from the antecedents (1 & 2), therefore cogency exists not. (i guess you could say it is 'incogent' rather than 'incorrect'.)
Pardon me for seeming repetitious, but it seems that I may need to restate this: An argument is valid, cogent, if the conclusion can only be denied by denying one or more of the premisses. This is the case in the syllogism which I tabled: You cannot deny (3) without denying either (1) or (2). Thus, the argument is cogent (but might still be incorrect - especially, e.g., if one or more of the premisses is incorrect).

Your treatment of the syllogism does not disprove the syllogism. Rather, it supports it. The fact that you can extract two cases, one invalid and another a tautology, proves the cogency of the argument. That is characteristic of a well-formed Barabara syllogism, and characteristic of any good deduction.

A parallel version of your treatment would be:

Chimpanzees are omnivorous.
Bonobos are chimpanzees.
----------------------------------------------------
Bonobos are omnivorous.
Following your approach, we divide out premiss (2) into "chimpanzess which are bonobos" and "chimpanzess which are not bonobos". Thus, we now have two syllogisms:

Chimpanzees which are not bonobos are omnivorous.
Bonobos are chimpanzees.
----------------------------------------------------
Bonobos are omnivorous.(INVALID)
Chimpanzees which are bonobos are omnivorous.
Bonobos are chimpanzees.
----------------------------------------------------
Bonobos are omnivorous.(TAUTOLOGY - COGENT)
Try your treatment on the classic:

Humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
----------------------------------------------------
Socrates is mortal.
You will see that you get the same results.

So, the structure of my syllogism sound, even if you believe that the conclusion is false. This ought to drive us to question the premisses - which is what you actually seemed to intend, under the cover of an apparent critique of the cogency of the argument. By dividing the first premiss into "human animals" and "non-human animals", you seemed to want to differentiate between kinds of animal. I find this an agreeable step, especially when we say, "Humans are morally distinct from animals." (Another proposition with which, I think, almost all of us agree.)

it's like saying if 2*2=4, then new york is a large city (both the antecedent and the consequent are true, but there is no connection between the two and the latter doesn't flow from the former, hence it is incogent).
No, the two are dissimilar, because in my syllogism, to deny either premiss invalidates the conclusion, and to deny the conclusion requires denying one or both of the premisses (the test for syllogistic validity). In your construct (above), the precedent may be denied without affecting the antecedent, and vice versa.

I hope this clears the matter up. Let me know if I have not explained this effectively; I understand how easy it is to be vague under the guise of clarity, even when dealing with something as rigorous as syllogistic logic.

you keep attributing statements "of your own invention" to movements and people regardless of whether they say it or not.
I agree that I am coining these statements, but I also contend that they are characteristic thought for the animal rights/ethical vegetarian view. If they are not, I welcome your correction.

Further, as far as I can see, you are saying that you agree with my two premisses, but you then make the complaint that I am (inappropriately) attributing the statements to the animal rights/ethical vegetarian view. If you agree with what I am saying (in premisses 1 and 2), then you have no grounds to make such a complaint.
(btw, what this second premise "humans are animals" means is that humans belong to the set of animals. it doesn't mean that a human is a cat, platypus or any other non-human creature outside of the subset humans anymore than a cat is a platypus. this is really easy to see if you draw some venn diagrams.)
Which is completely consistent with what I am saying.

in any case, if there are no more syllogisms forthcoming, i will direct my energies elsewhere.
If you would like to be honorably released from this discussion, you certainly have my leave. I hope that the little bit of discussion we have had has been profitable to you, and I wish you well.

P.S. To quote Pascal - "Pardon the length of this message. I lacked the time to make it shorter."

physicsisphirst

Dec11-04, 12:35 PM

An argument is valid, cogent, if the conclusion can only be denied by denying one or more of the premisses. This is the case in the syllogism which I tabled: You cannot deny (3) without denying either (1) or (2). Thus, the argument is cogent (but might still be incorrect - especially, e.g., if one or more of the premisses is incorrect).
i am not denying (3). i am just saying that it doesn't follow from (1) and (2).

let's look at what you wrote here:

1. Chimpanzees are omnivorous.
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

there is nothing wrong with this and 3. follows from 1. and 2.
here chimpanzees means the set of all chimpanzees.

now look at this:

1. a Chimpanzee is omnivorous. [the equivalent of "an animal"]
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

now 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. even though 3. might be true.

or look similarly

1. a baby is cute
2. dino is a baby
-----------------------
3. dino is cute

there is no cogency.

however, if we change it to

1. babies are cute
2. dino is a baby
-----------------------
3. dino is cute

this is perfectly cogent regardless of whether it is true or not.

so let's relate it back to what you wrote:

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

just what do you mean by "an animal"?
do you mean "all animals" as in "the set of all animals"?
or do you mean just a particular animal as in "a chimpanzee" or "a baby"?

if you mean the latter, there is no cogency as shown in the above examples. please tell me exactly what you mean by "an animal".

So, the structure of my syllogism sound, even if you believe that the conclusion is false.
i am not arguing your conclusion here as you seem to think. i am just saying that 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. depending on what you mean by "an animal". please tell me exactly what you mean by "an animal".

I hope this clears the matter up. Let me know if I have not explained this effectively; I understand how easy it is to be vague under the guise of clarity, even when dealing with something as rigorous as syllogistic logic.
i appreciate your efforts and am willing work to achieve a mutual understanding.

I agree that I am coining these statements, but I also contend that they are characteristic thought for the animal rights/ethical vegetarian view. If they are not, I welcome your correction.
when stated differently (not the way you are doing it), they can be considered to be correct for ethical vegetarians, but not necessarily for animal rights which is considerably more varied. i'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to, once we get the syllogism stuff out of the way.

If you agree with what I am saying (in premisses 1 and 2), then you have no grounds to make such a complaint.
why not? i'm fine with 2., but i only said about 1. that it's a wonderful proposition - though perhaps not for your purposes.
i really can't agree or disagree with it, unless you tell me exactly what you mean by "an animal".

If you would like to be honorably released from this discussion, you certainly have my leave.
no. i find you to be a pleasant and polite individual. you make the effort to respond to issues with detail (admittedly you had to be 'reminded' occasionally). i don't think you do it correctly, but you no doubt feel the same about me. i am happy to continue this with you and do find it of benefit.

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

Dec11-04, 01:20 PM

just what do you mean by "an animal"?

I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".

Hope this helps clear the question up. I understand that you would not want to use the term "any animal," since this would work against your animal rights position. My assessment, which is growing firmer and firmer, is that you consider humanity unique within the kingdom Animalia in being the only animal which has a moral proscription against eating meat - which, in my opinion (and as I hope to show later) effectively separates man from the kingdom Animalia in every way except the least-important (i.e., the physical connection).

(There is really nothing remarkable about my argument, by the way. It's about as trivial a case of modus ponens as you could construe.)

Given my clarification, I restate:

It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
Humans are members of Animalia.
-------------------------------------------------------
It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).

How do you reply to this?

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec11-04, 01:52 PM

physicsisphirst

Dec11-04, 02:54 PM

I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".
...
I understand that you would not want to use the term "any animal,"
...
It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
Humans are members of Animalia.
-------------------------------------------------------
It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).

How do you reply to this?
any member of Animalia = any animal (so it really doesn't matter which you use does it?)

so if you maintain
It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
what's there to refute as far as the consequent following from the antecedent?

in fact, here is something else perfect as far as logic goes:

1. all integers are positive.
2. all numbers less than zero are integers.
----------------------------------------------------------
3. all numbers less than zero are positive.

:rofl:

so depending on how you set your premise you can have the consequent irrefutably follow from the antecedent regardless of reality. however, that's not really what is important.

here is the deception that you created (unintentionally, i'm sure):

you wrote:
It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).

an ethical veg would probably not dispute this - therefore, you can possibly attribute this to them.
(do you really think you can attribute your presently modified 1. to them?
that would be like my attributing the "all integers are positive" to the mathematical community LOL)

however, your meaning here is not "an animal", but "any member of Animalia" ie "any animal" as you have now admitted above: [i]I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".
you see it doesn't just cause confusion - it becomes something totally different.

in other words, under the guise of "an animal", you try to get an ethical veg to agree to "any animal". (you did something similar trying to show a contradiction in your 4 pointer: see posts #765, #769 - despite dissident dan's wish to the contrary LOL - after which i guess we should go reread his post #764 LOL).

you cannot use an element of a set, when you really mean any (or all) elements of a set.

very simply by saying "an animal" when you really mean "any animal" is not just 'tampering with the premise' (something you seemed to think i was doing) - it is misleading your readers. this is why i have kept asking for clarification over several posts (and showed you why in its earlier form it is either tautology or 'incogent' - see post #779).

again, i don't think you did this to deliberately mislead. the two look so similar - and the logic appears so very attractive too!
however, the fruit can look tasty, but be rotten on the inside.

in friendship,
prad

Dissident Dan

Dec11-04, 03:46 PM

learningphysics

Dec11-04, 04:27 PM

OneEye

Dec11-04, 08:04 PM

Have people been interpreting the poll as asking "Is it morally justifiable to eat meat?" The poll actually asks if humans "should" eat meat. What arguements are given to say we should eat meat; futhermore, what arguements are given that can't be refuted? Idealistically eating eggs or milk might be beneficial for health, but eating meat?

I would say that the morality of eating meat is really the question at issue, because the animal rights position is an ethical/moral position. I suppose that here is such a thing as a vegetarian by preference, though such a person would probably not be asking whether others should eat meat. There is also the religious vegetarian - but this is an ethical vegetarian position. Theoretically, one might choose vegetarianism for health reasons (a la C. W. Post and F. B. Kellogg - and Seventh Day Adventists in general), but my experience is that the "vegetarianism is healthier" view is almost always a Trojan horse for ethical vegetarianism.

Further, "should" is a value-judgment term, and hence the subject of moral/ethical evaluation.

Further still, no-one is asking "Why should we eat meat?" (A simple answer to which might be, humans are omnivores, and have a long tradition of eating meat.) What is actually being dealt with in this topic is "Why should we not eat meat?" In order to answer this, a variety of ethical/moral arguments have been served up, peppered liberally with health arguments.

My aim is not to get anyone to eat meat. Nor is it particularly to defend the practice of eating meat (which I do eat, by the way.) My aim, ultimately, is to show that there is no naturalistic argument for ethical vegetarianism. (As I have said before, I do believe that humans have a moral obligation regarding their use of creation. But this is a religious view.)

I hope that this explains the current state of the debate.

OneEye

Dec11-04, 08:06 PM

in fact, here is something else perfect as far as logic goes:

1. all integers are positive.
2. all numbers less than zero are integers.
----------------------------------------------------------
3. all numbers less than zero are positive.
Quite right. This is what I have been saying all along. Cogency is a matter of the formal validity of the argument, not of its truth. Your syllogism is valid (cogent) because it is properly constructed. Basic logic teaches us that an argument can be cogent and false. Your syllogism demonstrates this: It is cogent, but false (because premiss 1 is false).

here is the deception that you created (unintentionally, i'm sure):

you wrote:
It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).

however, your meaning here is not "an animal", but "any member of Animalia" ie "any animal" as you have now admitted above: [i]I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".
you see it doesn't just cause confusion - it becomes something totally different.
Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that anyone would interpret "an animal" to mean "a specific animal". I have never seen that meaning applied to the use of the indefinite article in this sort of context. I am astonished to think that anyone would find the language ambiguous. But, if you found my choice of terms confusing, then I am sorry for the confusion. I'll note that one down for future reference.

learningphysics

Dec11-04, 09:13 PM

OneEye, did you see my response #785? Waiting for your response. Thanks.

OneEye

Dec11-04, 09:27 PM

Quick question:

How many people think that the same criteria apply for actors and recipients of actions in moral considerations? In other words, do you use the same criteria to determine whether to apply ideas of ethics/morality to an individual's actions as you do to determine whether an individual should be treated ethically/morally?
(If I take your meaning correctly:)

This is, indeed, a very good point - and one which must be factored into any such discussion: One is obliged to act morally regardless whether the object of the action is a moral agent or not. I am not suggesting that one may treat an amoral object in immoral ways.

The question comes down to defining moral actions, specifically (in this case) with regard to human relations with other creatures.

However, the nature of the other ("object") creature does, indeed, impact this equation. For instance, a human is morally at liberty to act toward the dysentery amoeba or the tapeworm in ways which we might consider immoral when directed at, say, another human. And we all agree that humans may act toward nonsentient lives (e.g., plants) in ways which would be wrong when applied to humans. So, it is apparent that the nature of the object creature has a great impact on what we define as moral behavior when humans relate with non-human creatures.

The real struggle will come when we try to determine whose moral rules to apply in our interspecies relations - and why. It is well-observed that many animals eat other animals, and most of us agree that this is "their business". So in the broadest sense, nature offers us no direct guidance as to whether one animal eating another is moral or not - and the more one blurs the line between humanity and other animals, the less clear it becomes as to why man should abstain from an altogether natural practice.

One can say, (as you imply,) "Man should not treat animals according to any value system other than the human value system" - but problems arise when one considers this view (it seems somewhat arbitrary and "speciesist"), and even if we accept this statement uncritically, it still remains to be seen what is the "human value system" when it comes to human treatment of animals. It is apparent that humans have eaten animals for time immemorial. Why the human value system which prohibits the killing and eating of members of other species is to be preferred over the human value system which embraces an omnivorous or carnivorous diet remains to be seen.

So yes, this is an excellent clarifier. But unfortunately, it does not answer the question - nor does it take us as far down the road to answering it as it might first seem to.

OneEye

Dec11-04, 09:36 PM

OneEye, did you see my response #785? Waiting for your response. Thanks.
Very sorry. I didn't realize that it was on my plate! This, I assume, is what you want me to respond to:
"There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals".
I suppose that this statement is one of the clearest demonstrators of the contradiction I have been touting:

"There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals."
Omnivorous and carnivorous animals have the natural right to eat other animals.
Humans are omnivorous animals.
------------------------------------------------------------
Humans have the natural right to eat other animals.

I realize that you were trying to evade the man/animal dichotomy issue by this position statement. However, it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

I hope that I dealt with your position thoroughly.

physicsisphirst

Dec11-04, 11:06 PM

Never in my wildest dreams ...
just as long you and i have reached a mutual understanding about certain things, i'm happy to move on ;)

the "vegetarianism is healthier" view is almost always a Trojan horse for ethical vegetarianism.
this is a silly notion sometimes held by both anti-veg and anti-AR folk. the 'healthier than thou' veggies are by no means necessarily 'holier than thou' - they may wear leather and fur, may advocate animal research and circuses, and may detest AR as much as anyone. they are usually pretty right on about the benefits of veg though because they often research it quite extensively. interestingly enough, it should not be assumed that all AR activists are veg either, cause they ain't!

i think it's important to recognize that there are a lot of different people out there with different degrees of tolerances doing different things.

it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.
it doesn't disarm the AR position at all - you are assuming that humans are the only ones capable of niceness on the planet. you also assume that eating meat is human's natural and traditional diet.

in friendship,
prad

learningphysics

Dec11-04, 11:14 PM

Very sorry. I didn't realize that it was on my plate! This, I assume, is what you want me to respond to:

I suppose that this statement is one of the clearest demonstrators of the contradiction I have been touting:

"There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals."
Omnivorous and carnivorous animals have the natural right to eat other animals.
Humans are omnivorous animals.
------------------------------------------------------------
Humans have the natural right to eat other animals.

I realize that you were trying to evade the man/animal dichotomy issue by this position statement. However, it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

I hope that I dealt with your position thoroughly.

Not really. Now we have a problem the definition of natural rights... By natural rights, I'm simply referring to the right to happiness, the right to be free of pain, the right to survive... I'd never call the right to eat meat a natural right... for humans or animals. And neither would any animals rights rep...

"Humans can survive without meat therefore, they don't have the right to eat meat."

"Some animals can't survive without meat, therefore they have the right to eat meat."

The above two statements would be more in line with the animal rights position.

Did you see Dissident Dan's post? Natural rights are the most basic of rights and stem from foundations of ethics... ie:to be free of pain, to be happy etc...

Bin Qasim

Dec12-04, 07:24 PM

People who want to be vegans are fine with me. I don't bother them, and I expect them not to bother me.

same thing......... I won't bother them too........ btw I am non veg

Be Happy!

Dec12-04, 10:22 PM

I realize I've been absent for a day and have a lot to respond to, but for now I have only one thing:

Sangeeta, the argument that an cougar can't understand the morality of eating a deer, so its not wrong to do so has a pretty serious flaw: it has no basis in philosophy whatsoever. In fact, it goes directly against the existning philosophy of rights.

This isn't "right to kill" its "right to life." The right to life (if it applies) protects the deer from being killed - the motive or capacity to reason of the cougar is irrelevant.

Hi Russ!

I must say that I disagree with you. Morality applies when there are moral agents. Now, I will be the first to admit that non-human animals DO exhibit moral behaviors such as altruism, but just as you can't hold a small child responsible for their actions generally speaking (at least not in the same sense that you can hold an adult) one can't hold a non-human animal responsible for their actions.

If a pig killed a human, do we put the pig on trial? No! They may be capable of moral behavior to a certain degree, but certainly are not capable of thinking out morality in the same way as we do. (at least not as far as we know!)

A famous judge once said, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” Just because I can do something immoral to you, doesn’t mean that it negates your rights.
I certainly have a “right to life” but if a small child accidentally pulled a trigger and took away my life, the child’s inability to act/understand the consequences of her moral actions doesn’t negate my right to life. Just because my “right” has been violated, by the child’s actions doesn’t mean that child acted immorally as children are incapable of the same understanding and ability for moral fortitude…similarly you can’t hold a cougar responsible for his actions. This is a sound philosophical argument.

If the purpose of this discussion is to use the -it’s ok for an non-human animal to eat meat, therefore it is ok for a human animal to eat meat rationale, then I think it is a completely illogical parallel to make when you bring real life situations into the discussion. As I wrote before…a non-human animal in the wild eats meat for need, and there is no way to compare a wild lion’s eating habits to that of a human living in an apartment driving to go buy a carcass nicely wrapped in cellophane at the local grocery store.

So in this situation for example, non-human animals can’t be held morally accountable based on what I stated in the earlier post, but also due to their situation. The human’s situation is very very different, and if we are to try and draw philosophical parallels between the 2 scenarios in order to justify eating meat in general, then I think it is a very weak attempt.

So getting to your point now…

Various philosophical ideologies within the animal rights movement would have different ways of responding to your question. The ideology that I am most familiar with is utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, the idea is to minimize the overall suffering in the world. Yes, suffering no matter where or how, is bad…but what we can do to reduce it is what is the issue at hand.

**If a decision reduces overall suffering it is a moral decision… Again the label “moral” is ascribed for moral agents i.e. humans, but not non-human animals. If you pick up the animals rights “bible” Animal Liberation by Peter Singer (the foremost utilitarian philosopher), you will never see him calling a non-human animal’s actions moral or immoral because a) moral judgments can only be ascribed to moral agents and b) it is irrelevant to the ethical decisions made by humans.

This isn't "right to kill" its "right to life." The right to life (if it applies) protects the deer from being killed - the motive or capacity to reason of the cougar is irrelevant.

The whole concept of rights is a bit complicated. To say someone (a human or non-human animal) has a right, implies that the right can be enforced. I believe the concept of rights is most useful when it can be enforced by a group of individuals such as a government, a moral community, individual actions, etc. However, the real world is not always ideal. Therefore sometimes, we will say someone has a right, but it will not always be possible for everyone's rights to be fulfilled (at least not in the current world we live in).

You say the right to life "protects the deer from being killed." What I'm wondering is who is going to protect the deer from being killed by a lion? Are we to have people hiding in the woods at all times in order to stop deer from being eaten? Of course not! It is not practical that we do that, what is practical is to figure out what we can do in our own lives to reduce suffering in the world.

From the deer’s perspective of course she’d rather not be killed. She has a family, desire to live etc. But practically speaking all we can do when defining morality is to base it on the species we know best- ourselves. It does us no good to around condemning lions, it’s much more productive to look at our actions as it is much more relevant to us.

I am sure you do not draw you morality by the behavior of non-human animals, so why are you trying to do it here just to justify eating meat? If your argument stands, then it would be alright to do a lot of horrific things just because other non-human animals do it… non-human animals kill each other barbarically over territory- does this make gang warfare moral? Lioness’ have been known to eat their own babies, so does this make infanticide moral? Of course not! So, just because this argument seems to be a convenient excuse to justify eating meat, it does not make it a sound philosophical argument.

I think the point of ethics is not just to muse about things of interest, but they also serve to guide us into making decisions as to what we are to do and how we are to live in our lives. To reiterate, the most important thing we can do is to look at what we can do with our lives to reduce suffering in this world. This is what the prophets and saints throughout history have echoed for eons. We must change the world for the better with our lives, with our actions…Vegetarianism not only reduces suffering, it helps makes the planet a cleaner place for future generations and it helps humanity to be healthier. No matter how you look at it, vegetarianism is the moral answer for many of the atrocities of our times.

Sincerely,
Sangeeta

shrumeo

Dec12-04, 11:26 PM

well if your dog's diet is only meat-based then obviously there are things other than meat in it. hence, he really can't be allergic to these other things as you are trying to claim.
He can't have corn or wheat. These things make his skin flare up. He's allergic to them. He can have other grains like rice in his food, but he can't have wheat or corn.

Here's a vegetarian dog food. I'm sure a dog can do fine on it.
http://www.petsmart.com/global/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=84552444177 6316&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=2534374302023689&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302032929&bmUID=1102914506869
But, it's got vitamin supplements in it. I was looking at it the last time I was at Petsmart. It's got vitamin B12, which must be manufactured unless you get it naturally from an animal source (can't think of a plant source). There are sure to be a few more vitamins that must be manufactured or gotten from animal sources.

what a strange indicator of health! if you put some kids in front of an apple and candy, they may choose the candy first. i presume you weren't seriously expecting an answer to the question you asked though.
Yes, and kids also have that strange instinct of chasing animals smaller than them. It's what's meant to be. Dogs eat meat and should. You didn't think I'd take your lame kid and candy analogy seriously did you?

it is evident that you have not looked and refuse to look at the realities here. dogs do extremely well on veg diets and their coat and teeth flourish.
Only when they contain vitamin supplements that have been artificially manufactured or extracted from animal sources.

I don't know if anyone on this board has seen these:
http://www.themeatrix.com/
http://www.eatwellguide.org/
http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/map.htm
http://www.sustainabletable.org/intro/

shrumeo

Dec12-04, 11:30 PM

I never liked Aristotle.
I would compare him to Sigmund Freud.

And here is a website I came across, thought I would share.

http://ooze.com/pweeta/
http://ooze.com/pweeta/meat_movie.html (quicktime)

physicsisphirst

Dec13-04, 12:02 AM

Here's a vegetarian dog food. I'm sure a dog can do fine on it.
ya we tried the nature's recipe initially, but our dogs liked the natural life and the evolution more.

It's got vitamin B12, which must be manufactured unless you get it naturally from an animal source (can't think of a plant source).
some 'reliable' b12 plant sources (depending on who you talk to): Red Star T-6635+ nutritional yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), tempeh and miso (though some claim these contain only b12 analogues that interfere with b12 absorption), and sea vegetables (blue-green algae too), many organically grown plants (but in extremely small amounts).

Yes, and kids also have that strange instinct of chasing animals smaller than them. It's what's meant to be. Dogs eat meat and should. You didn't think I'd take your lame kid and candy analogy seriously did you?
well, you could try a little bit harder you know :D
kids actually tend to cuddle smaller animals not chase them - unless they see adults demonstrating or ratifying abusive behaviours.
dogs don't need to eat meat and are probably healthier for it (as many people have found once they actually try the alternative).

Only when they contain vitamin supplements that have been artificially manufactured or extracted from animal sources.
well i'm not suggesting that they be fed an iceberg lettuce diet, you know LOL
take a look at the meat-based dog food - you will find that they are supplemented too - and even include the goodies that's in agri-meat (the hormones, drugs, bacteria etc) as well as cat and dog parts (and more!):

Consider one word found on most pet food labels: by-products. Hundreds of rendering plants (known as the silent industry) produce over 8 billion tons each year containing:
Carcasses of pets (some with flea collars and containing sodium pentobarbital used for euthanasia).
Diseased livestock, some still wearing plastic ID tags, and filled with unwanted insecticides and pharmaceuticals.
Rotting supermarket rejects including plastic and Styrofoam packaging.
http://vegepet.com/

well, at least it would provide a diet with a remarkably wide variety :surprised

in friendship,
prad

JPD

Dec13-04, 10:02 AM

I thought I should ramble for a bit - I hope you don't mind.

I don't think that humans have 'rights'. There are, of course, many definitions of rights in this sense but the one I am looking at states that a right is 'a power, privilege, etc. that a person has or gets by law, nature, tradition, etc [the right of free speech]. The law often arrives too late, nature will provide if you are in the right environment at the right time, and as for tradition, well...........it is probably best not to place too much reliance there.

As far as feeding the dog is concerned, try letting the dog decide. Place a couple of bowls in front of him or her - one meat and one vegetarian - and see what happens. A dog may eat until it vomits but this is no worse than the behaviour of aristocrats from past centuries tucking into n to the power x course feasts.

There may be no actual answer to whether humans should eat meat but does it really matter? Those individuals who do will continue to do so, those who don't will continue not to (until they tuck into a plate of beef 10 years down the line because they can't stand it any longer), and so we are all happy. Especially when I see a vegetarian with meat juices dribbling down his/her chin.

OneEye

Dec13-04, 09:47 PM

physicsisphirst

Dec13-04, 11:48 PM

suffering no matter where or how, is bad?but what we can do to reduce it is what is the issue at hand.
...
the concept of rights is most useful when it can be enforced by a group of individuals such as a government, a moral community, individual actions, etc.
...
I am sure you do not draw you morality by the behavior of non-human animals, so why are you trying to do it here just to justify eating meat?
...
No matter how you look at it, vegetarianism is the moral answer for many of the atrocities of our times.

what an outstanding post, sangeeta!
you have dealt with several issues here and very effectively too
i like how you replied to the question regarding 'right to life' - it's something that i will certainly think about further due to your answer.

in friendship,
prad

JPD

Dec14-04, 06:54 AM

What this seems to be about if removal from blame. If you choose to not eat meat you have exercised your right (if such things exist) as an individual. Everyone will respect this by not forcing you to eat meat. By the same token, I eat meat and will continue to do so, regardless of half-baked moral arguments and the objectives of others to spread their rose-tinted spectacle vision of life on earth to everyone else. I don't even care if I should or not - I enjoy the texture and flavour. If a vegetarian or vegan doesn't like the fact that I eat meat, too bad. I don't force you to eat meat, you can't force or persuade me to give it up. This argument has gone round in circles for a whole year with the same base issues and small embelishments from time to time which have little impact.

russ_watters

Dec14-04, 10:41 AM

Hi Russ!

I must say that I disagree with you. Morality applies when there are moral agents. Now, I will be the first to admit that non-human animals DO exhibit moral behaviors such as altruism, but just as you can't hold a small child responsible for their actions generally speaking (at least not in the same sense that you can hold an adult) one can't hold a non-human animal responsible for their actions.

...I certainly have a “right to life” but if a small child accidentally pulled a trigger and took away my life, the child’s inability to act/understand the consequences of her moral actions doesn’t negate my right to life. Just because my “right” has been violated, by the child’s actions doesn’t mean that child acted immorally as children are incapable of the same understanding and ability for moral fortitude…similarly you can’t hold a cougar responsible for his actions. But that's exactly the point: a very small child is incapable of understanding the morality of his/her actions, but that does not make those actions moral. The capacity to understand the actions affects the punishment or response to the immoral act, but does not effect the morality of the act itself. And you can be sure that one way or another, someone will try to correct the immoral behavior of the child. Similarly, if a cougar kills a person, you can bet someone will "correct" (kill) it. And if its immoral for a person to kill an animal, it also must be immoral for an animal to kill an animal.

So that's why my question is: should we try to correct the immoral actions of animals? Various philosophical ideologies within the animal rights movement would have different ways of responding to your question. The ideology that I am most familiar with is utilitarianism. In utilitarianism, the idea is to minimize the overall suffering in the world. Yes, suffering no matter where or how, is bad…but what we can do to reduce it is what is the issue at hand. I'm very happy you brought that up - that was my next point: I probably cause the deaths of 10-20 animals (vertibrates) a year due to my eating habits. A bald eagle kills hundreds of fish a year. Therefore, the moral thing to do based on the utilitarian principle would be for me to wipe-out the bald eagle population to prevent the deaths of those hundreds of fish. Its win-win: I'd still get to eat meat (only preditors) and I'd save the lives of those hundreds of fish. The whole concept of rights is a bit complicated. To say someone (a human or non-human animal) has a right, implies that the right can be enforced. I believe the concept of rights is most useful when it can be enforced by a group of individuals such as a government, a moral community, individual actions, etc. However, the real world is not always ideal. Therefore sometimes, we will say someone has a right, but it will not always be possible for everyone's rights to be fulfilled (at least not in the current world we live in).

You say the right to life "protects the deer from being killed." What I'm wondering is who is going to protect the deer from being killed by a lion? Are we to have people hiding in the woods at all times in order to stop deer from being eaten? Of course not! It is not practical that we do that, what is practical is to figure out what we can do in our own lives to reduce suffering in the world. Give me a rifle and some ammo and I will protect those deer from those lions. Sound good?

edit: regarding enforcement, no, the ability to enforce a right does not affect whether that right exists. Rights are a philosophical concept and exist independently of the practical problem of protecting them. In fact, if the inability to protect rights meant that those rights didn't exist, I could use that as a defense for any crime! "Your honor, the fact that I killed the victim means that he never had the right to live in the first place." I am sure you do not draw you morality by the behavior of non-human animals, so why are you trying to do it here just to justify eating meat? If your argument stands, then it would be alright to do a lot of horrific things just because other non-human animals do it… non-human animals kill each other barbarically over territory- does this make gang warfare moral? Lioness’ have been known to eat their own babies, so does this make infanticide moral? Of course not! So, just because this argument seems to be a convenient excuse to justify eating meat, it does not make it a sound philosophical argument. My point here is that it makes just as little sense to apply animal morality to humans as human morality to animals. Animal rights activists want it both ways (or halfway?). In fact, I have argued that morality is a concept that doesn't even apply to animals at all: it was created by humans for humans to govern how to treat humans.

learningphysics

Dec14-04, 10:54 AM

So that's why my question is: should we try to correct the immoral actions of animals?

Yes, when possible.

russ_watters

Dec14-04, 10:56 AM

Yes, when possible. Great! So you're going to let me hunt bald eagles?

theriddler876

Dec14-04, 11:15 AM

learningphysics

Dec14-04, 11:16 AM

Great! So you're going to let me hunt bald eagles?

If the world has less suffering with the bald eagle extinct, then yes, I'll let you hunt them, but I'd make sure you hunted them so that they died painlessly. The method of killing them needs to be painless.

OneEye

Dec14-04, 11:59 AM

russ_watters

Dec14-04, 12:49 PM

Wow. This is where the logic (of the ARs) leads, but I never expected to get here.

Well, I'm off to go kill abortion doctors and bald eagles. Anyone wanna come?

shrumeo

Dec14-04, 12:53 PM

some 'reliable' b12 plant sources (depending on who you talk to): Red Star T-6635+ nutritional yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), tempeh and miso (though some claim these contain only b12 analogues that interfere with b12 absorption), and sea vegetables (blue-green algae too), many organically grown plants (but in extremely small amounts).
Yeast isn't a plant, but that's ok. So to get my RDA of B12 I'd have to eat a certain kind of yeast(is this a common yeast I can buy at the store and cook bread with?), risk interfering with actual B12 by eating certain japanese foods (that I might not like), live near the sea, or eat lovely blue-green algea (mmmm), or eat a ton of organically grown veggies, or just EAT MEAT and not worry about it.

well, you could try a little bit harder you know :D
kids actually tend to cuddle smaller animals not chase them - unless they see adults demonstrating or ratifying abusive behaviours.
dogs don't need to eat meat and are probably healthier for it (as many people have found once they actually try the alternative).
You mean when they become weak and anemic from B12 deficiency?
What about Iron? It's less readily absorbed when it comes from plants. Eh, but it's still absorbed isn't it?

And DERP, I was being sarcastic. Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.

well i'm not suggesting that they be fed an iceberg lettuce diet, you know LOL
take a look at the meat-based dog food - you will find that they are supplemented too - and even include the goodies that's in agri-meat (the hormones, drugs, bacteria etc) as well as cat and dog parts (and more!):
Oh, I have no problem with it being supplemented, or that it contains meat.
I just figured you might have a problem with the thought that dogs (and humans) can't thrive without certain vitamins that NATURALLY come from animals sources so NATURALLY we are intended to eat these things. I would just like you to admit that a vegan diet is not natural for dogs (or even humans, but you don't have to admit that just yet.)

Consider one word found on most pet food labels: by-products. Hundreds of rendering plants (known as the silent industry) produce over 8 billion tons each year containing:
Carcasses of pets (some with flea collars and containing sodium pentobarbital used for euthanasia).
Diseased livestock, some still wearing plastic ID tags, and filled with unwanted insecticides and pharmaceuticals.
Rotting supermarket rejects including plastic and Styrofoam packaging.
http://vegepet.com/
well, at least it would provide a diet with a remarkably wide variety :surprised:
That's why I don't feed my dog Kibbles & Bits.
And I used to work at a vet and one of the doctors would use pentobarbital as a sedative and an anesthetic. If you double the dose, it kills them. This is an outdated practice, but really, if an animal eats trace amounts of it, I don't see any harmful effects. Over 10 years, who knows. I'm not trying to excuse it. The fact that it's in there is bad, and that's why I don't feed my dog cheap crap.

But this place wants to sell you their dog food so they'll try to scare you into it. But just because most commercial dog foods aren't good for dogs doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is good for them either.
I like this page: http://www.weim.net/riley/raw2.htm
where it says:
Corn meal or other grain products are the first ingredients in many brands of dry dog food because "carbohydrates provide an economical source of energy in the diet of dogs," 3 not because it is necessarily good for them.
...
Dogs cannot digest some substances in grains as well as other plant materials.

I was trying to look up the ingredients in VegDog and it kinda tells you here:
http://vegepet.com/vdoginstr.pdf
I love this line:
Wolves and wild dogs eat uncooked food,
intact with vital enzymes.

Yeah, they eat uncooked MEAT.

I'm looking at these recipes too, and I can tell my dog would not eat most of this. He turns his nose up at most biscuits and most of this stuff is going to come out buscuit-like. My dog would just not eat oats, lentils, or garbonzos, and he certainly wouldn't eat shredded carrots, as the guide suggests you add to the food. Honestly when he doesn't like a food, he starves himself rather than eat the food. But, he;s more than happy to share some of my turkey sandwich (sans bread, which he spits out).

learningphysics

Dec14-04, 12:57 PM

Wow. This is where the logic (of the ARs) leads, but I never expected to get here.

Well, I'm off to go kill abortion doctors and bald eagles. Anyone wanna come?

A bizarre reaction!! Hunting fish, chicken... all ok... but kill bald eagles... big no no???

russ_watters

Dec14-04, 01:02 PM

A bizarre reaction!! Hunting fish, chicken... all ok... but kill bald eagles... big no no??? Bald eagles are (were?) endangered. The majority position is that while its ok to eat for food, it isn't ok to wipe a species off the face of the earth.

shrumeo

Dec14-04, 01:03 PM

Question: Did the cat do the right thing?
The cat did A thing. A thing that it does instinctually. Is it right or wrong?
Well, the cat is no longer hungry, so it was right for the cat.

Corollary: Did I?

Since you didn't interfere with the cat having his meal then good for you.
What were you supposed to do? Take the mouse away and do CPR, then go make the cat a veggie burger? That's being inhumane to the cat, who would likely starve rather than eat vegetables.

learningphysics

Dec14-04, 01:06 PM

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions. But a thought occurred to me: If the goal is to decrease the total suffering in the world, and we are allowed to kill in order to achieve this - then we need only wipe the earth completely clean of all life forms. No suffering! (Schopenhauer, anyone?)

A couple of things to consider here... the suffering involved in eliminating of all life... and existence after biological death... reincarnation etc... It is not certain that life can be eliminated.

So if the goal is to reduce overall suffering long-term... then perhaps killing off all life on earth won't do it... The Eastern religions believe in reincarnation and have the goal of preventing reincarntion and obtain a "nirvana" state.

If one accepts that the life in this world is all there is and all life can be eliminated with little suffering, then yes, it seems like a logical conclusion. May sound ridiculous... I personally think Schopenhauer was right.

russ_watters

Dec14-04, 01:25 PM

...and this is why the "right to life" is not based on the absence of suffering.

DaveC426913

Dec14-04, 06:21 PM

"But I can't see the diference between eating a steak and killing a shark."

Farm animals are kept in check artificially, and so their numbers will not directly impact the ecology.

I will however point out a major difference between eating shark and eating, say, cod.

Cod are prey animals. Their survival method is to live and breed by the millions. Harvesting cod has a relatively small effect on their population.

Sharks are predators. Like most predators, they tend to be outnumbered by their prey hundreds or thousands to one. And like most predators, they also breed relatively rarely, a few young a year.

Killing a single shark has an effect on the ecology hundreds or thousands of times larger than killing an equivalent weight in cod. It does not take very many sharks to be removed from the ecosystem before their numbers drop too low to be able to propogate their species.

Lesson for ethical eaters: when you go to a restaurant, avoid - and encourage your friends to avoid - predatory fish: shark, and swordfish being the most popular.

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec14-04, 06:23 PM

As I was kneeling beside the Briggs engine in the equipment shed, a medium-sized black cat came out from somewhere in the dim rearward portions of the building. It mewed cheerfully, and with only a little hesitation, came up to me and let me pet it. I did this for a minute, the cat and me both enjoying ourselves, and then I went back to work. And so did the cat.

A half hour passed, but suddenly, while I was gapping the points, the cat reappeared. I didn't look at it immediately, but I could tell by its short, insistent mews that something was up. Once I had verified the point gap, I looked up in the cat's direction. Sure enough, he had a rodent (a mouse, probably, but maybe a vole) in his mouth. He was pretty excited about this, and when he saw that I was looking, he dropped the mouse on the floor and mewed at me, asking for approval.

"Good kitty," I said, as I toed the dead rodent with my right foot. I spent only a second at this (in fact, I do not enjoy looking at dead mice), then went back to work. The cat did the expected: He brought the mouse over to me, hunkered down by the wire roller frame, and quickly gorged the mouse down. He left nary a whisker.

Question: Did the cat do the right thing?
Corollary: Did I?

This may seem to be a pointless tangent, but it actually is crucial information. If you answer my questions, please also identify whether you are an animal rights advocate, a vegetarian, a meat eater, or anti-animal rights.

I'm a vegetarian who believes animal rights issues have different answers depending on the situation. Most animals are not equal to humans, but some could be equal or superior. My dog certainlly does more for society than the average serial killer. My dog greets my family at the door and puts a smile on someone's face daily.

The cat was acting from a cat's perspective. If you look at morals as products of evolution you can argue that the cat can't logically comphrend what it did wrong. My knowledge of cat psychology is non-existant, so the question is a bit difficult to answer.

What I'm discerning as the theme of your question is "Should humans go out of their way to save animals?" Well, what will these animals do for society if we save them? Certainly the benefit of meat-eating are insignificant compared to what those animals could provide living - joy for environmentalists, environmental enrichment.

In the instance of a human we should go out of our way because we can ask, "Would the human have the potential to realize what we did and repay us?" The answer is yes. An animal might be saved from a fire and claw the face of the hero who saved it. Animals are beautiful in their own way and people enjoy them, they do not need to be killed. Despite this, animals deserve some fundamental rights; it is only when they interfere with humanity that we need to do something.

Concerning the cat killing the mouse: it is probably more efficient if animals continue killing each other, at least until they evolve. I believe animals would prefer to be left alone in the wild with predators rather than to be fully controlled by society for their own protection. The cat did something wrong logically, but not from its perspective.

Did you do the right thing? Logically I would say you didn't. Realistically because of the cats intellectual weakness the issue probably has little significance. Since the cat is integrated into society, if it can be trained not to kill, that is what should be done.

My thoughts on these issues change, and the topic is complex; however, I stand by my vegetarianism. There are two choices:

Meat-Eating

1. To kill animals for meat;therefore, the contributions that animal could have made are eliminated.
2. To eat a product that is unhealthier than alternative lifestyles.
3. To choose to kill.
4. To enjoy the taste of meat - the only positive.
5. To contribute to an illogical method of dealing with hunger that, if it was stopped earlier, could've resulting in a vegetarian farming industry that is capable of feeding more individuals.

Vegetarianism

1. To eat healthy foods.
2. To not rely on gluttony as a futile attempt to provide self-fufillment.
3. To not cause the death of an animal; therefore, to gain the benefits that animal could provide in other ways.
4. To help bring the world closer to fighting starvation.
5. To condemn the beliefs of illogical religions bringing the world closer to a more logical conclusion.
6. To gain a feeling of pride for upholding a belief that you believe is morally superior.

And so on...

Note: I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I someone took offense to my comments. Also, I did not have time to check my spelling and grammar thoroughly, so please excuse my worse than usually punctuation.

JPD

Dec15-04, 06:31 AM

Dooga

The presumed moral superiority is exactly what winds me up about vegetarians and vegans.
Please show evidence for your assertion that eating meat is unhealthier than alternative lifestyles. There is something else that winds me up about vegetarians and vegans - state the evidence and let that stand on its own.
An 'alternative lifestyle' is meaningless - its like saying 'I'm on a diet'.

russ_watters

Dec15-04, 07:53 AM

This is a little OT, but its my fault for alluding to it: Lesson for ethical eaters: when you go to a restaurant, avoid - and encourage your friends to avoid - predatory fish: shark, and swordfish being the most popular. I'm not sure I buy the argument that we should avoid making other species extinct (though, for now, I accept it and follow it). I'm just not sure what its based on. Is it ecology? Is it simply a matter of keeping pretty/interesting/tasty animals alive so our kids can see them at the zoo and eat them?

Maybe thats a topic for another thread....

russ_watters

Dec15-04, 08:17 AM

Note: I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I apologize if I someone took offense to my comments. Also, I did not have time to check my spelling and grammar thoroughly, so please excuse my worse than usually punctuation. No, its actually very reasonable, well thought out opinion. But I have one criticism: There are two choices:

Meat-Eating

1. To kill animals for meat;therefore, the contributions that animal could have made are eliminated.
2. To eat a product that is unhealthier than alternative lifestyles.
3. To choose to kill.
4. To enjoy the taste of meat - the only positive.
5. To contribute to an illogical method of dealing with hunger that, if it was stopped earlier, could've resulting in a vegetarian farming industry that is capable of feeding more individuals.

Vegetarianism

1. To eat healthy foods.
2. To not rely on gluttony as a futile attempt to provide self-fufillment.
3. To not cause the death of an animal; therefore, to gain the benefits that animal could provide in other ways.
4. To help bring the world closer to fighting starvation.
5. To condemn the beliefs of illogical religions bringing the world closer to a more logical conclusion.
6. To gain a feeling of pride for upholding a belief that you believe is morally superior.

And so on... That's your list, from the perspective of a vegitarian. Most are opinions, but I have some issues with some of the implied facts: First and foremost, while it is true that in practice vegitarians eat healthier than meat-eaters, the reson is that it takes more effort to eat healthy as a vegitarian - which in turn means that it is inherrently less healthy to be a vegitarian. Meat isn't iced cream: while if you simply stop eating iced cream and make no other changes to your diet, you will see only positive effects on your health, if you simply stop eating meat and make no other changes to your diet, you will see both positive and negative effects on your health. If, instead of turning vegitarian, that effort were put into eating healthier meat, those positives can still be realized.

Regarding "contributions" - as already discussed, the contribution factor is negligible with most meats.

Regarding gluttony: gluttony does not factor in to this discussion. Most gluttons I know eat more potato chips and candy than meat. Ie, the meat isn't driving the gluttony.

And finally: Dooga

The presumed moral superiority is exactly what winds me up about vegetarians and vegans. As I said in a political argument last night: if people didn't think their opinions were morally superior to the other side, they'd hold the other side's opinion. This is a useless tautology and should not have been included on Dooga's list.

I eat meat for three basic reasons:
1. I like the taste
2. I can eat a balanced meal without thinking about how to make it a balanced meal.
3. I work out and need (want) extra protein in my diet - and protein shakes are disgusting.

OneEye

Dec15-04, 12:04 PM

I personally think Schopenhauer was right.

Oh, my!

For those who haven't studied up on their Victorian German philosophers: Schopenhauer was a confirmed pessismist who came to the conclusion that it was mankind's moral duty to refuse to breed and thus extinguish the human species. Some modern animal rights activists call man a "virus" on the environment (implying that the world would be better off if the human race was extincted). Schopenhauer, by way of contrast, resented the "cruel trick" which nature played in pairing a handsome young man and vivacious young woman together, only to see their beauty wane after the goal of procreation was effected. Schopenhauer's solution to this situation was to refuse to participate - and he believed that all mankind should go along with this plan as a protest against the unfairness of the universe. (Personally, I think that he was just upset because he couldn't get a date on a Friday night - but what do I know?)

Basically, we have reached the Theravadic solution: Existence=suffering, so suffering must be ended through nonexistence. Some in the discussion may find this "fundamentalist Buddhist" idea appealing. But most of us, I think, are not pessimists.

(As a side note: One wonders how Buddhism and other reincarnationist scemes deal with the possibility of universal extinction of all species? Obviously, the law of karma would be frustrated, and the universalist tendencies of Buddhism would be upset. Hmmmm.)

Anyway, I would say that this is definitely the extreme view: That complete extermination of all life could be seen as an ideal solution.

Dr. Filostrato, are you out there?

physicsisphirst

Dec15-04, 01:26 PM

So to get my RDA of B12 I'd have to eat a certain kind of yeast(is this a common yeast I can buy at the store and cook bread with?), risk interfering with actual B12 by eating certain japanese foods (that I might not like), live near the sea, or eat lovely blue-green algea (mmmm), or eat a ton of organically grown veggies, or just EAT MEAT and not worry about it.
LOL - you don't have to go to all that trouble and you don't do the bread thing with nutritional yeast (check it out at your local healthfood store). don't be so sure that eating meat saves you either:
Almost 40% of the U.S. population is deficient in vitamin B12 according to a recent study from Tufts University in Boston and a vast majority of them are completely unaware.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/27/vitamin_b12_deficiency.htm
now surely 40% of the population isn't strict vegetarian LOL
(and of course there is the usual stuff at the bottom about strict veggies going blind and suffering brain damage as a result this b12 thing - that's sort of mandatory)
(i thought we were talking about dogs anyway!)

Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.
does your dog chase, catch and eat the dogfood you provide?
i agree though that most dogs do like to chase and that, at least in the wild, they are 'taught' how to kill and then eat what they catch (by the parents).

I just figured you might have a problem with the thought that dogs (and humans) can't thrive without certain vitamins that NATURALLY come from animals sources so NATURALLY we are intended to eat these things. I would just like you to admit that a vegan diet is not natural for dogs (or even humans, but you don't have to admit that just yet.)
there is little point in 'admitting' something that isn't even remotely correct (besides, you need to qualify just what you mean by 'natural'). as i have shown you in earlier posts, humans do not handle animal proteins in any form particularly well. if you look at their physiology you see why. dogs are true omnivores, but that also means that they don't need meat (as you keep insisting) and this has been shown for quite some time.

But this place wants to sell you their dog food so they'll try to scare you into it.
well they aren't the only ones who say so. it seems to be a reality that makes usual additives look tame.

But just because most commercial dog foods aren't good for dogs doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is good for them either.
agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec15-04, 01:50 PM

Dooga
The presumed moral superiority is exactly what winds me up about vegetarians and vegans.
but you can associate with them and never, ever have the slightest fear of being eaten!

in fiendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec15-04, 01:58 PM

it is probably more efficient if animals continue killing each other, at least until they evolve.
that is a fascinating perspective and in many ways, it makes some very real sense. (some nice stuff in that post too!)

it also explains wars perhaps to some extent - is it possible that humans are doomed to fight with each other (and the rest of the planet) until they evolve further? (remember that's what roddenberry's vulcans did - and historically, it seems that humans may be on that same path).

peaceful co-existence with minimal infliction of harm to other beings may be what evolution is about. as shangri-la's father perrault said to conway in lost horizon: "when the strong have devoured each other, the meek shall truly inherit the earth."

in friendship,
prad

russ_watters

Dec15-04, 02:31 PM

Anyway, I would say that this is definitely the extreme view: That complete extermination of all life could be seen as an ideal solution. Not only extreme, but it has no basis in western philosophy (I don't know much of Buddha): "right to life" in western philosophy is a positive thing. It has nothing to do with suffering.

OneEye

Dec15-04, 05:48 PM

agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL

I guess the next logical question (for your line of thought as well as for mine is,) What gives you the right to tell your dog what to eat? More exactly, the question is not whether you should choose your dog's diet (which I do for mine, of course), but why you should not feed the dog a diet more to its taste, and consistent with its natural diet (i.e., the diet the dog would eat if you weren't around to feed it)?

You seem quite presumptuous in foisting your moral ideas off on your dog. You have already taken over the management of its life, and now you are managing its life in a fashion which is completely un-doggy. You are not allowing the dog to eat according to its scruples. Rather, you are forcing your morality on the dog. Are you so superior to your dog that you have some sort of natural right to do this?

Too bad the dog can't get a lawyer!

OneEye

Dec15-04, 05:56 PM

Not only extreme, but it has no basis in western philosophy (I don't know much of Buddha): "right to life" in western philosophy is a positive thing. It has nothing to do with suffering.
Well, there have been pessimistic philosophers over the years. One thinks, of course, of Schopenhauer, and then of the Existentialists, and then of the Dadaists. And the current state of the animal rights movement either condemns mankind as a scourge on the earth or subordinates human interests to those of all other species, thus demoting man to nature's lowest caste. So I wouldn't say that this pessimistic strain is altogether unknown in Western philosophy.

In fact, I would say that such pessimism is the ultimate bottoming out of any philosophy which begins with a naturalistic/humanistic position. But most people prefer not to dive down to the bottom, but rather to merely skim the surface, so long as self interest can be served.

physicsisphirst

Dec15-04, 11:21 PM

What gives you the right to tell your dog what to eat?
why you should not feed the dog a diet more to its taste, and consistent with its natural diet (i.e., the diet the dog would eat if you weren't around to feed it)?
...
Too bad the dog can't get a lawyer!

so are you asking me or telling me? please clarify.

in friendship,
prad

hitssquad

Dec15-04, 11:47 PM

why you should not feed the dog a diet more to its tasteIndeed.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22dog+eating+poo%22

JPD

Dec16-04, 05:38 AM

but you can associate with them and never, ever have the slightest fear of being eaten!

in fiendship,
prad

I shall do my utmost to return the compliment.

OneEye

Dec16-04, 09:52 AM

so are you asking me or telling me? please clarify.

in friendship,
prad

I am asking you: On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog - a moral perspective which the dog evidently does not share?

This may seem like a casual objection, but it is actually a key demonstration of my ongoing thesis.

physicsisphirst

Dec16-04, 02:25 PM

I shall do my utmost to return the compliment.
now that's evolution in action!

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec16-04, 02:40 PM

I am asking you: On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog - a moral perspective which the dog evidently does not share?

This may seem like a casual objection, but it is actually a key demonstration of my ongoing thesis.
well i thought i had a reasonable idea what your thesis appears to be, but i don't understand what you are up to here.
you were the one campaigning for animal-lack-of-awareness and now, suddenly, you show concern for my dog's moral perspective?

additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'? why would you assume that i don't give my dog meat because i want him to be a 'moral' dog in this life - and possibly acquire better karma so in his next life he could be a pig? an elephant? an eagle? or whatever you'd like to conjure up, oneeye!

(i have to admit though that hitsquad's 'dog eating poo' revelations have been a real eyeopener! i am starting to feel as if i have been negligent in some way since my dogs can wander our rather large yard and goodness knows what they might find succulent - away from my astute observation. i should really have a father to dog talk with them just so they know that certain activities are not in their best interests in our natural world!)

if you really do want to know why i don't feed meat to my dog (there are 2 doggies, btw), reread my earlier posts or just ask me (and i'll tell you to reread my earlier posts) and you'll get a pretty good idea.

in friendship,
prad

russ_watters

Dec16-04, 03:38 PM

....additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'? Um, because we've been discussing the morality of eating meat for about two weeks now....

shrumeo

Dec16-04, 03:53 PM

This is a little OT, but its my fault for alluding to it: I'm not sure I buy the argument that we should avoid making other species extinct (though, for now, I accept it and follow it). I'm just not sure what its based on. Is it ecology? Is it simply a matter of keeping pretty/interesting/tasty animals alive so our kids can see them at the zoo and eat them?

Maybe thats a topic for another thread....
I think the point is that we don't know the impact of causing the extinction of a species so we'd better play it safe and not do it. And then, if we stop ourselves from causing the extinction of one species, we might head off any unconscious attempts to wipe out whole lots of species.

shrumeo

Dec16-04, 04:18 PM

LOL - you don't have to go to all that trouble and you don't do the bread thing with nutritional yeast (check it out at your local healthfood store). don't be so sure that eating meat saves you either:
Almost 40% of the U.S. population is deficient in vitamin B12 according to a recent study from Tufts University in Boston and a vast majority of them are completely unaware.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/27/vitamin_b12_deficiency.htm
now surely 40% of the population isn't strict vegetarian LOL
(and of course there is the usual stuff at the bottom about strict veggies going blind and suffering brain damage as a result this b12 thing - that's sort of mandatory)
(i thought we were talking about dogs anyway!)
We were talking about humans and dogs. But if we are talking about dogs then I know my dog wouldn't eat yeast, or shellfish, or (can you beleive it) blue green algea.

So what if 40% of the US is B12 deficient. That means they aren't eating enough meat!

Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.
does your dog chase, catch and eat the dogfood you provide?
i agree though that most dogs do like to chase and that, at least in the wild, they are 'taught' how to kill and then eat what they catch (by the parents).
Huh? Just because I feed my dog an artificial dog food doesn't mean that his instincts have been taken away. He still chases squirrels and chipmunks in the backyard all the time. I don't think his mom showed him what to do with them, so he just chases them. He never catches them anyway.

I never see my dog chasing oats and carrots though.

there is little point in 'admitting' something that isn't even remotely correct (besides, you need to qualify just what you mean by 'natural'). as i have shown you in earlier posts, humans do not handle animal proteins in any form particularly well. if you look at their physiology you see why. dogs are true omnivores, but that also means that they don't need meat (as you keep insisting) and this has been shown for quite some time.
I need to qualify natural? I need to define it for you?
Where do you get this crap about humans not handling animal proteins well?
The only non-animal source that even remotely gives you the proper balance of amino acids is soy, and most of the time it comes with estrogen analogs that might not be so good for you.
Look, I could be cruel to my dog and feed him oats and hay and tell him that he doesn't "need" meat, but isn't that going against his rights? Doesn't he have the right to life and liberty? Doesn't he have the right to eat meat if he prefers that and it's better for him?

When I say something is natural, I mean the dictionary definition of biologically natural:
"Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned"
and just to clear up artificial:
"Made by humans; produced rather than natural."
From http://www.dictionary.com/

agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL
NEWS FLASH!! Meat bad for dogs! Vegetable good for dogs!
Total horsecrap.

Ah! Here is a good page:
http://www.goodpet.com/library/recipes.html
Dogs and cats evolved eating a raw meat diet. That is a fact. Through marketing, the pet food companies have convinced us that the only way our pets can stay healthy is by feeding them the “balanced diet” that they themselves manufacture - mostly from cheap filler grains and very questionable protein sources.

Along with the following recipe ideas, both cats and dogs can (and should) be given raw bones (chicken or turkey necks, wings and backs). Bones must be given raw, cooked bones should NEVER be fed, since when cooked they become brittle and can splinter.
You'll be pleased to know that they even recommend that 25% of the diet be vegetable. Even though, in the wild, the only veggies cats and dogs ever eat is grass to help them poo.

Heres more:
What other clues do we have that grains are not necessary for carnivores?
1) Dogs and cats do not have dietary requirements for complex carbohydrates.
2) Grains must be cooked or sprouted and thoroughly chewed to be digested Carnivores do not chew much at all.
3) The other nutrients in grains are readily available from other dietary ingredients. For example, B-vitamins are found in organ meats and trace minerals come from bones and vegetables. (Unfortunately, modern farming has striped many trace minerals from produce and supplementation is usually best.)

What are the negative effects? I believe that carnivores cannot maintain long-term production of the quantity of amylase enzyme necessary to properly digest and utilize the carbohydrates. In addition, the proteins in grains are less digestive than animal proteins. As a result, the immune system becomes irritated and weakened by the invasion of foreign, non-nutritive protein and carbohydrate particles. Allergies and other chronic immune problems may develop.
This is the problem my dog developed before I realized that he shouldn't eat these things, for some reason rice is ok. And this is what I mean when I say that a vegan diet IS NOT NATURAL for dogs (or cats).

shrumeo

Dec16-04, 05:20 PM

Just a couple of links:

http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm

Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her diet and was also mostly a vegetarian.

MYTH #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. While lacto and lacto-ovo vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy products and eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not.

Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 naturally; they are always fortified from an outside source.

There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not bioavailable (13). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency (14).

http://www.reallyhealthy.com/articles/ap-stephenbyrnes.html
A Response to Stephen Byrnes’ article: "The Myths of Vegetarianism"

I know vegetarians who seem distinctly unhealthy: pale faced, weak and unable to concentrate. I also know meat-eaters that are equally unhealthy: red-faced, gasping for air and with high cholesterol. Stereotypes for sure! There are also both vegetarians and meat-eaters who are very healthy—like Byrnes himself who looks the picture of health! That said, statistically, vegetarians are healthier than meat-eaters and there is, contrary to what Byrnes tells us, much supporting evidence for this.

There are way more people that are "meat eaters" than are vegetarians.
People who become vegetarians are statistically much more likely to care about exactly what they are eating
(that's how they became vegetarians).
Therefore, because these people took the time out of their day to think about what they eat, statistically, they will be healthier.
But, where is the study comparing diet-mindful vegetarians with diet-mindful "meat-eaters" (who are vegetarians that also eat some meat)?
Byrnes’ article is very useful to the vegetarian community because it reiterates the fact that just because a diet is vegetarian doesn’t automatically mean it healthy—an assumption that has seen many a healthy omnivore turn into an unhealthy vegetarian.

While this author keeps referring to the other's bias, aren't they both biased and doesn't it look like too many people have something to gain (financially) from winning or appearing to win this argument?

Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

I agree with Byrnes on this one: it is essential for all vegans to include a B12 food supplement in their diets (these supplements are made from bacterial cultures and so can be taken by vegans). There is some evidence that certain foods like Klamath Blue Green Algae contain available (non-analogue) B12, and that this vitamin can be manufactured by intestinal flora and that it might be in the soil residues, but it is dangerous to rely on these sources for such an essential vitamin (although many people have and with fair results). The risks are too great not to supplement. Byrnes last statement that vegans a few decades ago would have died as they did not have supplements or fortified foods is not true as veganism is not a modern invention!

Anyway, this whole thread was about the morality of eating meat. We keep talking about the nutritional aspects of meat vs. non-meat. But, the nutritional benefits that meats provide is a clue that we are naturally inclined to eat it, so it is not immoral to merely eat meat. What I consider immoral (what I stated in my first post on this thread) is the way that we treat food animals in the name of maximizing profit (and keeping the cost down for us, the consumers). This is a question of our luxury vs. the animals right to a pleasant existence. IMO, I don't think that animals should be treated inhumanely just so we can support a huge population of fat slobs.

OneEye

Dec16-04, 10:02 PM

I think the point is that we don't know the impact of causing the extinction of a species so we'd better play it safe and not do it. And then, if we stop ourselves from causing the extinction of one species, we might head off any unconscious attempts to wipe out whole lots of species.
But... If any number of species have already been extincted - and if most species were extincted because of competition pressures - and if earth is currently experiencing an extraordinary surfeit of species - then is it really wrong if one species (man) out-competes any number of other species?

It certainly would be natural.

OneEye

Dec16-04, 10:05 PM

Anyway, this whole thread was about the morality of eating meat. We keep talking about the nutritional aspects of meat vs. non-meat. But, the nutritional benefits that meats provide is a clue that we are naturally inclined to eat it, so it is not immoral to merely eat meat. What I consider immoral (what I stated in my first post on this thread) is the way that we treat food animals in the name of maximizing profit (and keeping the cost down for us, the consumers). This is a question of our luxury vs. the animals right to a pleasant existence. IMO, I don't think that animals should be treated inhumanely just so we can support a huge population of fat slobs.

Two thoughts: First, as I have said before, the "healthy vegetarianism" apologetic is usually just a Trojan horse for the "ethical vegetarian" view. I don't mind people taking the ethical vegetarian view, but I deplore those who disguise their ethical vegetarian views with the "vegetarianism is healthier" smokescreen.

Second, I live in a ranching area, and I have helped some of the cattlemen and hog farmers out here do some of their work (though I am not a rancher or farmer myself). Honestly, I am not seeing the sort of maltreatment which is alleged by vegans. When I lived in the city, I had no facts at hand to answer the animal rights people. But now, I have access to a great deal more information. Mind you, I am not saying that any of the ranchers out here give much thought to treating these animals in a humanitarian fashion. But this is because they see the animals as being creatures whose purpose is to serve as a food supply - and not as fellow humans!

I agree that animals ought not to be subjected to cruelty. But one of the problems with this sort of discussion is that, while you and I may say, "Food animals must be killed as humanely as possible," an animal rights activist will usually say, "Killing an animal is inherently inhumane." When PETA complains about "cruel treatment" at a kosher slaughterhouse (when kosher slaughtering is one of the quickest and most painless means), they are actually complaining that animals are being killed for food - not what you and I might think when they charge that the animals are being treated cruelly.

To my mind, this sort of deception on the part of animal rights activists does great damage to their cause.

OneEye

Dec16-04, 10:52 PM

well i thought i had a reasonable idea what your thesis appears to be, but i don't understand what you are up to here.
you were the one campaigning for animal-lack-of-awareness and now, suddenly, you show concern for my dog's moral perspective?
Yes, you see exactly where I am going. However, this is not a problem for my view. It is a problem for yours. If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences. If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas? You are coercing your dog into a lifestyle which it would not choose for itself.
additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'? why would you assume that i don't give my dog meat because i want him to be a 'moral' dog in this life...
I don't think this is just an "assumption" on my part. It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat. You make your case for vegetarian dogs on health grounds, and you justify overriding your dogs' preferences based on their inability (or unwillingness) to make "right" choices for themselves. Yet with just a few interview questions, it would be easy to show that you would not allow your dogs to eat any meat whatsoever no matter what the health effects or noneffects were.

So, let me state myself plainly: I believe that the reason which leads you to feed your dogs a vegetarian diet is that you feel that it would be morally wrong for your dogs to eat meat. Health concerns are secondary issues (actually, probably nonissues) for you. To be fair, I do see this as a step of moral integrity for you - in the sense that moral integrity means thoroughly living one's moral convictions. But I don't believe that it's about health at all.

If I am wrong, I will gladly hear you say it. But be prepared for a little cross-examination if you do.

JPD

Dec17-04, 03:11 AM

I concur OneEye.
There are exceptions all the time: we have a vegan lady in our office who goes on about the ethics of various components of everyone's diets, yet drinks and smokes (and swears at the head of our department when she is drunk (down the pub that is)).

I'm not quite sure where this fits in (in fact, it may belong to another thread - apologies if this is the case) but has anyone pulled those killer whales to one side and told them to stop throwing those seals up in the air - it quite upsets the viewers.

JPD

Dec17-04, 05:40 AM

My feeling is that if you have to resort to filling your neck with vitamin supplements then there is something seriously wrong with your diet.

learningphysics

Dec17-04, 11:13 AM

Yes, you see exactly where I am going. However, this is not a problem for my view. It is a problem for yours. If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences. If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas? You are coercing your dog into a lifestyle which it would not choose for itself.

Humans aren't allowed to eat as they please... for example cannibalism is illegal. Hunting endagered species is illegal. Some humans may want these choices, and may find them morally acceptable, but they are not allowed to do these things.

Humans aren't allowed to live as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences... We have the law to prevent a serial killer from committing crimes, which he may find morally acceptable according to his conscience...

russ_watters

Dec17-04, 11:25 AM

learningphysics

Dec17-04, 11:30 AM

But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote....well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.

If you're below 18 in the USA, you're not allowed to vote. Criminals aren't allowed to vote.

physicsisphirst

Dec17-04, 12:11 PM

Um, because we've been discussing the morality of eating meat for about two weeks now....
so? how is that sufficient grounds for my veggieness to be a morality thing?

Therefore, the moral thing to do based on the utilitarian principle would be for me to wipe-out the bald eagle population to prevent the deaths of those hundreds of fish..
this is from your post #814.
you have merely taken a subset here at your convenience. if you were to follow utilitarianism principles fully, then you would have to wipe out the human species which from what i understands causes the greatest amount of suffering - that course of action would necessitate your own suicide and the eagles would be safe forever.

i believe, sangeeta's post was to show you that there is a philosophical foundation for much of what she said something you didn't seem to think there was in post #782.

utilitarianism does have its drawbacks (which is probably why all philosophers aren't utilitarians), however, the idea of reducing suffering is probably not a bad one and can often be implemented with pragmatism and common sense.

2. I can eat a balanced meal without thinking about how to make it a balanced meal.
from post #831
some people are still under the assumption that veggie meals have to be carefully thought out in order to contain all the right stuff. while there might have been some justification for this attitude in the early 70s (when i became veg) due to lack of information, enough work has been done to show that a veg diet isn't lacking in anything. (now, some people think that being veg mean living on tofu and pasta - and obviously that isn't the idea.) you do not have to go to any extra effort (eg food combining for proteins) in order to benefit from a healthy veg diet. (oh yes, and if the b12 thing really worries you there is always fortified soya stuff to provide you with peace of mind.)

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec17-04, 12:39 PM

So what if 40% of the US is B12 deficient. That means they aren't eating enough meat!
LOL! a curious thing to say when you consider the prevalence of diseases (heart, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence etc) linked to animal protein consumption in the US.

I never see my dog chasing oats and carrots though.
a carrot doesn't run. throw one and your dog just might chase it.

I need to qualify natural? I need to define it for you?
Where do you get this crap about humans not handling animal proteins well?
see post #647 p44 and earlier
or see http://www.pcrm.org/
or see http://www.vegsource.com/
or see http://earthsave.org/
or .... the list goes on and on!! there really has been a lot of stuff done on this.

Look, I could be cruel to my dog and feed him oats and hay and tell him that he doesn't "need" meat, but isn't that going against his rights? Doesn't he have the right to life and liberty? Doesn't he have the right to eat meat if he prefers that and it's better for him?
if you want to feed your dog meat, that's up to you. but i don't think you can use the dictionary definition of biologically natural (see "dogs eating poo" bit) to justify it and come to the conclusion that dog's fed veg diets are unhappy or malnourished.

When I say something is natural, I mean the dictionary definition of biologically natural:
"Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned"
and just to clear up artificial:
"Made by humans; produced rather than natural."
i'm ok with that definition and i would also consider eating meat to be natural for humans when you use your 0.5 cm long canines to rip open a steer's throat (after pouncing and imbedding your 0.75 cm claws into it) and then tearing out its ... well let's not get too gruesome. i think that the vast majority of meat-eaters, though, imbed their 0.75 cm claws into the cellophane that wraps the meat which has been artificially grown in factory farms, artificially processed in slaughterhouses, artificially dressed in butcher shops and finally artificially prepared for consumption (ie cooked) - without even giving those 0.5 cm canines a workout. dogs however, being omnivores do better at eating meat more naturally, but the domesticated ones rarely get the chance to.

NEWS FLASH!! Meat bad for dogs! Vegetable good for dogs!
Total horsecrap.
come now! i know it is a different idea from what most people consider 'normal', but that doesn't make it bad. anyway, i'm glad that you are at least reading some of the links and considering them - you don't have to agree with any of it.

You'll be pleased to know that they even recommend that 25% of the diet be vegetable. Even though, in the wild, the only veggies cats and dogs ever eat is grass to help them poo.
actually, carnivores often go after the stomachs of their kill to get at the vegetable matter contained there in.

This is the problem my dog developed before I realized that he shouldn't eat these things, for some reason rice is ok. And this is what I mean when I say that a vegan diet IS NOT NATURAL for dogs (or cats).
that doesn't mean it is unhealthy. rice is hardly a 'natural' food (especially for dogs), but yours seems to do ok with it which is great!

shrumeo, i'm sure you are very close to your dog and are a responsible owner and friend. otherwise, you would not be so up in arms with the veg dog concept. i would be the first to acknowledge your sincerity in this matter. however, some of us have also been quite diligent in our investigation of 'the otherside' and have seen the benefits of going there.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec17-04, 12:59 PM

If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences.
dogs are very and wonderfully aware - how does that relate to their being moral agents (the former is almost passive in nature, whereas the latter is active)?
while you can argue that being a moral agent requires awareness of a certain degree, it doesn't follow that just because you are aware, you are a moral agent. to put it more physically, a tree needs the ground in order to grow, but just because the ground exists, doesn't mean the tree does.

in any case, a 5 year old can be highly aware, but we don't let munchkins run amuck and do (and munch) whatever they please.

If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas?
non, mon ami!
every being is entitled (deontological view, at any rate) to certain basic rights (eg right to be free from inflicted suffering), however, that doesn't mean that they can 'eat as they please'. good god man! what are you trying to do? bring back cannibalism?

I don't think this is just an "assumption" on my part. It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat.
i'd like to see you do that.

So, let me state myself plainly: I believe that the reason which leads you to feed your dogs a vegetarian diet is that you feel that it would be morally wrong for your dogs to eat meat.
...
If I am wrong, I will gladly hear you say it. But be prepared for a little cross-examination if you do.
i shall not comment one way or another since i'd like to see you 'distill' my posts first - then we can do the cross-examination! i await your distillation!!

in friendship,
prad

Ivan Seeking

Dec17-04, 03:45 PM

2. Andy Rooney on Vegetarians.
Vegetarian - that's an old Indian word meaning "lousy hunter."

OneEye

Dec17-04, 05:45 PM

Humans aren't allowed to live as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences... We have the law to prevent a serial killer from committing crimes, which he may find morally acceptable according to his conscience...

"Free moral agent" usually refers to a condition of the individual, not of the environment. A free moral agent is able to evaluate situations according to moral criteria, and is able to choose their response based on their own moral evaluation of that situation. We are not sure that animals are free moral agents - and physicsisphirst seems bent on proving that they are not!

OneEye

Dec17-04, 05:55 PM

...you would have to wipe out the human species which from what i understands causes the greatest amount of suffering...
An animal in the wild dies either from predation, disease, or old age. All of these deaths take hours to months, and are terrifying and painful to the animal in the process. Humans dispatch their food animals in a process which takes less than an hour and which ends in a death which takes only a few seconds. Seems to me that meat-eating humans are a lot kinder to animals than nature is!

OneEye

Dec17-04, 05:59 PM

i shall not comment one way or another since i'd like to see you 'distill' my posts first - then we can do the cross-examination! i await your distillation!!
If you insist on my doing this, I will.

But I would rather not.

Frankly, my time could be put to better use than to prove to you what you already know (and everyone else does, too).

I made the claim, and if you insist, I will make good on it. But you are certainly imposing on me to require such a thing, when you can make the issue quite clear without requiring any such work from me. And, frankly, it will be hard for me not to resent it. The whole thing smells very cat-and-mouse to me.

learningphysics

Dec17-04, 07:03 PM

"Free moral agent" usually refers to a condition of the individual, not of the environment. A free moral agent is able to evaluate situations according to moral criteria, and is able to choose their response based on their own moral evaluation of that situation. We are not sure that animals are free moral agents - and physicsisphirst seems bent on proving that they are not!

Then why did you say that physicsphirst must "allow" the dog to act as a free moral agent following his conscience etc... According to the above you can't prevent a being from acting as a moral agent.

What is the difference between preventing a human from performing certain actions he finds acceptable and preventing a dog from performing certain actions?

You were the one who stated that if someone believes a dog is aware, he must allow the dog the freedom to do whatever... But this is obviously a false statement... physicsphirst is not obligated to allow the dog to perform whatever action it wishes even if it is an aware moral agent... any more than he is obligated to allow a serial killer(an aware moral agent) to kill... or a child (an aware moral agent) to play with fire...

What is the contradiction between believing a being is aware, and restricting its actions? We restrict the actions of morally aware beings all the time...

cogito

Dec17-04, 08:10 PM

Given my clarification, I restate:

It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
Humans are members of Animalia.
-------------------------------------------------------
It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).

How do you reply to this?

This thread is so long, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out extremely obvious and equally absurd consequence of this argument, so apologies if this is redundant. This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. So, Oneeye, how do you reply to that?

OneEye

Dec17-04, 10:16 PM

This thread is so long, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out extremely obvious and equally absurd consequence of this argument, so apologies if this is redundant. This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. So, Oneeye, how do you reply to that?

You have, indeed, remarked on one of the difficulties in this entire thought system. To bring you up to speed: I was not promoting my own thought system, but one which derives naturally from the concept that humans are merely animals.

Someone who holds this view (that humans are merely animals) might break this chain of logic by saying, "It is universally rejected in nature that a creature might eat its own kind." This argument would be wrong, of course, since many animals (including members of class Mammalia) eat their own young.

I break this logic chain by rejecting premiss 2, that humans are merely animals. I say that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, and that it may well therefore be moral for humans to eat other animals.

Those who conclude man as a moral equal with all other animals have a harder time with this - and much of the logic-chopping which is currently going on in this thread consists of a variety of attempts to affirm the premisses of my argument while denying the conclusion.

At present, we have all agreed that man is fundamentally different from all other animals, especially insofar as man has moral responsibilities which other animals do not have, but this is as far as we have gotten. And, given certain political maneuvers which have recently been initiated, I think it unlikely that we will ever get much further.

I hope that this helps.

shrumeo

Dec17-04, 10:30 PM

But... If any number of species have already been extincted - and if most species were extincted because of competition pressures - and if earth is currently experiencing an extraordinary surfeit of species - then is it really wrong if one species (man) out-competes any number of other species?

It certainly would be natural.
To me it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of right or wrong, but of aesthetics.
Most of us seem to have this innate sense of loss when something irreplaceable is gone forever. It would just be a shame to lose a large chunk of the diversity of life on the planet. If the earth turned out to be one big domed supercity, with only humans on it, what they consume, and what they throw away that would just seem like a disaster. I'm not sure if this has been proven or anything but I would assume that the more diverse the biosphere is, the more robust it is. But, there have been bottlenecks in the past. The only problem with a future bottleneck is that the cause of it (if it were man) might not be able to stop itself. Climates change, come and go, asteroids strike and the earth recovers. But, if the cause were humans, I'm not sure how there could be a recovery without a serious reduction in human population or some change in human activity that would stop the extinctions.

OneEye

Dec17-04, 10:38 PM

Then why did you say that physicsphirst must "allow" the dog to act as a free moral agent following his conscience etc... According to the above you can't prevent a being from acting as a moral agent.

Sorry... I'm still not making it clear. What cannot be prevented is a person's being a moral agent. Whether they can act as a moral agent has no bearing on this question. A moral agent is able to perceive moral value and make decisions which are informed by moral considerations and which have moral weight (i.e., culpability). We only hold moral agents guilty for their actions; if it cannot be convicted of a crime, then it is presumed not to be a moral agent. Justice can only be served on moral agents.

You were the one who stated that if someone believes a dog is aware, he must allow the dog the freedom to do whatever... But this is obviously a false statement... physicsphirst is not obligated to allow the dog to perform whatever action it wishes even if it is an aware moral agent... any more than he is obligated to allow a serial killer(an aware moral agent) to kill... or a child (an aware moral agent) to play with fire...

Your consideration is missing an implied or "hidden" premiss: that a moral agent may not ethically restrain a peer's liberty. Words for this sort of thing are kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, extortion, etc.

Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.

Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

estoydemoda

Dec17-04, 10:40 PM

First of all, the natural "justification" is that animals themselves eat meat. Whether you are religious and believe that God (or whatever else you worship) ordained certain animals to be eaten or if you are a believer in unaided evolution, where early humans began to work together hunting and gathering to live, meat eating has been a part of humans for a long time. Our body is developed to handle it and to function properly with it no matter what standpoint you look from.

I would like to reiterate the "least harm principle" mentioned on the second page with the thread at the bottom, and how the reapers that cut the grain actually kill more animals than eating a cow would.

Furthermore,
it is my belief that to an animal, pain is not a developed sense, because they have no choice but to give into their instincts. They cannot outgrow their "Id". Why would a sense be developed in an animal that would have no effect in their survival rates? (Keep in mind that I have no data to back this up, it is just a conjecture or my own)

As for me, I will keep eating meat. The second a wild cheetah lets its pray loose in favor of low-fat corn nuts I will drop the meat from my diet.

OneEye

Dec17-04, 10:51 PM

To me it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of right or wrong, but of aesthetics.

I think that you're right - it is a matter of sadness when a permanent loss occurs. And I don't mean to dispute your altogether human sensibilities - especially since I share these same sensibilities. But three questions might be asked:

1) Given that sad losses occur all the time, they seem to be the way of nature. So, while we might find (say) the complete extinction of all life on earth sad, it does nevertheless seem the altogether natural conclusion.

2) Let's be aware that we are projecting our human sensibilities on nature. This may not be appropriate. (But I think it is, because I think that these sensibilities are more than mere sentiment). However, by projecting human values on nature, and contrary to natural mores, are we acting morally? (This is my chief question at this phase of the discussion, in case you hadn't noticed.)

3) Is it moral to ask someone to impair their quest for survival or personal gratification in order to satisfy what is admittedly only an aesthetic preference?

Sorry if this seems too invasive. But some of these questions (especially #2) have a great deal to do with the theme which I am currently aiming to develop.

learningphysics

Dec17-04, 10:57 PM

Sorry... I'm still not making it clear. What cannot be prevented is a person's being a moral agent. Whether they can act as a moral agent has no bearing on this question. A moral agent is able to perceive moral value and make decisions which are informed by moral considerations and which have moral weight (i.e., culpability). We only hold moral agents guilty for their actions; if it cannot be convicted of a crime, then it is presumed not to be a moral agent. Justice can only be served on moral agents.

Your consideration is missing an implied or "hidden" premiss: that a moral agent may not ethically restrain a peer's liberty. Words for this sort of thing are kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, extortion, etc.

Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.

Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

There are rights and there are rights... From what you've described above, children are not moral agents (at least in some states they aren't considered moral agents) and don't have the same rights as adult humans... Adult humans hold themselves as a moral authority over children... something you imply cannot happen if adults and children have equal rights...

It is agreed that these type of rights... are different in adults than in children... and different in humans than in animals...

But there are another set of rights... right to be free of pain... right to be treated ethically etc... Children are given the same rights here as adults... and what the AR folks are saying is that animals should be given these same rights also...

OneEye

Dec17-04, 11:21 PM

There are rights and there are rights... From what you've described above, children are not moral agents (at least in some states they aren't considered moral agents) and don't have the same rights as adult humans...
This is not what I am saying. It is because children are moral agents that adults hold them guilty for wrongdoing.
Adult humans hold themselves as a moral authority over children... something you imply cannot happen if adults and children have equal rights...
Not necessarily true. A policeman and I have equal rights, but he has moral authority over me. In the same way, parents are naturally vested with authority over their children, even though the children have the same rights as the parents.
But there are another set of rights... right to be free of pain... right to be treated ethically etc... Children are given the same rights here as adults... and what the AR folks are saying is that animals should be given these same rights also...

...which at least produces something like a coherent construct - until you try to implement it. But I find it troublesome that you are willing to dice rights up into such small and isolated pieces. In so doing, you reduce animals to the status of prisoners, who have the right to life and freedom from cruel or unsual punishment, but no right to liberty or a free pursuit of happiness. Who made you a judge and arbiter over them?

Or do I take you wrongly? Are you willing to say that dogs have the right to pursue happiness by chomping a butcher's bone now and again, or that cats have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness by chasing, torturing, and eating a mouse?

In addition, you have skirted an important question: If a cat is a moral agent which has its own view of the morality of eating meat, then who are you to stop it? And if a cat is not a moral agent, then can it at all be called a person, or the equal of a person?

shrumeo

Dec17-04, 11:26 PM

LOL! a curious thing to say when you consider the prevalence of diseases (heart, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence etc) linked to animal protein consumption in the US.
You can LOL all you want, but you don't know what you are talking about.
Please show me some evidence of disease linked to a healthy diet that includes a proper amount of animal protein.

a carrot doesn't run. throw one and your dog just might chase it.
you're right a carrot doesn't run. It is only moving when moved. If the human weren't there the carrot would sit still and a dog would ignore it.
Little woodland creatures move on their own and that's why a dog's instinct is to chase after it. The dog's instinct is to ignore the carrot (unless said carrot is made much more interesting and fun by moving around as if it were an animal).

see post #647 p44 and earlier
or see http://www.pcrm.org/
Ok, this site has a lot of jumbled crap on it but I picked out what I could find quickly.
http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/highprotein_registry.html
The title:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Health Problems Associated with High-Protein, High-Fat, Carbohydrate-Restricted Diets Reported via an Online Registry

Then they say:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Studies of general populations consuming diets high in fat, particularly saturated fat (low-carbohydrate diets have not been studied specifically) have shown increased risk of cancer,4-6 diabetes,7 and heart disease.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is all careful wording. They are saying that people with bad diets have more health problems. It's because they went to McD's and they weren't "doing south beach" or the "mediterranean diet."

I love this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methods

In the fall of 2002, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) began a pilot program to test the feasibility of an online registry to identify people who may have suffered health complications related to high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets. A modest Internet advertising campaign was used to notify consumers about the availability of this registry. In November of 2003, PCRM held a news conference to highlight the health problems suffered by some individuals using these diets and to draw attention to the registry.

To report problems with high-protein, high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diets, individuals voluntarily visited www.AtkinsDietAlert.org and filled out a form available on the site. The registry specifically inquires about the following problems: heart attack, other heart problems, high cholesterol, diabetes, gout, gallbladder, colorectal cancer, other cancers, osteoporosis, reduced kidney function, kidney stones, constipation, difficulty concentrating, bad breath, and loss of energy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So they advertised on the web to find people that would answer specific questions about their diet and that it caused them specific health problems. They made a registry of these people, and from that they get their data that they then project onto the rest of the world.

And then finally:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings

As of December 15, 2003, 429 individuals reported experiencing problems with high-protein, high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diets via the online registry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total crap.

Anyway, then at the end they start talking about all the problems with doing the Atkins Diet as if they discovered it themselves. If you read an Atkins book, he tells you all the nutrients you aren't getting and that you have to take supplements. The Atkins diet is not meant to be permanent. At least not the really hardcore part of it. It's designed for people who have eaten themselves into a bad sugar/insulin cycle that causes a bunch of health problems if it's not cut off. The Atkins diet cuts this out and returns the body to a more normal type of metabolism. Eventually, the dieter goes back to eating carbs, but shouldn't go back to Big Macs and fries and then heading down to Ben and Jerry's afterwards. But if you do Atkins Induction your whole life it would be bad.

See, when you go for a diet that restricts a certain type of nutrient too much it causes problems. Like when you cut out certain vitamins by eating totally vegan.

or see http://www.vegsource.com/
This one is pretty funny.
I like the before and after guy.
Did he use a Bowflex and some Cortislim too?
:rolleyes:

or see http://earthsave.org/
This is just lame propaganda. It's pretty funny though.
http://www.earthsave.org/news/03summer/cowboy_myth.htm
Look at the pic on the left.
It has no grass because the cows ate it.
It's damaged now, like a raped child.
The other side has grass that was protected from those evil vegan cows that wanted to rip their green flesh from the root and chew them until the chlorophyll runs like a river. Oh, the horror. :yuck:

or .... the list goes on and on!! there really has been a lot of stuff done on this.
and you've bought it all.

if you want to feed your dog meat, that's up to you. but i don't think you can use the dictionary definition of biologically natural (see "dogs eating poo" bit) to justify it and come to the conclusion that dog's fed veg diets are unhappy or malnourished.
It was the dog's choice to eat poo. That's why it was natural. If it were it's choice to lick up some antifreeze, then that's natural, and the dog will die, naturally.

But seriously, the whole natural vs. artificial thing falls through anyway because domesticated dogs are a human product anyway. What's natural for them is to eat what we feed them. If we truly care for them, we should feed them what is most healthy for them.

If the dog honestly likes and prefers the veggie life and it causes him no harm, then great for him. But, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of dogs wouldn't be able to nor would they want to get by on nothing but vegetables.

i'm ok with that definition and i would also consider eating meat to be natural for humans when you use your 0.5 cm long canines to rip open a steer's throat (after pouncing and imbedding your 0.75 cm claws into it) and then tearing out its ... well let's not get too gruesome. i think that the vast majority of meat-eaters, though, imbed their 0.75 cm claws into the cellophane that wraps the meat which has been artificially grown in factory farms, artificially processed in slaughterhouses, artificially dressed in butcher shops and finally artificially prepared for consumption (ie cooked) - without even giving those 0.5 cm canines a workout. dogs however, being omnivores do better at eating meat more naturally, but the domesticated ones rarely get the chance to.
Um, ok. So we've gotten more efficient with the way we injest vital nutrients.

actually, carnivores often go after the stomachs of their kill to get at the vegetable matter contained there in.
Ah! Nice to know.

that doesn't mean it is unhealthy. rice is hardly a 'natural' food (especially for dogs), but yours seems to do ok with it which is great!
Great for me, because now I can save money by feeding him relatively cheap dog food that has fillers like rice and things like rendered animals. If he couldn't have rice I'd probably have to feed him raw chickens and steaks and that would get expensive.

shrumeo, i'm sure you are very close to your dog and are a responsible owner and friend. otherwise, you would not be so up in arms with the veg dog concept. i would be the first to acknowledge your sincerity in this matter. however, some of us have also been quite diligent in our investigation of 'the otherside' and have seen the benefits of going there.

I just feel sorry for any dog forced to eat nothing but vegetables.

shrumeo

Dec17-04, 11:29 PM

But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote....well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.
I doubt they outnumber us.
There are roughly 60 million pet dogs in the US (I'm sure there are fewer strays).
There are about 70 millions pet cats (probably fewer strays but more than dogs, lots of ferrel cats).

learningphysics

Dec17-04, 11:33 PM

Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.

Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

I admit I'm getting confused...

Can you explain this last sentence you posted above? You just said that one being can exert moral authority over another when they both have equal rights (policeman etc...). So why do you write: Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.

physicsphirst can assert himself as moral authority over the dog, and hold the belief he has the same rights as the dog right?

Remember that this entire line of discussion began with your claim that if physicsphirst accepts a dog as a moral agent, then he must allow it to live by its own sensibilities!!! You said this, as if to illustrate that there was a contradiction between, "believing the dog is a moral agent", "controlling the dog's diet"... Is there a contradiction here or not?

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Policeman and civilian have equal rights.
2. Policeman exerts moral authority over civilian.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:
1. physicsphirst and dog have equal rights.
2. physicsphirst exerts moral authority over the dog.

Now it seems you're saying there's no contradiction??

Another set of statements for comparison:

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Parent and child have equal rights.
2. Parent controls child's diet.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:
1. physicsphirst and dog have equal rights.
2. physicsphirst controls dog's diet.

Why is the set of statements with the parent and child non-contradictory whereas with physicsphirst and the dog it is contradictory?

In addition, you have skirted an important question: If a cat is a moral agent which has its own view of the morality of eating meat, then who are you to stop it?

The reason I'd stop it is the same reason a policeman stops a criminal from stealing... The criminal has his own view of morality (or he may be a sociopath with no view of morality whatsoever)...Would you ask the policeman: If a criminal is a moral agent which has its own view of stealing, then who are you to stop him?

And if a cat is not a moral agent, then can it at all be called a person, or the equal of a person?

Until you qualify what exactly is meant by "equal" this is difficult to answer. But I don't think anyone is interested in whether or not cats and humans are equals except in a single very specific regard... with regard to the right to be treated ethically... to be free of pain/suffering etc... In this regard, I don't see why being a moral agent gives you greater rights... In other words I don't see why being a moral agent would/should give you the privilege of being treated better than those that are not moral agents.

shrumeo

Dec17-04, 11:41 PM

[QUOTE=OneEye]I think that you're right - it is a matter of sadness when a permanent loss occurs. And I don't mean to dispute your altogether human sensibilities - especially since I share these same sensibilities. But three questions might be asked:

1) Given that sad losses occur all the time, they seem to be the way of nature. So, while we might find (say) the complete extinction of all life on earth sad, it does nevertheless seem the altogether natural conclusion.
Oh sure, whatever happens ever forever is the natural conclusion of events.

2) Let's be aware that we are projecting our human sensibilities on nature. This may not be appropriate. (But I think it is, because I think that these sensibilities are more than mere sentiment). However, by projecting human values on nature, and contrary to natural mores, are we acting morally? (This is my chief question at this phase of the discussion, in case you hadn't noticed.)
Nature is what made those human sensibilties. Is nature keeping itself in check by endowing us with these sensibilties and the ability to change things based on them? If it feels wrong to do something, perhaps there is a reason for that and we should act on the feeling. If it doesn't feel wrong to do something then maybe it wasn't so bad. Whatever the consequences, it was the way nature played itself out.

3) Is it moral to ask someone to impair their quest for survival or personal gratification in order to satisfy what is admittedly only an aesthetic preference?
Well, this is almost a question of liberty.
Is it within our natural (god given, if you will) rights to destroy non-human life in order to fulfill our personal happiness?
If that is a requirement for liberty then it must be ok.
If it's not, then that gets more complicated and I'm too tired to go into all the possibilities how humans would want to try to limit themselves (each other, more accurately).

shrumeo

Dec18-04, 01:23 AM

It looks like we can find "studies" (webpages at least) that can support whatever position we take.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html
Cholesterol
Because of the propaganda, you can be forgiven for thinking that cholesterol is a harmful alien substance that should be avoided at all costs. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Cholesterol is an essential component in the body. It is found in all the cells of the body, particularly in the brain and nerve cells. Body cells are continually dying and new ones being made. Cholesterol is a major building block from which cell walls are made. Cholesterol is also used to make a number of other important substances: hormones (including the sex hormones), bile acids and, in conjunction with sunlight on the skin, vitamin D 3 . The body uses large quantities of cholesterol every day and the substance is so important that, with the exception of brain cells, every body cell has the ability to make it.

Cholesterol may be ingested in animal products, but less than twenty percent of your body's cholesterol needs will be supplied in this way. Your body then makes up the difference. If you eat less cholesterol, your body merely compensates by making more. Although the media and food companies still warn against cholesterol in diet, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the level of cholesterol in your blood is affected very little by the amount of cholesterol you eat.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_2.html
The anti-cancer fat
Linoleic acid is one of the essential fatty acids that our bodies need but cannot synthesise. We must eat some to survive. Fortunately there is one form of linoleic acid that is beneficial. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) differs from the normal form of linoleic acid only in the position of two of the bonds that join its atoms. But this small difference has been shown to give it powerful anti-cancer properties. Scientists at the Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, New York and the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, New Jersey Medical School, showed that even at concentrations of less than one percent, CLA in the diet is protective against several cancers including breast cancer, colorectal cancer and malignant melanoma.

Conjugated linoleic acid has one other difference from the usual form - it is not found in vegetables but in the fat of ruminant animals. The best sources are dairy products and the fat on red meat, principally beef. It is another good reason not to give up eating red meat or to cut the fat off.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_3.html
Summary
Bran is bad news. While there is not too much harm from fruit fibre, the usual bran that is pushed at us - wheat bran- should be avoided like the plague it is.
Yeah, but you need fiber to help you poo. They must have something against bran.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_4.html
Low cholesterol means more strokes
Published at about the same time was a very large study in Japan, covering two decades, which concluded that low levels of blood cholesterol also increase the incidence of stroke.

Investigators have shown that this change to Western and urban eating patterns, departing as it does from centuries old traditions, has been accompanied by a general lowering of blood pressure and a large decline in the incidence of stroke deaths and cerebral haemorrhage between the 1960s and the 1980s. They attribute this decline to an increase in blood cholesterol levels over the period.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_5.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_6.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_7.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_8.html
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_9.html

chound

Dec18-04, 06:21 AM

I think u should eat exactly what ur cultures says if and only if ur culture is ancient enough to have tried and tested all kinds of food. It is never wrong to eat meat. The chickens are going to die anyway so why do u care if they are given 5 star treatement.

OneEye

Dec18-04, 11:51 AM

Nature is what made those human sensibilties.
I disagree, but that is the subject of another thread - which I hope to launch soon.
Is nature keeping itself in check by endowing us with these sensibilties and the ability to change things based on them?
You are personifying nature. Nature is, by definition, purposeless - does not care whether the earth is alive or dead. This does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, but you would basically have to adopt a neopagan theology for this statement to be true in any meaningful sense.

OneEye

Dec18-04, 12:02 PM

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Policeman and civilian have equal rights.
2. Policeman exerts moral authority over civilian.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:
1. physicsphirst and dog have equal rights.
2. physicsphirst exerts moral authority over the dog.

Now it seems you're saying there's no contradiction??

Another set of statements for comparison:

You admit there's no contradiction here:
1. Parent and child have equal rights.
2. Parent controls child's diet.

It appeared to me you were saying there is a contradiction here:

The policeman is authorized to do his work because he is the agent of a superior moral authority - the law. A parent is a superior moral authority over a child. If I pretend to be a policeman, I may be arrested and punished for it. If I abrogate a parent's rights over their own children, I am likewise subject to the actions of justice.

Is physicsisphirst a superior moral authority over his dog?

Up to the end of the nineteenth century, European culture used a Biblically-based concept of the human-animal rerationship: Man had dominion over the animals, because he was the moral superior of the animals. Most cultures would agree with this (with the notable exception of the Hindu culture).

In the twentieth century, the naturalisic/evolutionistic philosophy became the basis of the human-animal relationship. This philosophy rejects the moral superiority of man over animal on the grounds that there is no moral distinction between man and animal: only a matter of degrees separate them. This philosophy is still in its build-out stage, championed by news articles which show how smart birds are, how teachable dogs are, and how birds and chimps make and use tools.

The ethical vegetarian (and I'm not naming names, mind you) who believes that no animal may morally eat meat (a distinctly human ethical position) however, believes that they have the right to force their pets into an involuntary vegetarian diet because they are the pet's moral superior, or the agent of a superior moral authority.

Ahh! Now, here we have the contradiction laid bare!

Thank you, learningphysics, for your insightful pursuit of this discussion. You have certainly advanced the clarity of the issue through your incisive questioning.

Dissident Dan

Dec18-04, 12:45 PM

The ethical vegetarian (and I'm not naming names, mind you) who believes that no animal may morally eat meat (a distinctly human ethical position) however, believes that they have the right to force their pets into an involuntary vegetarian diet because they are the pet's moral superior, or the agent of a superior moral authority.

Ahh! Now, here we have the contradiction laid bare!

You are really reaching for a contradiction here. Apply the same reasoning to human-human interactions and see if you come up with the same "contradiction".

OneEye

Dec18-04, 04:30 PM

You are really reaching for a contradiction here. Apply the same reasoning to human-human interactions and see if you come up with the same "contradiction".

I already have, above. My conclusion has been that, in proper human-human relations, peers may not force their moral constraints on each other - but a superior may force his (its) moral constraints on an inferior. This is exactly what we see in human-human interactions: The superior (the law) forces its moral constraints on the inferior (the individual).

Trouble develops when we attempt to lay this template over the relationship between an ethical vegetarian and her cat: In order for the ethical vegetarian to enforce a vegetarian diet on the cat, she must assume the status of being the cat's moral superior.

I don't think that this is all that complicated - but I welcome reflections from those who are willing to think it through.

cogito

Dec18-04, 08:12 PM

You have, indeed, remarked on one of the difficulties in this entire thought system. To bring you up to speed: I was not promoting my own thought system, but one which derives naturally from the concept that humans are merely animals.

Someone who holds this view (that humans are merely animals) might break this chain of logic by saying, "It is universally rejected in nature that a creature might eat its own kind." This argument would be wrong, of course, since many animals (including members of class Mammalia) eat their own young.

I break this logic chain by rejecting premiss 2, that humans are merely animals. I say that humans are fundamentally different from other animals, and that it may well therefore be moral for humans to eat other animals.

Those who conclude man as a moral equal with all other animals have a harder time with this - and much of the logic-chopping which is currently going on in this thread consists of a variety of attempts to affirm the premisses of my argument while denying the conclusion.

At present, we have all agreed that man is fundamentally different from all other animals, especially insofar as man has moral responsibilities which other animals do not have, but this is as far as we have gotten. And, given certain political maneuvers which have recently been initiated, I think it unlikely that we will ever get much further.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks for the update. Why is it relevant that animals do not have moral responsibilities? Presumably, the debate over whether it is morally permissible to eat meat involves determining whether it makes sense to say that a human being can owe an obligation to an animal, not over whether a non-human animal can be morally obligated (i.e., have a moral obligation). If all you have established is that humans are rational and autonomous enough to act in accord with moral principles, while the rest of the animal world is not, then (pardon the pun) it seems you've been barking up the wrong tree. What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights. Your run-of-the-mill adult cow is by all measure capable of suffering, self-consciousness, and rational thought to an extent which far exceeds that of the newborn infant or the profoundly develpmentally disabled human. If we are disposed to take these latter entities are possessors of rights, then consistency demands we extend rights to the former entities as well. If the reply to this consistency argument is that the psychological capacities mentioned are not criterial of moral considerability, then, praytell, what is?

Cheers!

OneEye

Dec18-04, 08:14 PM

Hey, all! I've decided to take a hiatus for the holidays. I'll be off, starting today, through next week, and maybe for a week after that.

I realize that this may seem a bit unfair - seems to give me the last word - but just think how much hamburger you can make my most recent posts into until I return!

I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Enjoy a TVP turkey leg on me!

physicsisphirst

Dec19-04, 12:34 PM

If you insist on my doing this, I will.

But I would rather not.

Frankly, my time could be put to better use than to prove to you what you already know (and everyone else does, too).

I made the claim, and if you insist, I will make good on it. But you are certainly imposing on me to require such a thing, when you can make the issue quite clear without requiring any such work from me. And, frankly, it will be hard for me not to resent it. The whole thing smells very cat-and-mouse to me.
i think if you make claims you should make good on it - especially when questioned as to its validity.
you have the habit of making claims and assuming that that is how it is because you have made the claim.
now that is a claim by me, so i'll make good on it (regardless of whether you question it):

post #727 by oneeye
Collations of elephant tears usually overlook facts like this - are, in fact, writings which uniformly take one side of the question. They look more like propaganda than anything else.
what makes you say that? have you read the book? have you checked masson's credentials? does seeming to support AR automatically make someone a propagandist?

post #749
And here, you again make the disagreeable assumption of awareness in animals.
i can draw upon 3 decades of 'recent' research (Goodall, Savage-Rumbaugh, Bekoff for instance) or even go back into the 'past' (eg Darwin). you start with your claim that animals don't have awareness and maintain it without the slightest validation.

post #749
All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone.
you create the position, you attribute it to AR, you say that there is a contradiction (which didn't exist - this was your 4pt syllogism, btw) and then you expect us to just accept all this because you say it is 'completely obvious'.

post #760
I have, several times, presented syllogisms to you which show the inherent contradiction in the animal rights position.
you again make a claim that your syllogism (this was the 4 pointer) is the AR position and that there is a contradiction without researching honestly whether you have accurately represented 'the animal rights' position or whether there was a contradiction (which doesn't exist posts #765, #769 - and you admitted that in the form you wrote it your syllogism was "useless for the discussion" post #771)

post #784
Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent
again you speak for 'everyone'. your 3pt sillygism was neither cogent or demonstrative (as shown in post #779). later you admitted that your use of the word "an" when you really meant "any" caused confusion post #779)

and your latest effort:

post #842
On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog and
post #851
It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat.
well if it is really is that easy, then why when asked to demonstrate your statement, do you complain

But I would rather not. (post #863)

immediately followed by another one of those miraculous claims:

Frankly, my time could be put to better use than to prove to you what you already know (and everyone else does, too). (post #863)

is it a wonder that i keep asking you for clarification and validation?

i have claimed that you are a pleasant and polite individual (post #792). i still maintain this and can even validate it if you wish. however, it is my feeling that in forum discussions, if you are going to say things like 'everyone knows or sees or believes', you should make a bit more effort to be sure of your claim - rather than just make it and hurriedly try to move along.

i hope you get to read and at least consider what i have written in this post (you did say you welcome correction in post #760). however, i see that you have decided to take a holiday - so i hope you have a good time and wish you the best.

in friendship,
prad

learningphysics

Dec19-04, 01:26 PM

This philosophy rejects the moral superiority of man over animal on the grounds that there is no moral distinction between man and animal: only a matter of degrees separate them.

You are attributing a position to physicsphirst that he does not take... The above also implies that man cannot be morally superior to an animal if "only a matter of degrees separate them". Why is this? With regards to intelligence only a matter of degrees separates man from the apes... yet man is definitely superior... Why can't the same be said for moral awareness.

Anyway... please read cogito's post. I must agree with him. I don't see the relevance of whether or not animals are moral agents or not to the animal rights position. As seen in this thread, nobody is disputing man's position as a moral authority over animals (a good man/woman anyway...).

I personally see some animals as moral agents. I see moral awareness on a continuum in the animal kingdom as intelligence is on a continuum. Yet, I still see humans as having superior moral awareness (not necessarily more moral, but having more moral awareness). But how does that fit into animal rights? I don't know. As cogito said, it's animals capacity to feel pain and suffer, that has relevance to the animal rights issue, not their moral agency.

Thank you, learningphysics, for your insightful pursuit of this discussion. You have certainly advanced the clarity of the issue through your incisive questioning.

Thanks. The discussion has been interesting. I hope I've lent some clarity to the issue.

physicsisphirst

Dec19-04, 01:31 PM

You can LOL all you want, but you don't know what you are talking about.
i was LOLing because you thought that 40% of americans had b12 deficiencies because they didn't eat enough meat. as far as not knowing what i'm talking about, i would like to disagree with you, but you'll probably say i don't know what i'm talking about.

Please show me some evidence of disease linked to a healthy diet that includes a proper amount of animal protein.
those sites show some of this. even the meat side has admitted there are some problems - for instance, back in the 80s there was a conscious movement to provide 'leaner' meat because of the problems with heart-disease, cancer etc. the fact that the heaviest meat-eating population (in north america) also have the highest occurrences of the diseases mentioned in the earlier post can also suffice as a link. finally, studies like the china study (that sangeeta may talk about later), show fairly conclusively that this isn't fiction.

you're right a carrot doesn't run.
i hope this is some sort of acknowledgement that at least on some matters, i do know what i'm talking about.

This is all careful wording. They are saying that people with bad diets have more health problems. It's because they went to McD's and they weren't "doing south beach" or the "mediterranean diet."
not too many people die from eating a little meat, but the fact still remains that the human body doesn't process the stuff too well. sometimes, that little bit can trigger things like protein antigenity which result in inflammatory conditions like asthma, excema, arthritis.

So they advertised on the web to find people that would answer specific questions about their diet and that it caused them specific health problems. They made a registry of these people, and from that they get their data that they then project onto the rest of the world.
from what you quoted, i think they are researching the link between animal protein diet and diseases that have been linked to them. i don't think brocolli and tofu have been linked to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and stuff like that.

And then finally:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings

As of December 15, 2003, 429 individuals reported experiencing problems with high-protein, high-fat, carbohydrate-restricted diets via the online registry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total crap.
you seem to be very fond of that expression. what exactly is the problem here. all that has happened is that 429 individuals reported they were experiencing problems. no big deal.

Anyway, then at the end they start talking about all the problems with doing the Atkins Diet as if they discovered it themselves.
from what i recall, the atkins diet has raised concerned eyebrows in places other than the veg community.

See, when you go for a diet that restricts a certain type of nutrient too much it causes problems. Like when you cut out certain vitamins by eating totally vegan.
you don't cut out anything by being totally veg.

and you've bought it all.
not all, but enough fortunately.

But seriously, the whole natural vs. artificial thing falls through anyway because domesticated dogs are a human product anyway. What's natural for them is to eat what we feed them. If we truly care for them, we should feed them what is most healthy for them.
i agree! and that's why i don't feed them meat. you believe meat is healthy for your dog and so you do. i do not doubt your sincerity here, but i have found after researching this, talking to other veg dog folk, and seeing the results for several years with my own dogs - that the veg diet is best.

If the dog honestly likes and prefers the veggie life and it causes him no harm, then great for him. But, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of dogs wouldn't be able to nor would they want to get by on nothing but vegetables.
they wouldn't want to live on iceberg lettuce that's for sure - but the evolution petfood, the hoana, and homemade stuff is considered quite desirable for dogs (and by many vets - who would of course also back large commercial veg foods by nature's recipe and natural life).

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec19-04, 02:14 PM

You are attributing a position to physicsphirst that he does not take...
a specialized talent oneeye exercises as i've tried to show in post #885.
digging up posts by number seems to have become one of my specialized talents.

Anyway... please read cogito's post. I must agree with him. I don't see the relevance of whether or not animals are moral agents or not to the animal rights position. As seen in this thread, nobody is disputing man's position as a moral authority over animals (a good man/woman anyway...).
i agree!! i find cogito's excellent post #883 to be lucid, penetrating and definitely worth quoting from (and so i do in italics):

the debate over whether it is morally permissible to eat meat involves determining whether it makes sense to say that a human being can owe an obligation to an animal, not over whether a non-human animal can be morally obligated (i.e., have a moral obligation)
this clarifies the parameters for the discussion (rather than allowing us to be transported into other arenas).

If all you have established is that humans are rational and autonomous enough to act in accord with moral principles, while the rest of the animal world is not, then (pardon the pun) it seems you've been barking up the wrong tree.
(is it treesonable to assume that your delightful pun lays bare an act of treeson? LOL) if it is established that humans are moral agents, then it matters little whether animals are or aren't (at least for the discussion).

What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights.
and therefore to be free of inflicted sufferings. it is not necessary for animals to be as 'smart' or as 'moral' as humans. philosopher jeremy bentham emphasized this point when he wrote: The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

I personally see some animals as moral agents. I see moral awareness on a continuum in the animal kingdom as intelligence is on a continuum.
i think this is a very good point. too often we forget that all nature isn't quite 'quantized' everywhere. we forget that animals are not all the same just because we categorize them as animals. in fact, humans themselves demonstrate a wide continuum as far as morality goes.

Yet, I still see humans as having superior moral awareness (not necessarily more moral, but having more moral awareness).
i find this an excellent way to express it.

I hope I've lent some clarity to the issue.
you most certainly have.
btw, if you have the time and inclination, i would appreciate hearing more of your views regarding Schopenhauer as it relates here.

in friendship,
prad

Be Happy!

Dec19-04, 03:56 PM

I personally see some animals as moral agents. I see moral awareness on a continuum in the animal kingdom as intelligence is on a continuum. Yet, I still see humans as having superior moral awareness (not necessarily more moral, but having more moral awareness).

I really like what you have written...i've never thought of it as you have expressed it. I think you've nailed it though...thanks for the insight! :smile:

sheepdog

Dec19-04, 05:30 PM

I came to this forum for the physics. As such I expected to find reasoned arguments reflecting reality. That is, after all, the beauty of physics -- that it models reality. It is a mental construct that is sharable between us by virtue of the fact that there is a close correspondence with experiment.

Then I read this thread and see all of this nonsense about morality and moral agents and so on. Shame on you!

If the question posed has an answer then there should be an experiment to demonstrate that answer. Otherwise it's just in your head and why should anybody be interested in anything that only is in your head? How moral are we? The answer to that question is in your head, nowhere else. It is what you think it to be. Nothing more.

Should we eat meat? I say usually not. Why not? Because we are free to choose not to and that particular choice is one among a series of such choices all of which combine to define what we are. So the real question becomes, "What do we choose to be?" And therein lies the experiment. Because what we choose to be causes what the future will become. Choose the future wisely. This experiment cannot be revised.

JaeSun

Dec19-04, 07:19 PM

JPD

Dec20-04, 06:14 AM

if people choose to not eat meat, that is there choice...but once they start trying to preach to me, then thats it ....

i eat meat and im proud of it (i like my steaks bloody rare)

and quite personally, i think PETA goes way to far with its tactics ....

You see, this is where we arrive at every time - there is no other possibility.
If I go to eat at a vegetarian's house I would not expect to eat meat and will be forced to eat vegetables (which I quite like but some of those nut cutlets and other muck is more suitable for aiding in construction) so, by the same token, if a vegetarian comes to eat at my house, they should eat meat.
It's only fair - if I have to suffer then so should you!

shrumeo

Dec20-04, 12:57 PM

i was LOLing because you thought that 40% of americans had b12 deficiencies because they didn't eat enough meat. as far as not knowing what i'm talking about, i would like to disagree with you, but you'll probably say i don't know what i'm talking about.
Where else are they going to get B12?
It either comes from an animal source, or a manufactured one.
If someone is deficient, that means they either aren't getting shots at the doctor, eating artificially fortified grains, or eating animal products (the only natural source).

Don't just "like to disagree" with me. Show me where I'm wrong.

those sites show some of this. even the meat side has admitted there are some problems- for instance, back in the 80s there was a conscious movement to provide 'leaner' meat because of the problems with heart-disease, cancer etc. the fact that the heaviest meat-eating population (in north america) also have the highest occurrences of the diseases mentioned in the earlier post can also suffice as a link. finally, studies like the china study (that sangeeta may talk about later), show fairly conclusively that this isn't fiction.

Because they were wrong. It's not the '80s anymore. And correlation does not always mean causation. Just because Americans eat a lot of meat (actually I'd say they eat less meat and more sugar and flour than anyone else) doesn't mean that it's the meat that caused the problems. You have to look at the whole picture. Actually, I think it's all the sugar and flour and less exercise that leads to health problems.

A few years ago there was a renewal of the Atkins craze. I think it's still going. You eat mostly meat and fat for your calories.
http://www.thedietchannel.com/atkins.htm
The findings were indeed surprising, in that several heart disease indicators actually improved in the participants following the Atkins diet. They saw a much larger decrease in serum triglyceride levels as compared to the low fat group, and a greater increase in serum HDL (which is "good" or beneficial cholesterol to the heart) than the low-fat group. Both groups saw similar reductions in LDL cholesterol (the "bad" cholesterol for the heart) and total cholesterol levels. In addition, at the end of one year, both groups had achieved similar levels of weight loss.
http://www.annecollins.com/atkins-diet-weight-loss-study.htm
The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease.
You know what people with high LDLs might not be getting enough of in their diet? Regular old niacin.
http://www.allvita.net/niacin.htm

i hope this is some sort of acknowledgement that at least on some matters, i do know what i'm talking about.
Sorry to disappoint you.
The reason dogs chase things is because they are moving. Unless a human is there to move it, the things that usually go moving on their own are called animals. Actually, because they moved on their own is why they were called animals. I hope I'm not being too condescending. :smile: Now, why would a dog chase small animals? Maybe there is some instinct that they follow that has something to do with keeping them alive.

Funny there is no instinct to dig up carrots and eat them.

not too many people die from eating a little meat, but the fact still remains that the human body doesn't process the stuff too well.
How is this a fact? It's rubbish, as they say over there. Nobody dies from "eating a little meat" unless it's poisoned, of course.

sometimes, that little bit can trigger things like protein antigenity which result in inflammatory conditions like asthma, excema, arthritis.
This happens in how many people? 1 in 100,000,000?
(Not these conditions, obviously, but these conditions being caused by meat?)

from what you quoted, i think they are researching the link between animal protein diet and diseases that have been linked to them. i don't think brocolli and tofu have been linked to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis and stuff like that.
Yeah, they may be "researching" but how are they doing it (web surveys)?
People that don't want to think about things like animals dying are going to use whatever tactic available to make you think that eating meat is bad for you.

you seem to be very fond of that expression. what exactly is the problem here. all that has happened is that 429 individuals reported they were experiencing problems. no big deal.
I seem to have to use it in this thread full of so much misinformation. They are using this pool of 429 supposed people to try and say something that is most likely not true (or at least to give that impression.)

They put out an "ad" on a website asking people to sign up and tell them that they had problems with an "Atkins" diet. Did they make sure they were doing the diet right? What else were they eating? What were their prior conditions? Did they ever meet these people or their doctors? And above all else in this "research" what were the controls?

from what i recall, the atkins diet has raised concerned eyebrows in places other than the veg community.
rasing eyebrows? oK AND?
Yeah, my aunt keeps telling my uncle "do you know how many people have DIED on the atkins diet?? HUH?" I hate to tell her it's none.
(disclaimer again: the Atkins diet (initial phase) isn't something that people should do their whole lives, just if they are in a bad carb/insulin cycle that could lead to diabetes or heart disease, or are really fat.)

you don't cut out anything by being totally veg.
Only if you supplement with artificial vitamins, especially things like B12.
There may be some products out there that are fortified with it, but it still came from an artificial source. It's sort of like saying "Eating nothing doesn't cut out anything as long as I eat these artificial nutrients in a pill or shake." (There are diets like this. As long as they are getting enough calories and are getting their nutrients the way they need, what's the problem? I don't see any problem with an artificial diet, or even one that is partially artificial, like a vegan diet.)

not all, but enough fortunately.
So you are saying that there is some information on these websites that you don't agree with? I'm curious what that is and why you chose to believe some things that they say and not others.

i agree! and that's why i don't feed them meat. you believe meat is healthy for your dog and so you do. i do not doubt your sincerity here, but i have found after researching this, talking to other veg dog folk, and seeing the results for several years with my own dogs - that the veg diet is best.
Poor Dogs. They probably did get healthier once you took them off of typical commercial food. But, if you did the same with a meat-based diet, imagine the benefits. I'd give it try, if only for a while. (I won't subject my dog to a veg diet btw).

they wouldn't want to live on iceberg lettuce that's for sure - but the evolution petfood, the hoana, and homemade stuff is considered quite desirable for dogs (and by many vets - who would of course also back large commercial veg foods by nature's recipe and natural life).
They back all the food they sell, even "Science Diet" which isn't the best despite it's high price (and total lack of flavor, my dog hates it)
http://www.iei.net/~ebreeden/kibble.html
Anyway, I take certain advice from my vet very seriously.
Other advice, like what products to buy from them, I take with a grain of salt.

ANYWAY, if you don't want people to eat meat based on moral gorunds and animal rights that's one thing, but to go around saying that eating meat is bad for you is, well, bad.

shrumeo

Dec20-04, 01:01 PM

I disagree, but that is the subject of another thread - which I hope to launch soon.
Well, it depends on if you believe in God or not, I guess.
Either god gave humans their sensibilities or they arose naturally (nature gave them to us). Whether you can seperate nature from god or vice versa is another thing.

You are personifying nature.
Only for convenience.

Nature is, by definition, purposeless - does not care whether the earth is alive or dead.
Yes, I understand this.

This does not necessarily mean that you are wrong, but you would basically have to adopt a neopagan theology for this statement to be true in any meaningful sense.
Or just adopt a convenient way of talking about things, which is to sometimes personify them. I wasn't saying that Mother Nature consciously endowed us with anything. Only that we have these things naturally.

What were we talking about again?

shrumeo

Dec20-04, 01:02 PM

Seafang

Dec20-04, 01:19 PM

Should we eat meat?

Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!!

Maybe we should all stop eating meat!
It's not unhealthy or lacking enough essentials
because all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

Now the main problem is:
- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??
- Or should we stop eating meat and everyone changes to
become a vegetarian?
(since it's considered to be
cruel to kill other life forms)

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:

Freedom for all farm animals!
Eating less unhealthy food
No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess
Eating more healthy food!
No more interference with the animals' life and death.
Increase in animal population!
More animals to conduct researches on.
No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!
and many more!!!

Well I think the whole argument is pretty silly. For a start, it is well recognised that humans like other primates are omnivorous; even our teeth say that is so. Clearly the survival of our species is improved if we can eat most anything.

There's no evidence that zoo-food is unhealthy; even oxygen is unhealthy if you have too much of it. nor is there any evidence that phyto-food is more healthy.

There are good reasons for omnivores to eat meat. there are plenty of zoo-species that can eat phyto-food that we can't digest, so those plants would not be a food source for us unless we eat the animals that can process those plants.

If we only eat plants, then we need more palnts to eat which leaves less for other species, so animal extinctions will still occur. We are out eating everything else on the planet.

But to take the argument further; why should we eat any other life form, whether animal or plant. We certainly don't need to. We are perfectly capable of making the essentials of food out of plain rocks, just like mother Nature does, so we don't need to eat plants either; and how do we know that plants don't scream when we kill them for food; or even eat them alive for that matter.

Our job is to survive; we should eat whatever makes that possible. Now if you want to talk about conservation of resources, then it is true it takes less resources and energy to live on a phyto-diet than on a zoo-diet. it takes 5000 gallons of water to make one pound of Steak, and that is a wasteful use of water.

learningphysics

Dec20-04, 02:47 PM

you most certainly have.
btw, if you have the time and inclination, i would appreciate hearing more of your views regarding Schopenhauer as it relates here.

Thanks. I fear my views regarding Schopenhauer could be too depressing. I agree with his view that existence is suffering (buddhism). My moral views are very much along "negative utilitarianism" for which the elimination of pain and suffering, is much more important than the production of pleasure. Although I don't go around preaching the ethics of extinction of all life, I don't see it as a bad thing (depends on how it would happen). However, I tend to believe we continue to exist after death (unfortunately)... So the problem of suffering isn't solved... Schopenhauer believed that resignation from the will, could end suffering (buddhist solution)... But I'm not sure of that. I don't see why, even if we solved our current problem of suffering, how that would help us after being reincarnated (we remember the lessons?).

physicsisphirst

Dec20-04, 05:12 PM

Where else are they going to get B12?
It either comes from an animal source, or a manufactured one.
If someone is deficient, that means they either aren't getting shots at the doctor, eating artificially fortified grains, or eating animal products (the only natural source).
the point of this was to show you that since 40% americans are deficient in B12 and since 40% of americans don't abstain from animal proteins, it appears that simply eating meat isn't going to save you from a b12 deficiency (at least according to the 'setting' of the deficiency level). yet you came up with the simplistic conclusion that these people should just eat more meat and that will solve their problem.

Because they were wrong. It's not the '80s anymore. And correlation does not always mean causation. Just because Americans eat a lot of meat (actually I'd say they eat less meat and more sugar and flour than anyone else) doesn't mean that it's the meat that caused the problems. You have to look at the whole picture. Actually, I think it's all the sugar and flour and less exercise that leads to health problems.
the animal proteins are causing serious problems as explained earlier and as shown in the various sites. your statement that "correlation does not always mean causation" is a perfectly legitimate one, however, if it is inappropriately applied it can hide a multitude of sins. in fact, the smoking industry used that excuse for years to deny that cigarette smoke causes cancer (they still do i think).

Funny there is no instinct to dig up carrots and eat them.
that's not quite true - dogs often dig things up and if they like it they may eat it - some flowerbeds bear testament to that. they also like to bury things for later consumption.

How is this a fact? It's rubbish, as they say over there. Nobody dies from "eating a little meat" unless it's poisoned, of course.

This happens in how many people? 1 in 100,000,000?
(Not these conditions, obviously, but these conditions being caused by meat?)
i think the problem here is that you treat what is on the websites i have shown you as rubbish. admittedly, you can find whatever you want on the web, but considering the "correlations" to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis etc etc and animal protein consumption, don't you think it's worth a second look?

you think that all the info is coming from ethical veggies, but it isn't. in the early 90's, even the lancet (one of those prestigious medical journals) acknowledged that decreasing animal protein consumption would also decrease risk of heart disease and cancer. here is an example of current 'medical research' from Gut:

Ulcerative Colitis Relapses with Meat and Beef

Influence of dietary factors on the clinical course of ulcerative colitis: a prospective cohort study by Sarah L. Jowett in the October 2004 issue of the journal Gut found patients with ulcerative colitis had more frequent relapses when they consumed meat, especially red and processed meat, and eggs.

dr mcdougall comments:
The amount of sulfur in the intestine is increased by consuming animal products, which are inherently high in sulfur-containing amino acids, like methionine and cysteine.
you can see more of the details here:
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/2004nl/041100pufavorite5.htm

my point in showing you this is that there are a very large number of 'medical' people who advocate the veg diet - and for nutritional reasons. if they do, it may be an idea to at least give some credence to it rather than dismissing it as rubbish.

Yeah, they may be "researching" but how are they doing it (web surveys)?
People that don't want to think about things like animals dying are going to use whatever tactic available to make you think that eating meat is bad for you.
what a strange basis for rejection! it would be similar to my saying that the pro-meat people have brain-washed certain folks into believing eating meat is good for you just so their industry can make more money! actually, i believe that if you look at who does make money, my 'bigoted and narrow-minded' conclusion has more validity than yours.

They are using this pool of 429 supposed people to try and say something that is most likely not true (or at least to give that impression.)
there is a lot more than 429 people to back up the veg position from a health perspective.

Only if you supplement with artificial vitamins
you still have this strange idea that you need to supplement a veg diet. you seem to think that people don't supplement meat diets. now this is a very weird idea considering that even in the 60s and 70s when the veg movement was just beginning to start up, vitamins were being marketed like crazy. they weren't there for veg folk - they were there for your meat folk (not too many veggies back then). what this would suggest is that a meat-based diet is totally inadequate in providing the necessary requirements.

interestingly enough, if you look at the first article in that earlier link, you find that even vitamins aren't enough LOL:

Vitamins Do Not Prevent Cancer and May Increase Likelihood of Death
Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Goran Bjelakovic reported in the October 2004 issue of the Lancet found no "evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent cancer; on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality."

So you are saying that there is some information on these websites that you don't agree with? I'm curious what that is and why you chose to believe some things that they say and not others.
well i looked at all this back in the early '90s to quite an extent since we didn't want to make the jump to a strict veg diet without researching things - after all, we had to take my infant son into account as well as the ravings of my medical doctor father who kept babbling things like meat is good for you. i found that the veg communities were by no means in complete agreement with what was ideal and what wasn't - depending upon the influence of traditional medical thought. so we opted for a diet based on 'natural hygiene' principles (somewhat a la shelton) as well as mostly rawfoods and have managed rather nicely so far.

But, if you did the same with a meat-based diet, imagine the benefits. I'd give it try, if only for a while. (I won't subject my dog to a veg diet btw).
no one is asking you to subject your dog or yourself to anything.
what a silly idea though to suggest that i take my magnificient, admiration-attracting (and rather mischievous) bowwows (who never suffer from any of those things that the vets want to protect dogs from), and change their diet because you maintain this notion that a meat-based diet is better than what they are fed now.

Anyway, I take certain advice from my vet very seriously. Other advice, like what products to buy from them, I take with a grain of salt.
well that's nice.

ANYWAY, if you don't want people to eat meat based on moral gorunds and animal rights that's one thing, but to go around saying that eating meat is bad for you is, well, bad.
well the 'one thing' hasn't been a thing here at all. the content of my posts have been for the most part that eating meat is bad for you purely on health grounds (despite what a couple of people would like to believe). i have backed up what i have said with several links (throughout this thread) as well as results that are evident in society for anyone to see (regardless of whether you subscibe to 'correlation' or 'causation') ... and i can keep going too LOL

in any case, as i wrote earlier, if you want to eat meat that's up to you. nor should you simply believe the opposite of the slogan that you have been chanting "meat is healthy" - if you are interested in the health benefits of veg, then do some research about veg diet, learn who is saying what, find some correlations (or even causations), then make up your own mind.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec20-04, 05:38 PM

Thanks. I fear my views regarding Schopenhauer could be too depressing. I agree with his view that existence is suffering (buddhism). My moral views are very much along "negative utilitarianism" for which the elimination of pain and suffering, is much more important than the production of pleasure. Although I don't go around preaching the ethics of extinction of all life, I don't see it as a bad thing (depends on how it would happen). However, I tend to believe we continue to exist after death (unfortunately)... So the problem of suffering isn't solved...

i don't find your views are depressing at all - quite the opposite. much of what you say makes a lot of sense in a very pragmatic way. the minimization of pain and suffering seems to be a worthy goal regardless of whether we can enforce it or not. all of us may not be able to 'exterminate the eagle population for the benefit of fish' or have the time to 'lie in waiting to shoot a lion for the salvation of deer' as suggested in prior posts, but we can always do our little bit (i think sheepdog made an interesting observation in that our actions determine who we are). additionally, dooga sort of tied the idea of evolution into non-violence and considering that historically humans have thought on a larger scale about ethics, it is possible that our evolution may depend upon our commitment to reducing pain and suffering.

Schopenhauer believed that resignation from the will, could end suffering (buddhist solution)... But I'm not sure of that. I don't see why, even if we solved our current problem of suffering, how that would help us after being reincarnated (we remember the lessons?).
well perhaps or perhaps the lessons are so obvious that they don't really need to be remembered, but require something else to be seen.
as the four faults in buddist philosophy say, the nature of the mind is hard to see because it is

1) too close to be recognized
2) too profound to be fathomed
3) too easy to be believed
4) too wonderful to be accommodated

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec20-04, 06:29 PM

it is well recognised that humans like other primates are omnivorous; even our teeth say that is so.

i think a lot of people (even veggies) keep saying this, assume it is so and do sincerely try very hard to be good omnivores, but a closer look seems to indicate otherwise. compare a true omnivore's (eg dog) teeth to a human's and one finds that
the dog's canines are considerable larger (for ripping and tearing)
humans molars are considerably more prominent (for crushing and grinding - unlike jagged doggie molars)
the human's jaw flaunts (unlike doggie jaw) side-to-side motion (to work those molars)

additionally,

we do not have the claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we do not have the sharp, shearing teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh. We are not fast enough to outrun and catch animals. Natural omnivores or carnivores do NOT chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow them whole. We do not have the "constant tendency for the last upper premolar and the first lower molar to engage and form long longitudinal opposed shearing blades (the carnassials)", which are a common characteristic of natural carnivores and omnivores.

As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore?s short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore?s intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant).
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm (a delightfully 'biased' article i must say, distinguishing very well between the common misunderstanding between the verbs "to do" and "to be" - eg humans are meat-eaters because they've done meat-eating LOL)

this next article is kind of amusing because in it you have a non-veg (possibly) Cardiologist William C. Roberts arguing that humans aren't designed to eat meat while a veg, anatomist and primatologist John McArdle arguing that humans are omnivores. here is the beginning of the article:

Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?143

finally, here is an excellent and thorough article by Milton R. Mills, M.D. that argues humans not being particularly well suited for meat consumption based on comparative anatomy of Oral Cavity, Stomach and Small Intestine, Colon. here is the conclusion from that article (with the link, of course):

we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a 'committed' herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

so all omnivorous wishful thinking aside, the arguments against humans being anatomically suited for meat consumption are really pretty substantial.

in friendship,
prad

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec21-04, 12:03 AM

russ_watters

Dec21-04, 06:18 AM

i think a lot of people (even veggies) keep saying this, assume it is so and do sincerely try very hard to be good omnivores, but a closer look seems to indicate otherwise. compare a true omnivore's (eg dog) teeth to a human's... Dogs are carnovores, not omnivores. Compare our teeth to dogs and cows and they fall right in the middle. The rest of the post contains similar basic errors. Your info (a cardiologist is an evolutionary biologist?) is wrong.

JPD

Dec21-04, 06:31 AM

I'd conclude by analyzing the data presented, that a vegetarian diet is healthier and more beneficial to humanity. The only significant reason for eating meat that remains, in my opinion, is the fact that meat tastes good; however, how many people would support placing animals in pits and having them fight to the death? Not many. Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?

What a weak argument. How about people sourcing meat properly from properly raised livestock that roam the land and have a (as much as possible) stress-free life.
Sorry vegetarians and vegans - the arguments you bring forward might be enough to make you feel great about yourselves (this seems to be important to you - a sense of self-importance) but they don't wash with us meat eaters. Hows about freedom of choice - you seem to be attempting to dictate to the world how it should live. How dare you?

JPD

Dec21-04, 06:39 AM

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives? The average diet of a vegetarian or vegan is not balanced, hence the need to bolster it with tablets, hence the unbalanced minds pronouncing an all-encompassing plan for how everyone should live.
This is where you fall down. If you were really intelligent you would keep quiet and then perhaps - and it is an extremely small chance - people might enquire as to how you live your life.
You say 'I am a vegetarian' or 'I am a vegan' as if it affords you some special status in life, as if people should bow down. Personally speaking, if anyone pronounces either of these two sentences to me I actually want to be sick on them.
In a psychological sense of course.

learningphysics

Dec21-04, 11:01 AM

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives?

What gives a policeman the right to stop a criminal? What are you saying... people should just do whatever they want willy nilly... Stealing, murder, cannibalism.... all ok?

So speaking out against something you find immoral is wrong?

JaeSun

Dec21-04, 11:18 AM

What gives a policeman the right to stop a criminal? What are you saying... people should just do whatever they want willy nilly... Stealing, murder, cannibalism.... all ok?

So speaking out against something you find immoral is wrong?

that argument is weak ...

if you have kids, then what gives you the right to tell them what they can and cant do, etc?

its not saying that anyone can and cant do, but its the basic rights of everyone to be able to live and do as they please within a set standard ..... a policeman stopping a criminal is different from me telling you what you should eat ..... a policeman is enforcing a known good .... as in regards to telling someone your beliefs, thats different ...

if you want to speak out against it, go ahead .. just dont go preaching to everyone and telling them what to do as that is taking a step too far ....

Seafang

Dec21-04, 12:25 PM

i think a lot of people (even veggies) keep saying this, assume it is so and do sincerely try very hard to be good omnivores, but a closer look seems to indicate otherwise. compare a true omnivore's (eg dog) teeth to a human's and one finds that
the dog's canines are considerable larger (for ripping and tearing)
humans molars are considerably more prominent (for crushing and grinding - unlike jagged doggie molars)
the human's jaw flaunts (unlike doggie jaw) side-to-side motion (to work those molars)

additionally,

we do not have the claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we do not have the sharp, shearing teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh. We are not fast enough to outrun and catch animals. Natural omnivores or carnivores do NOT chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow them whole. We do not have the "constant tendency for the last upper premolar and the first lower molar to engage and form long longitudinal opposed shearing blades (the carnassials)", which are a common characteristic of natural carnivores and omnivores.

As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore?s short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore?s intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant).
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm (a delightfully 'biased' article i must say, distinguishing very well between the common misunderstanding between the verbs "to do" and "to be" - eg humans are meat-eaters because they've done meat-eating LOL)

this next article is kind of amusing because in it you have a non-veg (possibly) Cardiologist William C. Roberts arguing that humans aren't designed to eat meat while a veg, anatomist and primatologist John McArdle arguing that humans are omnivores. here is the beginning of the article:

Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?143

finally, here is an excellent and thorough article by Milton R. Mills, M.D. that argues humans not being particularly well suited for meat consumption based on comparative anatomy of Oral Cavity, Stomach and Small Intestine, Colon. here is the conclusion from that article (with the link, of course):

we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a 'committed' herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

so all omnivorous wishful thinking aside, the arguments against humans being anatomically suited for meat consumption are really pretty substantial.

in friendship,
prad

Well I noticed that you didn't bother to address my point that being omnivorous gives us access to the use of plant foods which we would otherwise be unable to digest; but we can certainly digest the meat of ruminants that can process those foods.

You watch pure herbivores eat and you find that they do it pretty much all day long. The food value of what they eat is so poor that they have to eat tons of it. we gain the upper hand by letting them do the hard work and then eating them. Otherwise we would spend all our time eating low level foods too.

The food crops we grow are more nutritious than what ruminants eat, but it costs us hugely in the form of fossil fuel energy to enjoy either those better plant foods or the meat that we produce likewise with energy input.

The six billion people on earth today could not exist if they had to rely on foods produced from solar energy by mother nature; and that includes both the plant foods and the wild animals.

physicsisphirst

Dec21-04, 02:11 PM

Well I noticed that you didn't bother to address my point that being omnivorous gives us access to the use of plant foods which we would otherwise be unable to digest; but we can certainly digest the meat of ruminants that can process those foods.
since we are not omnivorous via comparative anatomy (see last link, for instance, in post #900 which refers to the Mills article), we can only claim to be omnivorous via action which is a bit like saying because we can be airborne on a plane, we can fly.

so given that we are not omnivorous as the articles and explanations explain, i probably for that reason didn't bother to address that particular point of yours. however, in certain areas where it is very difficult to access suitable plant foods, humans do eat creatures that can process the existing vegetation (but the anatomy of these humans really doesn't change because of doing so).

The six billion people on earth today could not exist if they had to rely on foods produced from solar energy by mother nature; and that includes both the plant foods and the wild animals.
considering it takes a lot less energy to grow crops than cattle, it would be far easier to feed the planet on a veg diet. one of the 3 main arguments for vegness is the environmental factor.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec21-04, 02:32 PM

Dogs are carnovores, not omnivores. Compare our teeth to dogs and cows and they fall right in the middle. The rest of the post contains similar basic errors. Your info (a cardiologist is an evolutionary biologist?) is wrong.
so are you saying that because Roberts is a cardiologist that he is incapable of making correct statements about human anatomy or even evolutionary biology? do you think that all evolutionary biologists would disagree with Roberts?

Most doggies (though placed in the order carnivora) are generally considered to be omnivorous (because they are considerably different from true carnivores like cats - see merck veterinary manual for instance http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/182800.htm) although bears provide a more classic example of this group (see mills' comparative anatomy article).

Comparing our teeth to a dogs and a cows and then saying that "they fall right in the middle" (whatever that means), hardly provides an argumentative basis for concluding that humans are omnivorous (it is through this sort of selectively qualitative, emotive and handwaving pseudo-conclusive statement-making that the rumour about humans being omnivores still persists).

in fact, if you actually do compare as Mills does on the criteria of Oral Cavity, Stomach and Small Intestine, Colon as well as facial muscles, jaw type, jaw joint location, jaw motion, jaw muscles, mouth opening vs headsize, teeth (incisors, canines, molars), chewing, saliva, stomach type, stomach acidity, stomach capacity, length of intestine, liver, kidney, nails - it becomes pretty obvious that the human anatomy lines up with that of the herbivores. here is the Mills link again:
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

if you want to dispute any of the analyses presented by Mills, then by all means try to do so (you may find some ammunition if you look at McArdle's stuff). however, simply saying "your info is wrong" isn't a particularly substantial contribution.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec21-04, 02:49 PM

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives?
but jpd, why in that case, are you telling dooga and learningphysics what they should or should not do? why do you attempt to violate their right to post what they want to?

The average diet of a vegetarian or vegan is not balanced, hence the need to bolster it with tablets, hence the unbalanced minds pronouncing an all-encompassing plan for how everyone should live.
if you would look at the nutritional info provided throughout the thread and beyond, you would see that veg diets are not imbalanced at all.

This is where you fall down. If you were really intelligent you would keep quiet and then perhaps - and it is an extremely small chance - people might enquire as to how you live your life.
are you telling them what to do again or are you providing them with valuable advice on how to conduct their affairs?

You say 'I am a vegetarian' or 'I am a vegan' as if it affords you some special status in life, as if people should bow down. Personally speaking, if anyone pronounces either of these two sentences to me I actually want to be sick on them.
In a psychological sense of course.
it seems you've had some bad experiences with a veg or two. unfortunately, since you get sick in a psychological sense, you may have difficulty in hearing what they actually say.

for instance, look at what dooga wrote:
if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?
he hasn't said that meat eaters are cruel people.
what his question suggests is that anyone who doesn't support cruelty probably wouldn't support the practises that go into producing meat and it seems to be based on unaccusatory logic. in fact, we've had several pro-meaters throughout this thread indicate that they do not support the cruelty that is inherent to the meat industry.

in friendship,
prad

rgoudie

Dec21-04, 05:54 PM

Hows about freedom of choice - you seem to be attempting to dictate to the world how it should live. How dare you?

Hows about freedom of choice, indeed! How dare you hold an entire species hostage just so you can have the convenience of driving to your local supermarket to purchase the processed flesh of these hostage species? What freedom do these species possess? Is this not arrogant of humans to be dictating how other species should live?

-Ray.

rgoudie

Dec21-04, 05:56 PM

The question is: what gives you the right to tell other people how they should live their lives?

Probably the same presumptions that give you the right to tell other species how to live and die.

-Ray.

rgoudie

Dec21-04, 06:02 PM

if you want to speak out against it, go ahead .. just dont go preaching to everyone and telling them what to do as that is taking a step too far ....

Imagine, then, if veggies collected the entire lot of you meat-eaters and held you all hostage in pens. Would that be taking it an insane step too far? Well, this is what arrogant humans have done, and are doing, with a number of species. This is not really a question of beliefs, such as I love Pepsi and you love Coke, or I belief in this religion and you believe in that religion, or not. Humans are in the process of abusing life forms that possess the inherit right to life their lives as they see fit. Who are you to decide that it is just to hold every single chicken hostage?

-Ray.

rgoudie

Dec21-04, 06:20 PM

i eat meat and im proud of it (i like my steaks bloody rare)

So, you must admit that you could not care less about the plight of the life forms that often suffer so that you can have quick access to your favourite carcass? :biggrin:

and quite personally, i think PETA goes way to far with its tactics ....

Again, going too far is relative, since I believe that humans have gone five orders overboard with their current practice of holding species hostage for the sake of convenience.

-Ray.

russ_watters

Dec21-04, 10:01 PM

Humans are in the process of abusing life forms that possess the inherit right to life their lives as they see fit. Old ground, I know, but you'll need to substantiate that assertion. Just because you say animals have rights doesn't make it so.

russ_watters

Dec21-04, 10:20 PM

so are you saying that because Roberts is a cardiologist that he is incapable of making correct statements about human anatomy or even evolutionary biology? No, I think that including his profession in your post was a misguided attempt at argument from authority. do you think that all evolutionary biologists would disagree with Roberts? "all"? I don't know - the question is apparently under some debate. Most doggies (though placed in the order carnivora) are generally considered to be omnivorous... Considered by whom? Vegitarians and people who make dog food?

http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/speaker5.html It is only in recent years, since commercial dog food has become a multi-billion dollar business, that we refer to our domestic
carnivores as omnivores. Why? What changed their status? They still have teeth like a wolf, long sharp canines for tearing
flesh, and solid molars and strong jaws for crushing bones. They still have the same simple mono-gastric digestive system
of a wolf; not suited, as an omnivore or herbivore, for breaking down and digesting plant proteins. HERE (http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/catsaredif.html) is a site you may (or may not) like: To begin with we must get a good grip on two terms . . . carnivore and omnivore. The cat is considered by scientists to be a strict carnivore and the dog is considered to be an omnivore. Both species are in the Class Mammalia and the Order Carnivora, but here’s the difference: The cat cannot sustain its life unless it consumes meat in some form. Dogs, however, are able to survive on plant material alone; they do not have to consume meat. But always keep in mind that dogs do best and by nature are primarily meat-eaters. Just because by definition they are omnivores (can digest and utilize plant and animal food sources) does not mean that plant material alone makes a good source of nutrition for the dog. Far too many dogs have been undernourished by those cheap grain-based dog foods. And grain-based cat foods are even worse!

So a good way to think of it is that cats are carnivores, dogs are omnivores, but they both have evolved as hunters of other animals in keeping with their nature as meat-eaters. The trouble with this site is it slices the definition of "omnivore" a little thin (a lot of sites do this). Basically, you may, if you wish, call a dog an "omnivore," but that doesn't change the fact that it is still primarily a meat-eater.

So I've learned something here: the definition of "omnivore" is broader than I realized. But that's ok because it doesn't change the fact that dogs do and should eat meat. It also doesn't change the flaw in your use of dogs as an example to prove humans were meant to be vegitarians. Humans, like dogs, have many characteristics that are designed for catching and eating meat.

physicsisphirst

Dec21-04, 10:36 PM

No, I think that including his profession in your post was a misguided attempt at argument from authority.
i also included mcardle's profession. frankly, i don't see how being a cardiologist gives Roberts a position of authority - but you jump to the conclusion that i do.

Considered by whom? Vegitarians and people who make dog food?
well i did quote the merck vet manual. the idea that dogs are omnivores does appear in many other places. however, debating whether they are or aren't is hardly the issue here especially considering that Mills uses the bear as his 'classic' omnivore.

So I've learned something here: the definition of "omnivore" is broader than I realized. But that's ok because it doesn't change the fact that dogs do and should eat meat.
well that's fine except that many dogs certainly don't eat meat and since their health and lifespans are not adversely affected (quite the contrary in fact), it doesn't necessarily follow that they should eat meat. (again, that's not what's on the table here though).

It also doesn't change the flaw in your use of dogs as an example to prove humans were meant to be vegitarians.
well it's not really a flaw since doggies have by your own research been found to be omnivorous. however, the example used in Mills article isn't a dog but a bear:

This is exactly the situation we find in the Bear, Raccoon and certain members of the Canine families. (This discussion will be limited to bears because they are, in general, representative of the anatomical omnivores.) Bears are classified as carnivores but are classic anatomical omnivores.
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

Humans, like dogs, have many characteristics that are designed for catching and eating meat.
like what russ? their claws and their teeth? their ability to run after game with a shopping cart in a supermarket?

in friendship,
prad

russ_watters

Dec21-04, 11:25 PM

like what russ? their claws and their teeth? the ability to run after game with a shopping cart in a supermarket? From a vegitarian: http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns. Among the traits:

-Teeth (yes, teeth) - 'gee, they look different' isn't good enough: in fact humans have among the widest varieties of teeth of any animal -a clear indication of an evolution toward eating a variety of foods: including meat.
-Eyes: in front like carnivores.
-Brains: catching grass does not require complex problem solving.
-lack of many of the highly specialized traits typical of vegitarians (stomachs, teeth, etc.).
-Archeological record -we've always eaten meat.
-Evolution: chimps, our closest relatives, eat meat.

But even this is a diversion - this has nothing to do with previous claims that we shouldn't eat meat. I'm guessing that's because of the difficulty in dealing with the contradictions and unanswered questions regarding the morality of it.

Kingofthedamned

Dec21-04, 11:43 PM

if the world all suddenly turned to not eating meat low iron levels would be the next anorexia. many people that do eat meat still have low iron levels...humans are animals and we have eaten meat for so long that we are connsidered part of the food cycle...it's the same as forcing all of the lions to become "vegie's" it would completly ruin the eco system opf the area. those of you in australia would have heared about the pair of 5 meter sharks in SA...and the argument about if they should be killed or not...and the main concern is that once these "heads" of the eco system are wiped out that the rest of the cycle will fall apart...nature is about balance..i'm not saying that humans don't unbalance it because they do what i'm saying is that humans need to find the balance between all meat and all vegies...buy all of us turning to vegies we would be going from one extreme to an other....personally i think that humans as a race are arrogent and refuse to look at our selves as part of the eco system around us.....all we need is balance.

JPD

Dec22-04, 04:09 AM

but jpd, why in that case, are you telling dooga and learningphysics what they should or should not do? why do you attempt to violate their right to post what they want to?

if you would look at the nutritional info provided throughout the thread and beyond, you would see that veg diets are not imbalanced at all.

are you telling them what to do again or are you providing them with valuable advice on how to conduct their affairs?

it seems you've had some bad experiences with a veg or two. unfortunately, since you get sick in a psychological sense, you may have difficulty in hearing what they actually say.

for instance, look at what dooga wrote:
if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?
he hasn't said that meat eaters are cruel people.
what his question suggests is that anyone who doesn't support cruelty probably wouldn't support the practises that go into producing meat and it seems to be based on unaccusatory logic. in fact, we've had several pro-meaters throughout this thread indicate that they do not support the cruelty that is inherent to the meat industry.

in friendship,
prad

Pathetic ramblings and a pathetic attempt at a joke Prad.
I am stating that no-one has the right to tell anyone what to do. Listen please - switch to receive rather than transmit. I don't tell vegetarians what to do, I'm saying DON'T TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT EAT.
Pretty simple - understand?

JPD

Dec22-04, 04:16 AM

Hows about freedom of choice, indeed! How dare you hold an entire species hostage just so you can have the convenience of driving to your local supermarket to purchase the processed flesh of these hostage species? What freedom do these species possess? Is this not arrogant of humans to be dictating how other species should live?

-Ray.

How do you know how I source the meat I eat?
How dare you presume?
You are showing your lack of awareness very clearly.

JPD

Dec22-04, 04:30 AM

JPD

Dec22-04, 04:31 AM

rgoudie

Dec22-04, 09:56 AM

Old ground, I know, but you'll need to substantiate that assertion. Just because you say animals have rights doesn't make it so.

Russ, you seem to be setting me up for the obvious reply. :smile:

Just because humans decide that animals have lesser rights, doesn't make it so. How do you substantiate your position?

-Ray.

rgoudie

Dec22-04, 10:02 AM

nature is about balance...

personally i think that humans as a race are arrogent and refuse to look at our selves as part of the eco system around us.....all we need is balance.

Your message was well received. I agree with you 100% that balance is what is missing. Do you believe that it is balanced to hoard entire species of animals for the sake of profit and convenience?

-Ray.

rgoudie

Dec22-04, 10:11 AM

How do you know how I source the meat I eat?
How dare you presume?
You are showing your lack of awareness very clearly.

I don't believe for one second that you are going out into the woods and shooting one individual and bringing it home. You buy your meat from your local supermarket just like most other meat-eaters. If you actually did go out and hunt your own food, then you would have appended such to your response.
Please, dispense with the insincere indignation.

Could you explain how clear is my lack of awareness?

-Ray.

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec22-04, 12:40 PM

I would disagree with the ecosystem comment. I would assume evolution and adaptation would eliminate that problem. If our ecosystem requires death, should we not manipulate our ecosystem so it doesn't? We have innumerable amounts of ways to kill things, with that kind of intelligence I'm sure we could adjust our environment to minimize killing.

Concerning the freedom arguement, governments founded on ideologies of freedom have restrictions. Freedom is considered inappropriate when it infringes upon the freedoms of another being.

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 01:09 PM

Pathetic ramblings and a pathetic attempt at a joke Prad.
I am stating that no-one has the right to tell anyone what to do. Listen please - switch to receive rather than transmit. I don't tell vegetarians what to do, I'm saying DON'T TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT EAT.
Pretty simple - understand?
but jpd people are always telling other people what they should and shouldn't do - you have just done it again by saying "DON'T TELL ME ..."

i'm not making a joke here - i'm saying that your concept of "don't tell me ..." seems to contain a rather large droplet of (unintended, i'm sure) hypocrisy.

i don't see what the big deal is anyway? laws and regulations tell people what they should and shouldn't do all the time. it's hardly something worth complaining about in the fashion you chose.

in friendship,
prad

russ_watters

Dec22-04, 01:29 PM

Russ, you seem to be setting me up for the obvious reply. :smile:

Just because humans decide that animals have lesser rights, doesn't make it so. How do you substantiate your position?

-Ray. Rights were created by humans, for humans, and since the default position is never to assume something exists without evidence, your attempt at burden-of-proof shifting doesn't fly. As I'm sure you are aware, the concept of animal rights is a relatively new thing, so it is you who needs to substantiate why we should change the existing paradigm.

Since I don't feel like going through the entire argument, though, I'll just say that the theory of rights that is in use today comes mostly from Locke and it makes no mention of animal rights.

I wasn't setting you up - are you playing a game here or are you going to try to defend your position?

edit: and I missed this before: Again, going too far is relative, since I believe that humans have gone five orders overboard with their current practice of holding species hostage for the sake of convenience. How new, precisely, is this practice? 15,000 years?

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 01:35 PM

From a vegitarian: http://www.purifymind.com/HumansOmnivores.htm
i'm glad you did look up mcardle's stuff. he presents a reasonable argument for some things in that article. however, it isn't nearly as thorough as Mills. i already established that mcardle is a vegetarian in post #900 - do you feel that you are adding some sort of credibility by saying "from a vegitarian" here?

let's look at the traits you have dug up and the interpretations you apply to them:

-Teeth (yes, teeth) - 'gee, they look different' isn't good enough: in fact humans have among the widest varieties of teeth of any animal -a clear indication of an evolution toward eating a variety of foods: including meat.
the teeth are designed for a wide variety of foods - but exactly which of the teeth are designed to eat meat? surely you are not suggesting that it be the dimunitive canines which find their ability tested to the limit ripping open the cellophane which wraps the meat hunted down at the supermarket? can it be the molars? i think not since the jagged canivore molars tend to slice rather than grind like ours.
so just which teeth are so well designed to help us eat meat?

-Eyes: in front like carnivores.
carnivorous fish have eyes that are not in front.
whales have eyes that are not in front.
reptiles have eyes that are not in front.
some birds have eyes that are not in front.
now are there any veg creatures that have eyes in the front? how about a woodchuck? or a gorilla? are there others?

-Brains: catching grass does not require complex problem solving.
i don't see too many folk using their brains to catch prey. in fact, it takes more brains to grow crops than to chase after live animals in the wild or dead ones in the supermarket.

-lack of many of the highly specialized traits typical of vegitarians (stomachs, teeth, etc.).
i see you haven't paid much attention to the Mills article. here again is the link: http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm
i guess it might be a good idea for me to actually pull some stuff from it for presentation here.

-Archeological record -we've always eaten meat.
that is not a contribution to comparative anatomy. it has no validity here and tries for justification via the "we do" therefore "we are" fallacy.

-Evolution: chimps, our closest relatives, eat meat.

only as a delicacy.

But even this is a diversion - this has nothing to do with previous claims that we shouldn't eat meat.
it is not a diversion at all. you are all hung up on this morality thing. the topic is "should we eat meat?" not "is it moral to eat meat?". what is happening here is that you are being shown that humans are not really designed to do too good a job with meat. this is being done via comparative anatomy (and this of course explains why several diseases result from these practices - and this will be covered, again, later).
why do you want to crawl into that morality-argument shell for apparent protection - rather than dealing with things on a physiological (and eventually medical) level?

I'm guessing that's because of the difficulty in dealing with the contradictions and unanswered questions regarding the morality of it.
then you have not seen posts #765 & #769 where it was shown that oneeye's creation (which you lauded) didn't create a contradiction.
you may also want to look at cogito's post #883 and try dealing with the predicament he has revealed 'your' position has.
everyone of your questions have been answered and by various people - you may have just overlooked the posts. however, ask again by all means!

in friendship,
prad

russ_watters

Dec22-04, 01:36 PM

but jpd people are always telling other people what they should and shouldn't do - you have just done it again by saying "DON'T TELL ME ..."

i'm not making a joke here - i'm saying that your concept of "don't tell me ..." seems to contain a rather large droplet of hypocrisy.

i don't see what the big deal is anyway? laws and regulations tell people what they should and shouldn't do all the time. it's hardly something worth complaining about in the fashion you chose. Again, you're making a big deal out of a complete irrelevancy: before you can impose your view on someone else, you must first show that your view is right. Then after you have shown it, you can argue about whether or not it is ok to impose it. Otherwise, your argument reduces to arbitrary lawmaking. The government doesn't oultlaw murder because it can and feels like it, it outlaws murder because it is right to do so.

In addition, you're turning it into a circular argument:

can not
can too
can not
can too
can not

Its a pretty weak, and frankly childish, debate tactic.

russ_watters

Dec22-04, 01:46 PM

that is not a contribution to comparative anatomy. it has no validity here and tries for justification via the "we do" therefore "we are" fallacy. That's not a fallacy at all - in fact, its the most important point on the list. Heck, you're living proof: the reason you call yourself a vegitarian has nothing to do with anatomy, but it has to do with the fact that you do, in actuality, not eat meat. Similarly, if you feed a dog only corn, you have made it a vegitarian (by force).

And again, this is all a smokescreen since now it appears you are trying to prove that humans shouldn't eat meat because they weren't designed to eat meat. Physiology isn't at all relevant to the conversation: we're back to the logical fallacy and utter absurdity of "if humans were meant to fly, they'd have wings!"

edit: now, perhaps this has relevance to the question of how far we can push our beliefs on to other animals, but as we have already discussed, morality and ethics have nothing to do with physiology: if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow. Either the cow has a right to life or it doesn't.

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 02:22 PM

Its a pretty weak, and frankly childish, debate tactic.
i think you are missing my point.
how is it ok for jpd to tell others not to tell him what to do when he is telling them what not to do himself?
i'm not debating this - i don't even mind if he or you keep singing "don't tell me what to do" (which does after all provide one of the final refuges).
i'm only saying that it doesn't have a great deal of validity as an argument simply because it negates itself.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 02:31 PM

And again, this is all a smokescreen since now it appears you are trying to prove that humans shouldn't eat meat because they weren't designed to eat meat.
but russ, that is exactly what i am trying to show. i'm not presenting 'moral' arguments - i'm arguing we shouldn't eat meat because it is unhealthy to do so. why is that a problem? and what's this smokescreen conspiracy you keep harping on about?
do you have problem discussing this on a non-morality basis? if you do just say so and we can talk about something else.

if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow. Either the cow has a right to life or it doesn't.
well i don't really know why you keep bringing morality into this - especially considering there are plenty of others who can discuss this with you. however, in your statement "if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow", the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent (unless you are a lion or the lion is you).
as far as the right to life thing, be happy! answered you pretty well on that.

in friendship,
prad

learningphysics

Dec22-04, 03:25 PM

No, assuming that you know better then everyone else, and think you know how to tell others what they should and shouldn't eat is - it is none of your business.

So then, you have no problem with cannibalism? Or at least it seems you think nobody should speak out against it, as that would be "telling people what they should and shouldn't eat"? If a cannibal decides to eat someone you know, you better not say anything as it is "none of your business".

russ_watters

Dec22-04, 03:26 PM

i think you are missing my point.
how is it ok for jpd to tell others not to tell him what to do when he is telling them what not to do himself? Omg, please stop. I'm not going to go around in circles on this. but russ, that is exactly what i am trying to show. i'm not presenting 'moral' arguments - i'm arguing we shouldn't eat meat because it is unhealthy to do so. why is that a problem? Well, its a problem for quite a number of reasons:

first is the lack of relevance (I eat iced cream and candy, and that's unhealthy, so even if true, being unhealthy isn't necessarily a reason to stop eating something).

Second, arguing about how good a person's teeth are at cutting meat (and mine cut meat just fine, btw) has nothing to do with whether or not it is healthy to do so.

Third, and more importantly, its wrong. It simply isn't true that eating meat is inherrently unhealthy. And even if you want to argue just that its more healthy to not eat meat, that still isn't relevant because of point 1.

4th, what happened to the morality arguments? Too difficult to make so they got dropped?

5th, the broken record/parroting of that youcanttellmewhattodoicantellyounototellmewhattodo lunacy is only relevant to a moral argument. do you have problem discussing this on a non-morality basis? if you do just say so and we can talk about something else. Yes. If the issue is a health issue, then it is also a personal choice issue and meat eaters generally don't care about the personal choices of others: you make yours and I'll make mine and each will leave the other alone. The reason I am in this debate at all (and, I would venture to say, most meat eaters) is the implication that if it is morally wrong to eat meat, it should be illegal to eat meat (which is true, btw).

After a year, maybe its a little late to cite the original intent of the thread, but the reason it was posted and the reason I'm here is the morality of eating meat.

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 03:37 PM

The reason I am in this debate at all (and, I would venture to say, most meat eaters) is the implication that if it is morally wrong to eat meat, it should be illegal to eat meat (which is true, btw).
very well then - you and i can simply stick to the morality issue.
i'll keep quiet about it for a bit, because you seem to have your hands full answering rgoudie and learningphysics not to mention be happy! and cogito (even though he directed his posts to oneeye - perhaps in the latter's absence, you would like to deal with it).

i trust that you don't have an objection if i post occasionally and only when relevant on non-morality matters to show the masses of evidence that humans weren't 'designed' to eat meat and that there are serious health consequences resulting from the consumption of animal proteins (regardless of whether it is one's personal choice or not). i simply will not direct the posts as responses to yours.

After a year, maybe its a little late to cite the original intent of the thread, but the reason it was posted and the reason I'm here is the morality of eating meat.
i suppose that since it is in value theory and since the first post does talk mostly about morality matters, you are correct in saying that physicskid did want to talk morality. i'm fine with that and will continue the nutritional and environmental issues elsewhere and at a different time.

in friendship,
prad

shrumeo

Dec22-04, 03:41 PM

the point of this was to show you that since 40% americans are deficient in B12 and since 40% of americans don't abstain from animal proteins, it appears that simply eating meat isn't going to save you from a b12 deficiency (at least according to the 'setting' of the deficiency level). yet you came up with the simplistic conclusion that these people should just eat more meat and that will solve their problem.
Ok, I oversimplified, but you seem to do a lot of this as well.
If these people are not getting enough vitamin B12, and the only natural source for these things comes from animals,
then what am I missing here?
Did they not go to the doctor enough and get a shot of stuff made in a factory?

the animal proteins are causing serious problems as explained earlier and as shown in the various sites.
I must have missed the convincing argument that supports this.
Please, point the way.

your statement that "correlation does not always mean causation" is a perfectly legitimate one, however, if it is inappropriately applied it can hide a multitude of sins. in fact, the smoking industry used that excuse for years to deny that cigarette smoke causes cancer (they still do i think).

And this has to do with eating meat in what way?

that's not quite true - dogs often dig things up and if they like it they may eat it - some flowerbeds bear testament to that. they also like to bury things for later consumption.
Dogs do not eat the flowers (unless they are one of those stupid dogs, my neighbor had a dog that would eat rocks and lick on dirt.)
They dig for two primary reasons.
The first is to make a 'cool spot' to lie down.
The second is to bury uneaten prey so they can return to it later.
Anyway, dogs are scanvengers and can eat lots of things.
I'm sure if a dog were hungry enough he'd eat just about anything edible.
(Oh, and to escape from a fenced yard.)

i think the problem here is that you treat what is on the websites i have shown you as rubbish. admittedly, you can find whatever you want on the web, but considering the "correlations" to heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis etc etc and animal protein consumption, don't you think it's worth a second look?
I don't give second look to a lot of websites that try to frighten me.
The one look I gave each of these sites convinced me that there is most likely nothing on them that would convince me.

you think that all the info is coming from ethical veggies, but it isn't. in the early 90's, even the lancet (one of those prestigious medical journals) acknowledged that decreasing animal protein consumption would also decrease risk of heart disease and cancer. here is an example of current 'medical research' from Gut:
Things are published in prestigious journals that are wrong.
I know, it's incredible.
But, I'd have to read the papers (or one paper) to decide anything for myself.

Ulcerative Colitis Relapses with Meat and Beef

Influence of dietary factors on the clinical course of ulcerative colitis: a prospective cohort study by Sarah L. Jowett in the October 2004 issue of the journal Gut found patients with ulcerative colitis had more frequent relapses when they consumed meat, especially red and processed meat, and eggs.

dr mcdougall comments:
The amount of sulfur in the intestine is increased by consuming animal products, which are inherently high in sulfur-containing amino acids, like methionine and cysteine.
you can see more of the details here:
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/2004nl/041100pufavorite5.htm
This is talking about a RELAPSE of an existing condition.
Eating meat did not give them this condition.

my point in showing you this is that there are a very large number of 'medical' people who advocate the veg diet - and for nutritional reasons. if they do, it may be an idea to at least give some credence to it rather than dismissing it as rubbish.
Showing me that a relapse of a pre-existing condition is brought on by eating certain amino acids does not demonstrate to me "that there are a very large number of 'medical' people who advocate the veg diet."

What does this throng of doctors suggest a vegan do for his RDA of B12?

what a strange basis for rejection! it would be similar to my saying that the pro-meat people have brain-washed certain folks into believing eating meat is good for you just so their industry can make more money! actually, i believe that if you look at who does make money, my 'bigoted and narrow-minded' conclusion has more validity than yours.
I hope you weren't using those quotes for me. I never said 'bigoted and narrowminded.'
I'm sure there are people in the meat industry that would have you believing that everyone should constantly be on the Atkins Diet, but that doesn't mean that most "pro-meat" people would suggest that you stop eating vegetables altogether. This is the difference between the 'pro-meat' side and the 'anti-meat' side. One side wants people to give up something they need.

there is a lot more than 429 people to back up the veg position from a health perspective.
There are thousands of people that claim they have seen flying saucers and bigfoot.

you still have this strange idea that you need to supplement a veg diet. you seem to think that people don't supplement meat diets.
B12 B12 B12
I'm sure there are others but you cannot get vitamin B12 from a vegan diet without some form of supplementation, whether it comes from artificially fortified grains or from a shot in the arm.

now this is a very weird idea considering that even in the 60s and 70s when the veg movement was just beginning to start up, vitamins were being marketed like crazy. they weren't there for veg folk - they were there for your meat folk (not too many veggies back then). what this would suggest is that a meat-based diet is totally inadequate in providing the necessary requirements.
Yeah, cutting out veggies is BAD.
Cutting out meat is BAD.
You NEED both.

interestingly enough, if you look at the first article in that earlier link, you find that even vitamins aren't enough LOL:
Then you'd better start eating some meat. I'd hate for you to become anemic.

Vitamins Do Not Prevent Cancer and May Increase Likelihood of Death
Antioxidant supplements for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Goran Bjelakovic reported in the October 2004 issue of the Lancet found no "evidence that antioxidant supplements can prevent cancer; on the contrary, they seem to increase overall mortality."
Ok, the title implies that all vitamins increase the likelihood of death.
Then it says that injesting antioxidant supplements may increase mortality.
What does this have to do with eating meat?

well i looked at all this back in the early '90s to quite an extent since we didn't want to make the jump to a strict veg diet without researching things - after all, we had to take my infant son into account as well as the ravings of my medical doctor father who kept babbling things like meat is good for you.
Those medical doctors, I swear!
They just have no idea what they are talking about.

no one is asking you to subject your dog or yourself to anything.
what a silly idea though to suggest that i take my magnificient, admiration-attracting (and rather mischievous) bowwows (who never suffer from any of those things that the vets want to protect dogs from), and change their diet because you maintain this notion that a meat-based diet is better than what they are fed now.
Sorry for getting so personal here, but what does their stool look like?
If its firm (yum!) but not too firm then supposedly that's good, but if it's runny (mmm mmm!) then that's bad.

well the 'one thing' hasn't been a thing here at all. the content of my posts have been for the most part that eating meat is bad for you purely on health grounds (despite what a couple of people would like to believe).
I think it's more like three or four. Surely there are more than a couple people that believe (fools!) that meat is good for you.

i have backed up what i have said with several links (throughout this thread)
which were bunk

as well as results that are evident in society for anyone to see (regardless of whether you subscibe to 'correlation' or 'causation') ... and i can keep going too LOL
Ok, evidence in society...
There is evidence in society that we should stop eating meat altogether?
And I would think that we should know the cause of harm before eliminating all correlating events.
Not doing this is called superstition.
But I will admit that the full moon does cause crime and accidents though!

in any case, as i wrote earlier, if you want to eat meat that's up to you. nor should you simply believe the opposite of the slogan that you have been chanting "meat is healthy" - if you are interested in the health benefits of veg, then do some research about veg diet, learn who is saying what, find some correlations (or even causations), then make up your own mind.
I've been chanting?
If I have, I wasn't chanting 'meat is healthy.'
I was chanting 'not eating any meat whatsoever in unhealthy.'

shrumeo

Dec22-04, 04:05 PM

a policeman is enforcing a known good....
So everything a cop can arrest you for is a "known" bad?
Everything the cop enforces is a "known good."
Is this true in every country?

Probably the same presumptions that give you the right to tell other species how to live and die.

-Ray.

Nobody told them. They just forced them. Just like a spider forces a fly to die. Just like the venus fly trap forces flies to die. Just like a frog forces flies to die. Man, I'd hate to be a fly.

-Brains: catching grass does not require complex problem solving..
I've heard that we have big brains as a result of eating meat. The richness of the proteins allowed the brain to function at much elevated levels, and we didn't need to use most of our skull to house the large muscles required to eat most wild vegetation (like in a gorilla) so there was "room" for a bigger brain to develop, which led to better cooperation in hunting and gathering, which started a cycle of more protein/bigger brain/more protein/bigger brain.

Your message was well received. I agree with you 100% that balance is what is missing. Do you believe that it is balanced to hoard entire species of animals for the sake of profit and convenience?

-Ray.

Hoarding for profit is only natural.
Is everything in nature balanced or is it supposed to be?
Is it balanced to force a dog to eat only vegetables?
Is it balanced to keep pets at all?
They are prisoners.

I don't believe for one second that you are going out into the woods and shooting one individual and bringing it home.
Is that what you require for an animal to have a good life?
Can we "source our meat" from family farms or places that we know do not practice cruelty?
Is hunting acceptable to you?
We can make hunting easier by walking a domesticated animal into a slaughterhouse.

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 04:26 PM

I've heard that we have big brains as a result of eating meat.
a misconception as Leonard and Robertson 1994 pointed out (see bottom of post #670 for this as well as other big brain theories).

Ok, I oversimplified, but you seem to do a lot of this as well.
not really shrumeo. you often come to your conclusions based on what you want to believe regardless of what i present to you. additionally, you sometimes make 'conclusive' statements without substantiation or validation of any sort. however, you don't always do this so it is still enjoyable discussing things with you.

If these people are not getting enough vitamin B12, and the only natural source for these things comes from animals,
then what am I missing here?
Did they not go to the doctor enough and get a shot of stuff made in a factory?
b12 apparently comes from secretions in soil bacteria. so other possibilities do exist, if one is really concerned. ;)

I must have missed the convincing argument that supports this.
i have presented arguments and some data. whether they are convincing is really going to be up to you. however, russ has pointed out that my nutritional arguments may be out-of-place here considering the intent of the thread which was to discuss the morality of eating meat. therefore, if it is ok with you, i'll start a separate thread (some time after christmas) for the nutritional aspects of the issue - just so people can focus on morality here. i'll personally invite you to it via PM as well if that's ok with you.

I don't give second look to a lot of websites that try to frighten me.
The one look I gave each of these sites convinced me that there is most likely nothing on them that would convince me.
i think what matters isn't so much whether you believe you would be convinced or not, but whether what is said is correct.

Things are published in prestigious journals that are wrong. I know, it's incredible.
But, I'd have to read the papers (or one paper) to decide anything for myself.
i agree - i don't think a lot of medical stuff necessarily is correct.

This is talking about a RELAPSE of an existing condition.
Eating meat did not give them this condition.
that really wasn't the point.

What does this throng of doctors suggest a vegan do for his RDA of B12?
the b12 thing is sort of weird and opinions have changed over the past 14 years that i've seen. early on, some said shots. then some said fortified foods as well as the yeast thing. there was also the eat fresh foods (which is good), but don't wash them too much (which is amusing). what was most curious was how the length of time for the supply to run out kept changing: we were first told it was 7 years. then a bit later it changed to 15 years. recently i've heard 20-30 years. it seems to keep getting longer the longer we wait LOL.

B12 B12 B12
I'm sure there are others but you cannot get vitamin B12 from a vegan diet without some form of supplementation, whether it comes from artificially fortified grains or from a shot in the arm.
but shrumeo, as shown earlier, it seems that meat-eaters aren't safe either. may be the whole thing hasn't really been sorted out conclusively yet.

Cutting out meat is BAD.
You NEED both.
no it's not and no you don't.
i'll be more substantial in the other thread, but surely you can see that your statement doesn't have any validity in light of the large number of extraordinarily healthy veg folk who do exist in flesh and blood.

Then you'd better start eating some meat. I'd hate for you to become anemic.
careful! perhaps you shouldn't tell me what to do!!
it seems to upset some people here LOL LOL LOL

Those medical doctors, I swear!
They just have no idea what they are talking about.
well from what i recall the total amount of nutritional education doctors used to receive (1990's and before) was about 4 hrs. don't know if that has changed.

Sorry for getting so personal here, but what does their stool look like?
If its firm (yum!) but not too firm then supposedly that's good, but if it's runny (mmm mmm!) then that's bad.
it's just right and has been for years!

which were bunk
we shall see.

Ok, evidence in society...
There is evidence in society that we should stop eating meat altogether?
societal health seems to be a concern and much of it is attributable to animal protein consumption.

I've been chanting?
If I have, I wasn't chanting 'meat is healthy.'

not quite correct as you can hear from your own posts:

meat, eggs, and milk (3 of the most healthy things for you) post #663
Eat meat. It's healthy. post #682

i hope this much, at least is convincing and look forward to discussing these matters further with you in the future.

in friendship,
prad

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec22-04, 04:44 PM

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 04:57 PM

What is this about vitamin B12 only being found it meat? I have a vegetarian non-meat product in my freezer that contains 72% of the daily recommended B12 per 100g. Even if it is supplemented in, who cares?
well some of the meaters like to keep thinking, for some inexplicable reason, that a veg diet is somehow deficient and that you have to pop pills to stay healthy (or even alive). it is a strange belief that overlooks all the vitamin supplements that meaters take to stay healthy (or even alive).

they point the finger at b12 deficiency since it tends to be a focal point of attack against veg diets even though 40% of the pop are supposedly b12 deficient (and most of them certainly aren't veg). see post #833 for more.

in friendship,
prad

shrumeo

Dec22-04, 05:26 PM

so are you saying that because Roberts is a cardiologist that he is incapable of making correct statements about human anatomy or even evolutionary biology?
You know who else was a cardiologist?
Robert C. Atkins, M.D. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/04/17/obit.atkins/)

shrumeo

Dec22-04, 05:28 PM

What is this about vitamin B12 only being found it meat? I have a vegetarian non-meat product in my freezer that contains 72% of the daily recommended B12 per 100g. Even if it is supplemented in, who cares?
The point is that it is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.

edit: But, really, how "natural" is anything we eat anymore?

shrumeo

Dec22-04, 05:30 PM

well some of the meaters like to keep thinking, for some inexplicable reason, that a veg diet is somehow deficient and that you have to pop pills to stay healthy (or even alive). it is a strange belief that overlooks all the vitamin supplements that meaters take to stay healthy (or even alive).
If you want to call artificially fortifying foods "popping pills" then that's your prerogative, but you can't be healthy on a vegan diet without resorting to artificial means. This would indicate that a vegan diet is not natural.

they point the finger at b12 deficiency since it tends to be a focal point of attack against veg diets even though 40% of the pop are supposedly b12 deficient (and most of them certainly aren't veg). see post #833 for more.
Do you think that these 40% would get MORE B12 by switching to a vegan diet?

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 05:50 PM

You know who else was a cardiologist?
Robert C. Atkins, M.D.

in proper context, your point being?

The point is that is is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.

eating meat is not natural physiologically (see post #900) and can produce serious health implications. i see that we have at least moved now from "eat meat" to "at least eat some animal products" - however, that's not necessary or necessarily natural either.

you can't be healthy on a vegan diet without resorting to artificial means. This would indicate that a vegan diet is not natural.
the only item you can even make a case for is b12 - and even then it is not conclusive. veg diets don't need to be supplemented with any other stuff either as some people seem to think - but as dooga says, who really cares (at least for the purposes of this thread)?

Do you think that these 40% would get MORE B12 by switching to a vegan diet?
probably. they'd be so scared about their b12 deficiency that they would rush out and buy a myriad of fortified foods, yeast and have shots to boot! on their meat diet, they are obviously under this illusion that they must be getting enough because they are consuming vast quantities of meat and they are perfectly safe from everyone at tufts. LOL LOL

(ok if it will further the cause of moving this thread back to morality, i'm willing to discuss the nutritional aspects elsewhere as indicated in an earlier post to you - edit: but since you indicate in post #948 that you do not wish to do so that's fine. however, i will restrict myself to the morality issue which i now accept as the intent of the thread.)

in friendship,
prad

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec22-04, 07:16 PM

The point is that it is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.

edit: But, really, how "natural" is anything we eat anymore?

Natural is defined as something that occurs in the environment, and we are part of the environment. Cheese is not found on top of pasta, but many people choose to put it there. I would call anything we are capable of doing natural.

If you mean natural in terms of what is most efficient, I would advocate a vegetarian diet - a vegan diet - I do not know much about that.

shrumeo

Dec22-04, 07:36 PM

in proper context, your point being?
My point is that two people may both be cardiologists yet have different opinions about diet. This may mean that cardiology is still a long way from being able to dictate to anyone what is the best diet.

eating meat is not natural physiologically (see post #900) and can produce serious health implications. i see that we have at least moved now from "eat meat" to "at least eat some animal products" - however, that's not necessary or necessarily natural either.
No, I'm sticking with "EAT MEAT."
I just said that to get all your proper nutrients you are going to have to eat something that at the very least came from an animal (unless of course we eat the manufactured stuff.)

It's funny, when I google "humans omnivores gastrointestinal"
I get page after page of anti-meat sites, with a few "neutral" sites mixed in.
http://www.bioscience.org/1999/v4/d/klurfeld/fulltext.htm
Unfortunately, many of the species studied are herbivores and results from those animals may not be applicable to the human situation; the relative size of various parts of the GI tract and microscopic anatomy of herbivores’ GI mucosa differs from those seen in carnivores and omnivores. Fortunately, the majority of experimental studies have been carried out using rats and swine, both of which are omnivores. However, even with these species there are significant differences from humans in gestation periods, developmental patterns, and intestinal anatomy. This does not mean that studies on other species are of no value but one must be aware of the limitations that must be remembered when making cross species comparisons.
So it seems that omnivores have different GI tracts among themselves.

Humans are the only mammalian species that develops sucrase early in gestation and late fetal levels of this enzyme equal those found in adults (2). Most other species express sucrase after birth and adult levels are usually achieved after weaning. Nutrient availability, peptide growth factors, and hormones in amniotic fluid (which is continuously swallowed by the fetus) can alter rates of GI growth in utero.
So humans have something unique here. Using your logic they must not be mammals after all!

http://www.uoguelph.ca/research/publications/Assets/HTML_MAGS/health/page22.html
Pigs are large omnivores, similar to humans in anatomy and physiology, so they're an ideal model for studying human diseases.

http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/78/2/393
Digesta retention is aided by a cecum in the hindgut of many omnivores and haustrations of the cecum and varying lengths of the colon in some species. The colon of pigs, humans, a few monkeys, and the chimpanzee is haustrated throughout its entire length.
The human GI tract has features common in omnivores.
Nonhuman primates also have a cecum, which is quite well developed in some lemurs and monkeys, but only a few of these species are predominantly herbivores.
Very few primate herbivores have a feature found in humans.

Gut contents represent a small percentage of the body water of most carnivores and only ~4% of the body water of humans, but the gastrointestinal tract of sheep contains 29% of its total body water, with much of this in the forestomach.
Humans do not share a trait with certain herbivores. (hooves too!)

The hindgut of omnivores with a well-developed large intestine also appears to require a minimal amount of plant fiber for normal function, as evidenced by the higher incidence of cancer and other diseases in the colon of humans on low-fiber diets.
They seem to imply that humans are omnivores.

Just because we have a GI tract capable of digesting vegetables means that we are naturally inclined to eat vegetables.
Just because our GI tract does not look like a bear's or a racoon's doesn't mean that we are not naturally omnivores.

the only item you can even make a case for is b12 - and even then it is not conclusive. veg diets don't need to be supplemented with any other stuff either as some people seem to think - but as dooga says, who really cares (at least for the purposes of this thread)?
Don't forget vitamin A. You only get retinol in plants. You have to make sure you eat other things for retinol to become vitamin A.

But you make B12 yourself in you colon. Most of it is not absorbed, but who knows. Maybe some people don't need to eat it at all.

probably. they'd be so scared about their b12 deficiency that they would rush out and buy a myriad of fortified foods, yeast and have shots to boot! on their meat diet, they are obviously under this illusion that they must be getting enough because they are consuming vast quantities of meat and they are perfectly safe from everyone at tufts. LOL LOL
They would probably get more B12 by eating nothing but veggies? NOT.
If they are eating a well-balanced diet that includes meat, then chances are, they are getting more than enough B12.

Vast quantities? A sea of beef?

(ok if it will further the cause of moving this thread back to morality, i'm willing to discuss the nutritional aspects elsewhere as indicated earlier. shrumeo, you and i can work this out on the other thread once i start it. i'll even go along with the b12 fortification stuff here - though not on the other thread.)
Sorry, I am only responding in this thread.
I honestly don't care enough to chase people around who are dishing out misinformation everywhere.
I'll just stick to this one.

shrumeo

Dec22-04, 07:45 PM

Natural is defined as something that occurs in the environment, and we are part of the environment.
By whom? You?
That's not how I define natural.

Let's see what a dictionary says.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=natural
Sorry, doesn't say anything about requiring things to come from "the environment."

Anyway, I agree that we are part of nature. Now, am I part of the environment?
That doesn't leave room for much to NOT be the environment, does it?

Cheese is not found on top of pasta, but many people choose to put it there.
Hehe, you are right. When I drive past the waving fields of pasta in Iowa, there is definitely no cheese on top.
You have to drive through Wisconcin for that.

I would call anything we are capable of doing natural.
So hoarding animals into fur farms and torturing them for the entirety of their short lives is only natural.

If you mean natural in terms of what is most efficient, I would advocate a vegetarian diet - a vegan diet - I do not know much about that.
I seem to agree with you on all points here! :tongue:

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 07:58 PM

My point is that two people may both be cardiologists yet have different opinions about diet. This may mean that cardiology is still a long way from being able to dictate to anyone what is the best diet.
the issue didn't have anything to do with cardiology. russ simply thought i put the title in so that it sounded authoritative which wasn't so. as explained, i supplied his opponents credentials too (as well as the fact the latter was a veg).

So it seems that omnivores have different GI tracts among themselves .......
omnivore is a large group - but not really large enough to include humans (see post #900) unless you really stretch things a lot and introduce hoove arguments which is really quite a feet.

Sorry, I am only responding in this thread.

that's fine, we'll just stick to the moral issues here then.

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec22-04, 09:36 PM

Here are 3 issues that haven't really been answered at all, so i am listing them again:

What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights. Your run-of-the-mill adult cow is by all measure capable of suffering, self-consciousness, and rational thought to an extent which far exceeds that of the newborn infant or the profoundly develpmentally disabled human. If we are disposed to take these latter entities are possessors of rights, then consistency demands we extend rights to the former entities as well. If the reply to this consistency argument is that the psychological capacities mentioned are not criterial of moral considerability, then, praytell, what is? (post #883)

Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat? (post #901)

Just because humans decide that animals have lesser rights, doesn't make it so. How do you substantiate your position? (post #924)

in friendship,
prad

Dissident Dan

Dec22-04, 10:46 PM

The point is that it is natural for us to eat meat.
Unless we eat meat, or at least eat some animal products, we must resort to a diet that is less than natural.

edit: But, really, how "natural" is anything we eat anymore?

Hmm, I was going to to ask you if you think anyone's diet is "natural" but you rebutted yourself before I got the chance.

Secondly, why is a "natural" diet necessarily good or desirable?

Thirdly, the changes in the way that we get food have changed what nutrients we get on what types of diets. A vegan jungle ape might get all the B12 it needs from the dirt...but we don't eat dirt-covered food anymore. We sterilize it (at least plant food, anyway!). Today, we live in a situation vastly different from the situation our prehistoric ancestors found themselves in. None of us will come close to replicating their diet, and it hasn't been established that it would be beneficial to do so.

JPD

Dec23-04, 04:07 AM

So then, you have no problem with cannibalism? Or at least it seems you think nobody should speak out against it, as that would be "telling people what they should and shouldn't eat"? If a cannibal decides to eat someone you know, you better not say anything as it is "none of your business".

Absolutely - what effect would speaking out against it have anyway? It won't stop it happening.

JPD

Dec23-04, 04:12 AM

I don't believe for one second that you are going out into the woods and shooting one individual and bringing it home. You buy your meat from your local supermarket just like most other meat-eaters. If you actually did go out and hunt your own food, then you would have appended such to your response.
Please, dispense with the insincere indignation.

Could you explain how clear is my lack of awareness?

-Ray.

There are other possibilities - here your lack of awareness shows itself. You have assumed that I either (a) Buy my meat from a supermarket, or
(b) Go and kill animals.
In actuality, I purchase meat directly from the producers on our local farms.

JPD

Dec23-04, 04:16 AM

but jpd people are always telling other people what they should and shouldn't do - you have just done it again by saying "DON'T TELL ME ..."

i'm not making a joke here - i'm saying that your concept of "don't tell me ..." seems to contain a rather large droplet of (unintended, i'm sure) hypocrisy.

i don't see what the big deal is anyway? laws and regulations tell people what they should and shouldn't do all the time. it's hardly something worth complaining about in the fashion you chose.

in friendship,
prad

You could be right - ultimately telling others what they should and shouldn't do has little or no effect. You will continue to not eat meat and I will continue to eat meat. It probably does come down to the fact that it is so delicious. I need no greater justification than that.

russ_watters

Dec23-04, 06:37 AM

Hmm, I was going to to ask you if you think anyone's diet is "natural" but you rebutted yourself before I got the chance.

Secondly, why is a "natural" diet necessarily good or desirable? While I agree it is unimportant, the labeling of food and the existence of the GM food debate suggest a great many people do consider "natural" to be relevant (and in this argument, it has been claimed that a vegitarian diet is more "natural"). I once went into a "Whole Foods" grocery store without realizing what it was....

JPD

Dec23-04, 06:47 AM

While I agree it is unimportant, the labeling of food and the existence of the GM food debate suggest a great many people do consider "natural" to be relevant (and in this argument, it has been claimed that a vegitarian diet is more "natural"). I once went into a "Whole Foods" grocery store without realizing what it was....

Did the mould inform you?

russ_watters

Dec23-04, 10:32 AM

Did the mould inform you? No, but try to find some 1%, Pasteurized, homogenized milk and some processed cheese and Wheat Thins at a Whole Foods...

And since its "all natural" (read: lower quality), it costs twice as much too! I wanted to vomit.

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec23-04, 01:05 PM

Shumeo, this is an educated forum, you can't expect to be able to cut out what information suits you and not have people check where it originally came from.

The dictionary says "Of, relating to, or concerning nature." Nature is "The material world and its phenomena", and our environment (surroundings) is nature.

Hoarding animals isn't necessarily natural, I was making the point that what is found in nature is not necessarily right or most efficient. I never claimed to know about a vegan diet, and the trick you used to weaken my arguement was inappropriate for this debate. This thread is supposed to a logical debate where both sides present multiple views and respect each other. There is no point in trying to solve this problem, it isn't like meat-eating has any chance of winning - a vegetarian is not going to suddenly say, "Yes, I will be cruel to animals once again" and start eating meat. In fact, the opposite happened and I became vegetarian partly because of this thread. People can rationalize meat-eating, but it can never be proven better than vegetarianism.

Be Happy!

Dec23-04, 10:21 PM

That's not a fallacy at all - in fact, its the most important point on the list. Heck, you're living proof: the reason you call yourself a vegitarian has nothing to do with anatomy, but it has to do with the fact that you do, in actuality, not eat meat. Similarly, if you feed a dog only corn, you have made it a vegitarian (by force).

And again, this is all a smokescreen since now it appears you are trying to prove that humans shouldn't eat meat because they weren't designed to eat meat. Physiology isn't at all relevant to the conversation: we're back to the logical fallacy and utter absurdity of "if humans were meant to fly, they'd have wings!"

edit: now, perhaps this has relevance to the question of how far we can push our beliefs on to other animals, but as we have already discussed, morality and ethics have nothing to do with physiology: if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow. Either the cow has a right to life or it doesn't.

Russ,
I don't really understand why you fight SO hard to understand such simple arguements! Perhaps your desire to eat flesh is getting in the way of at least recognizing some of the sincere and noble reasons why people might want to not eat meat.

It really is simple, so if I may, here are all the reasons we should use our complex brain to CHOOSE (as we have a choice here) a diet that will be better for all life, our health and the planet.

In the US we slaughter 27 billion animals!

1) Whether you want to admit it or not, all farmed animals are capable of suffering. Farmed animals live horrible lives on factory farms and their death is quite painful as well. As I mentioned in a previous post, they live in filthy, crowded, and diseased conditions and are often slaughtered while they are still fully conscious. (pls see www.ChooseVegetarian.com for more details and if you would like to see these condition www.MeetYourMeat.com is a great site)

2) Imagine all the resources and energy it takes to raise animals for food! Over 70% of US land is used to grow crops to make animals fat!!! Half of all the water used goes to raise livestock...In cities where factory farms reside there are huge environmental catastrophies taking place. The recent book by the World Watch Institute (http://www.worldwatch.org)- The State of the World 2004, goes into much detail as to how animal agriculture is destroying the earth...oh and did I mention that the number one cause of rainforest destruction is cattle grazing to produce hamburgers! Once cattle have grazed, our precious rainforests become deserts forever!

3) No matter what you say, the vast majority of us do not hunt for our meat anymore though many people did thousands of years ago...mind you humans were cannibals too many thousands of years ago- but that's another point. As the China Study by Cornell University (which the New York Times called "The 'Grand Prix'...the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease...tantalizing findings" (http://www.nutrition.cornell.edu/ChinaProject/)and many leading scientists and prominent doctors are reporting, eating meat (esp in the proportions that we do) is making us sick! (www.PCRM.org) Meat is pumped full of fat and cholesterol (not to mention antibiotics and growth hormones)- is there any wonder why every 40 sec someone falls down with a heart attack! Obesity and so many other diseases are rising in epidemic proportions...if you do a simple comparison of people in rural China for example- these people live on a plant based diet and do not suffer from the same diseases as us, they do have a few diseases yes, but *very* few and they are not as dangerous as ours.

I hope you see that we don't need to get into complicated justifications...and as I said before, vegetarianism is the best environmental, ethical and healthful decision for societal problems. Because ethics are only useful in my mind when we can apply them in our lives...the question (whilst putting all of our egos and desires aside) begs to ask itself- How are we to live to make this world a kinder and healthier place?

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
- Albert Einstein

Sincerely,
Sangeeta Kumar

P.S: "...if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow..." :rofl:

The "logic" you use (if you want to call it that) in the cow and lion argument is completely meaningless- how does one follow from the other? Please explain.

Be Happy!

Dec23-04, 10:30 PM

Hi All!

For those of you interested in some delicious recipes for this holiday season (whether you are a vegetarian or not) here is a great site! http://www.vegcooking.com/ :tongue2:

Sincerely,
Sangeeta

loseyourname

Dec23-04, 11:57 PM

P.S: "...if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow..." :rofl:

The "logic" you use (if you want to call it that) in the cow and lion argument is completely meaningless- how does one follow from the other? Please explain.

He did explain it. He said that a cow either has a right to life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's right for anything to kill a cow. If a cow has a right to life, then it is wrong for anything to kill a cow, whether it be man or lion. We may not consider the lion morally culpable because lions are not generally considered to be moral agents, but that doesn't make its action right. By analogy, if a 3 year-old shoots her mother, we don't consider her morally culpable because she cannot tell right from wrong, but what she did is still wrong.

Why do I always find myself defending Russ? How come nobody ever seems to understand his arguments?

learningphysics

Dec24-04, 12:34 AM

He said that a cow either has a right to life or it doesn't.

I doubt anyone else shares this belief. I don't think anyone or anything has an absolute "right to life". However, under certain circumstances, and at partiulcar moments in time, I'd say they had the right to life.

It's like saying: A person either has the right to smoke or doesn't. People have the right, in partiular circumstances, and in other circumstances they don't.

Anyway, no society in the world has this type of concept of an absolute right to life for humans. Under certain circumstances they say it's ok to kill a human (capital punishment, self defense etc...)

Dooga Blackrazor

Dec24-04, 12:04 PM

Idealistically, it is wrong to kill a cow. This doesn't mean we should attempt to integrate all animals into society to protect them. Sometimes idealism conflicts with realism and a problem arises. Realistically, the animals might be doing the correct thing, because it is the only option avaliable - it is difficult to tell; however, humanity has evolved and is ready for a more logical vegetarian lifestyle.

physicsisphirst

Dec24-04, 04:22 PM

He did explain it. He said that a cow either has a right to life or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's right for anything to kill a cow. If a cow has a right to life, then it is wrong for anything to kill a cow, whether it be man or lion. We may not consider the lion morally culpable because lions are not generally considered to be moral agents, but that doesn't make its action right. By analogy, if a 3 year-old shoots her mother, we don't consider her morally culpable because she cannot tell right from wrong, but what she did is still wrong.

Why do I always find myself defending Russ?
what you wrote above was a defense?? :surprised

in friendship,
prad

physicsisphirst

Dec24-04, 04:44 PM

You could be right - ultimately telling others what they should and shouldn't do has little or no effect. You will continue to not eat meat and I will continue to eat meat.
jpd, i think that is a fairly reasonable assessment to some extent in this particular situation.
before i went lacto-ovo veg in 1972, i don't think i would have budged just because someone told me i shouldn't eat meat (on the otherhand, back then, there weren't too many people around to tell me either). what i had to do was learn about it for myself and understand the nutritional rationale for it (i really didn't think much about the ethics in those days). it took another bit of nutritional research in 1990 to make the transition to strict veg, but again not because people were telling me what to do - though there was a lot more information by then - and there were other veg folks that i could talk to and even see in action. still, i had to convince myself and i think that's what's probably fairly important.

one of the benefits of discussing it in a forum such as this is that people get to understand (and in some situations hear about for the first time) the veg side from veg folks (who probably know what it's about a bit better that the meaters LOL) - and then make up their own minds (like dooga did, for instance).

in any case, i wish you a good holiday season and look forward to continuing the discussion in a day or so!

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

Dec25-04, 02:04 PM

It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat.
First, I should note that, in many posts you do argue for a “healthy vegetarianism”. However, this is not at question. What is at question is, “Are you an ethical vegetarian?” The second question, is “Do you consider it morally wrong that any animal might eat meat?”

The answer to the first question is obviously, “Yes, you are an ethical vegetarian.” Although you almost explicitly deny this in post 898, and seem to deny it in post 786 (where you “are fine with” with my statement, “It is moral for an animal to eat meat” - a statement which you subsequently equivocate over in post 792), the fact is that you profess, promote, and approve the ethical vegetarian view.

You profess the ethical vegetarian view (that vegetarianism is the ethical choice) in posts 399, 409, 715, 718, 722, 742, 745, 746, 748, 751, 859, and 899. You do this based on the idea that all human beings have an ethical obligation to prevent animal suffering, and thus should not kill animals in order to eat them. Typical of your views on this are:
every being is entitled (deontological view, at any rate) to certain basic rights (eg right to be free from inflicted suffering)
and
the reason we lay this 'moral burden' on humans is because we recognize that other beings can suffer. it doesn't take a great deal of extrapolative power to understand that animals a) feel pain and b) probably have no more wish to feel pain than you or i do.
You promote the ethical vegetarian view by providing us with collections of ethical vegetarian quotes. You do this in posts 107 and 151.

You approve the ethical vegetarian position by systematically endorsing, (I would say, exclusively endorsing), those posts by participants who profess ethical vegetarian views. You do this in posts 812 (replying to Sangeeta), 835 (to Dooga Blackrazor), and 888 (Cogito).

So, there is no doubt that you are an ethical vegetarian. You say so, quite clearly, repeatedly, and in a variety of ways. It is not at all true, as you claim, that “the content of my posts have been for the most part that eating meat is bad for you purely on health grounds” (#898). Rather, a substantial part of your message (perhaps the majority of it) has been that vegetarianism is the ethical lifestyle.

As to the idea that “you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat”, this is demonstrated as follows: In post 743, you tell us that you have obliged your dogs to a vegetarian diet, and you analogize your relationship as one of moral authority like to that of a parent with a child. In post 763 you imply that a cheetah should be stopped from killing for food if there is “a large supply of veg catfood.” In this same post, you tell us that you prevent your cats from catching mice or birds (which you would still do even if you were allowed “to let cats stray”, right?). In post 859, you tell us that animals may not “eat as they please” (my words) because their prey has “certain basic rights” (your words) - and you morally equate the idea of animals eating as they please with cannibalism. In post 899, you countenance the idea of exterminating eagles and shooting lions in order to protect fish and deer from predation, only criticizing it on the grounds of unworkability. In the same post, you present us with an ideal of the world in which all humans do “our little bit” toward “reducing pain and suffering” in the whole animal kingdom, and an implicit goal of evolution that all nature should be released from the primitivity of predation. And frankly, I cannot see how one would believe that every animal has a right to be free from suffering and still not conclude that animals killing other animals is fundamentally wrong.

So, it is also clear that your ethical vegetarianism extends to animals – that your ideal is that no animal should ever kill and eat another animal – and that humans should be activists in enacting this vision.

Your core values and the essence of your position on meat eating have been evident from your very first posts in this thread. You seem to think that you have been an enigma. You have not. No-one has any doubt as to where you stand. In this regard, you have communicated yourself effectively – though you seem to have wished to appear mysterious.

What is baffling is the way you have toyed with me on the matter. Rather than being direct and honest about your views – views which every thread participant is well aware of – you have played a little game of hide and seek with me, obliging me to prove the obvious – like the two-year-old who hides by covering her eyes.

And what is the point of all this? Frankly, it strains charity to categorize your behavior toward me as respectful. I have gone a long way to extend an attitude of goodwill toward you – I am not at all unsympathetic toward ethical vegetarians – yet you have burdened my graces and encroached on the little bit of good will that we started with, all on what can only be called a pointless game. And for what? What does this accomplish?

The balance of your post is similarly troublesome. I will deal with it in a subsequent post.

P.S. Does anyone not know these things? I welcome the comments of anyone who thinks that I have mistakenly assessed physicsicphirst's position. I have been repeatedly accused of falsely attributing positions to people and “movements”. The above reasoning is the sort of method that I use to draw my conclusions (though better documented than is my wont on a forum). If anyone believes that I have falsely represented physicsisphirst's position, I welcome a reasoned response.

OneEye

Dec25-04, 02:19 PM

As to your thorough but inaccurate post regarding my tendency to make false attributions:

The fact is that every one of your complaints was actually answered in the original post which you cite. Apparently, you examined these posts thoroughly enough to form a complaint but not thoroughly enough to recognize that your complaint lacked merit.

post #727 by oneeye
Collations of elephant tears usually overlook facts like this - are, in fact, writings which uniformly take one side of the question. They look more like propaganda than anything else.
what makes you say that? have you read the book? have you checked masson's credentials? does seeming to support AR automatically make someone a propagandist?
In my original post on this subtopic, I pointed out substantial differences between humans and animals which call this particular point into serious question. You have never dealt with those substantial differences. I did not simply make a claim, I made a series of observations and drew a conclusion. (And for the record, No, I have not read Masson's book, but I am well-familiar with these arguments, having once been a proponent of those same arguments. Yes, I know who Washoe and Koko were! I have close relatives who are still where I once was on the issue of the “humanity” of animals – but for myself, I have left that view behind.)

post #749
And here, you again make the disagreeable assumption of awareness in animals.
i can draw upon 3 decades of 'recent' research (Goodall, Savage-Rumbaugh, Bekoff for instance) or even go back into the 'past' (eg Darwin). you start with your claim that animals don't have awareness and maintain it without the slightest validation.
Again, you seem to have willfully missed the point, to wit: We cannot prove the existence of awareness in animals; evidence exists which draws a substantial distinction between humans and animals on the question of awareness; therefore, any definite conclusion must rest on presumption rather than evidence. I did not say that animals are unaware (though I believe this to be the case) – just that you are making an unwarranted assumption.

post #749
All I am observing is that the animal rights position is a self-contradicting one on this question. By now, this fact should be completely obvious to everyone.
you create the position, you attribute it to AR, you say that there is a contradiction (which didn't exist - this was your 4pt syllogism, btw) and then you expect us to just accept all this because you say it is 'completely obvious'.
Hmmm. Let's see: physicsisphirst post #792: “when stated differently (not the way you are doing it), they [my statements] can be considered to be correct for ethical vegetarians.” So apparently, you don't disagree that my assertions substantially represent the ethical vegetarian view (and, I would say, every existing animal rights construct). You just want me to use your particular turn of phrase – and that will make it valid? (But honestly, I doubt that any turn of phrase will suit you, so long as I am doing the writing.)

Post 749: You claim that my premisses are not animal rights premisses (so also in subsequent posts). Post 792: You admit that my premisses are, substantially, animal rights premisses – especially, of the ethical vegetarian kind. Hmmmm.

post #760
I have, several times, presented syllogisms to you which show the inherent contradiction in the animal rights position.
you again make a claim that your syllogism (this was the 4 pointer) is the AR position and that there is a contradiction without researching honestly whether you have accurately represented 'the animal rights' position or whether there was a contradiction (which doesn't exist posts #765, #769 - and you admitted that in the form you wrote it your syllogism was "useless for the discussion" post #771)
(1) My statements of the case are accurate representations of the animal rights position. You, yourself, have made a careful study of showing yourself to agree (or at least, not disagree) with every premiss I have put forward – because you know that I am making a true representation of the case – as you admit in post 792. (2) The reason that the 4-point syllogism had become useless for the discussion was because some participants were redefining the terms contrary to my use of them – a fact which you already knew, and were reacquainted with, if you read my post (771, which you cite) at all. This is why I restated the syllogism in a simpler, 3-point form which was harder to play word games with. The 4-point syllogism remains both an accurate rendition of the animal rights position, and a cogent demonstration of a contradiction inherent to the animal rights position.

post #784
Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent
again you speak for 'everyone'. your 3pt sillygism was neither cogent or demonstrative (as shown in post #779). later you admitted that your use of the word "an" when you really meant "any" caused confusion post #779)
My concession about the “an/any” distinction was intended to help you out of a jam. During the discussion, it became clear that you did not understand concepts of basic logic – as you demonstrated in your bobbling of a simple Barbara argument. You could not recognize or critique a simple modus ponens argument, and you did not know the difference between a valid argument and a true argument. This was a tremendous discredit to you (might even be considered a disqualification), but rather than exploiting your lack of knowledge and making a spectacle out of you, I chose to allow you to escape the embarrassment through your (extraordinary) “an/any” distinction. I now have reason to regret the fact that I gave you a gentleman's chance - especially since you are now misusing my good graces to criticize me.

In your post, you expend a great deal of effort in attempting to demonstrate the claim that I make baseless attributions. But I am not in the habit of posting unreasoned conclusions. The reasoning for my conclusions is always included with the conclusion. You may disagree with my reasoning, or with my conclusion, but you cannot honestly accuse me of unfounded allegations.

I must also say that I do not believe that you have treated my postings in a respectful or thoughtful manner. I am very careful to ascertain my position before posting it, and to thoroughly argue and substantiate my case. I do not post hastily or casually. May I respectfully request that you spend little more time in understanding my posts before critiquing them? All of your criticisms (above) could have been avoided had you considered what I posted with adequate care.

Finally, may I respectfully request that we move on from this line of discussion? It amounts only to an elaborate ad hominem tactic. If you find it too difficult or distasteful to engage me in reasonable discussion, I will understand. But if you intend to converse with me, I will greatly appreciate it if you do so in a reasonable manner: Please, either deal with me substantially, or don't deal with me at all.

OneEye

Dec25-04, 02:30 PM

Just to make myself clear:

I am against cruelty to animals, and especially against the wanton destruction of animals. I do not let my wife kill bugs (except flies, mosquitos, and ticks) - not even spiders. I often take spiders pill bugs, millipedes, and crickets outside the house and set them free. But I do not consider killing and eating animals to be wanton destruction nor (if done properly) cruelty.

I have several relatives who are vegetarians. When I eat with ethical vegetarians, I eat what they are eating, and don't shove my meat eating in their faces. I am sensitive to their concerns and scruples.

I have several times considered switching to a vegetarian diet. However, I do not feel compelled by the ethical argument, and the health argument simply doesn't work for me at all (more on that later). But I have seriously considered whether I should switch to a vegetarian diet. And so far, I have concluded (after due gravity) that I need not and should not.

OneEye

Dec25-04, 02:46 PM

Meat eaters usually engage vegetarian advocates in a rearguard action, arguing from an entrenched position of the tradition of eating meat. This usually looks like, “Well, what's wrong with eating meat?” – a question which proselytizing vegetarians are thrilled to hear, since they have their guns loaded to answer that specific question.

This small piece provides a constructive, positive, pro-meat rationale which restores balance in the discussion and removes the meat eater from the defensive position. Here is the constructive ethic for meat eaters:

The Ethical Question
Meat consumption is a natural phenomenon, and is a natural phenomenon among humans. Meat is part of the traditional diet for humans, effectively sustains human life (see The Health Question, below), and humans find meat to be a desirable food source. Within the animal kingdom, humans are physically most similar to primates, who are omnivorous (with a few carnivorous and herbivorous exceptions). And, as has been exhaustively observed, meat provides humans with certain crucial nutrients which are not easily acquired from any other natural source. So physiologically and ecologically, man seems to be designed for an omnivorous lifestyle, and so there is no natural argument against humans eating meat.

It is certainly true that all animals will die, most will die through predation, and all animals will be eaten in the end. (Even human corpses are consumed after they die.) So, it is apparently the design of nature that creatures should die and be eaten. In fact, many animals seem to serve the ecological purpose of being food for other animals – most notably, fish, birds, bovines, swine, and lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) fill this role. So if we look at animals from the perspective of their natural function rather than from the perspective of dubious and sentimental projections of personhood or awareness upon them, we conclude that the functional relationship between humans and these other animals places an expectation upon us that, as omnivores, we should eat those animal species which serve as prey animals in nature. So humans eating such creatures would simply seem to be a normal participation in the natural process.

The ethical evaluation which is to be drawn from this is that the claims of nature and ecology supersede the claims of any particular creature. This equation should come as no surprise to either Darwinists or Intelligent Design advocates, since this assessment of nature is obviously the basis of any ecological evaluation of the interrelated nature of the biosphere. (This idea, though simply stated, is powerful in its applications and implications, and deserves a serious consideration. For instance, this is also the fundamental equation of any utilitarian view of society - “The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.”)

In addition, from a utilitarian perspective, it might reasonably be argued that since an animal is going to be eaten anyway, it ought more effectively to be eaten to satisfy human needs than to satisfy the needs of some less-aware creature, since greater human awareness means that greater enjoyment results from eating it. In addition, because of animal husbandry, several animal species have flourished under human handling which might otherwise have had much more limited success.

Further, any ethical indictment against humans eating meat must be based on a human obligation toward animals which is unprecedented in the animal kingdom. Further still, such an ethical consideration must be based on the idea that humans may not pursue their tastes because animals are to be accorded certain rights by humans. However, our moral obligations toward animals ought to be based in our observations of the natural ecology rather than in the projection of human sympathies onto non-human creatures (which, in itself, might be judged an unethical practice).

So, there is a strong argument from utility and nature that humans ought to eat meat. This of course does not endorse cruelty to animals, which is counterproductive – as, of course, is cannibalism. But any argument which says that humans should not eat meat runs counter to the course of nature and to the purposes of utility.

The real key to this logic is: Many animals have the ecological purpose of being food for other animals; the animal is going to be eaten anyway (and almost certainly killed first); and so the animal might as well be eaten by a human, who among all creatures will be able to experience the fullest sense of enjoyment from the animal's consumption.

The Health Question
Apparently, meat eating is healthy enough to have sustained the human race up 'til now. In addition, there are people groups whose diet is completely or almost completely composed of animal products (Khazaks, Bedouins, Inuit, Saami, and the like – quite a long list, actually). Ironically, these are people groups who live in marginal and unfriendly environments, and so any substantial health damage from consumption of animal proteins would surely have made their existence untenable. Further, there is no affirmative health information from strictly vegetarian cultures (e.g., Hindu and Theravadin cultures in India) – that is to say, these cultures do not demonstrate an overall improvement in longevity or disease characteristics.

Certainly, it is to be admitted that most Americans have profoundly unhealthy diets – but in my opinion, this is not the result of animal products in the diet, but the enormous amounts of sugar, corn syrup, and other “natural” sweeteners in the diet – along with a high concentration of serum sugar inducers, especially white flour. “Healthy” vegetarians are probably barking up the wrong tree when they critique meat products, since these are probably not the chief culprits in the unhealthy American diet – and since it seems no less likely that a vegetarian will engage in a fatty, sugary diet than will a meat eater (most Hostess products, for instance, meet lactovegetarian standards, but are deadly belly bombs that induce much more serious health effects than the average pork chop).

The Ecological Question
To my mind, this is probably the only substantial argument that vegetarians may have – that meat production is so much more taxing on the land than vegetable production that it makes economic and ecological sense to focus on grain production rather than on beef production. But this argument is far from being complete, mostly because of a lack of hard data and an absence of a serious grasp of agricultural facts (large tracts of American soil, for instance, are really not good for much more than ranching or producing animal feed). In any case, the ecological question is not an argument for vegetarianism per se, but only for a change in the meat-to-vegetable ratio in the average diet. One might conclude, perhaps, that meat should only be a luxury food. But this does not mean that meat should not be a food. So meat eaters should be concerned about the ecological question, but this almost certainly should not require them to stop eating meat. Rather, it only means that meat is likely to become more expensive over time, and so people of lesser means will probably driven toward a more vegetarian diet (thus turning vegetarianism into a tool of oppression to be used against the poor).

Conclusion
We see, then, that a strong ethical argument can be made for eating meat, and that neither health considerations nor environmental considerations militate against meat consumption.

OneEye

Dec25-04, 02:57 PM

All right, last post for several days: I am still "on vacation" (between visits), but popped in to complete a few assignments. Sorry for the logorhea.

I expect to be back late next week, but am not likely to be strongly involved in this thread much longer. I have a suspicion that I have "peaked" here. I will supply clarifications to what I have written when such clarifications are requested or appear necessary. But I don't imagine that I will profit anyone much by further argument of the issues in question - and I would rather spend time on the "Three Thoughts on Morality" thread.

As a postscript: Honestly, I don't care whether anyone is a vegetarian or not. As someone else on the thread said: The only thing that bothers me is the air of moral superiority that many (most?) vegetarians project. I forcefully reject the idea of the moral superiority of vegetarianism. But if someone wants to be a vegetarian, that's their business.

physicsisphirst

Dec26-04, 11:49 AM

I have several times considered switching to a vegetarian diet. However, I do not feel compelled by the ethical argument, and the health argument simply doesn't work for me at all (more on that later).
if you are sufficiently committed to eating meat the health argument may not work for you.

that was an interesting effort trying to show i am an ethical veg. frankly, i'm flattered you would think so, since i have great respect for ethical vegetarians. however, you mistake my support for ethical veg with my being one (though i feel i have made considerable progress in this area over the recent years having looked into the ethics). i admire ethical veggies because they see something that i certainly wasn't able to when i became lacto-ovo veg in 1972 and strict veg in 1990 (as i wrote to jpd in post #966, i was motivated purely by the nutritional argument).

as for your wanting to be treated with respect, you have been despite your efforts to attribute your own creations to the AR position and despite continuing to make your characteristic sweeping statements like No-one has any doubt as to where you stand (post #967).

You profess the ethical vegetarian view (that vegetarianism is the ethical choice) in posts 399, 409, 715, 718, 722, 742, 745, 746, 748, 751, 859, and 899. You do this based on the idea that all human beings have an ethical obligation to prevent animal suffering, and thus should not kill animals in order to eat them.
additionally, you don't seem to read what i write too carefully as you select them for evidence: eg my posts #409, 715, 718, 722, 742, 745, 746, have nothing to do with vegetarianism; neither does post #748 where i had hoped you might at least try to read about the AR perspective rather than fabricating it with your imagination; post #751 was about animal awareness and your inability to recognize that no one had called you a speciesist; in post #859, i express a deontological view (which is different from a utilitarian view - not that it seems to matter to you); and finally, god only knows what you are trying to prove through post #899 where i simply comment on learningphysics' ideas and lay out the buddhist 4 fault concept of the nature of the mind.
all you've done is just pull out some post numbers and claim that i am an ethical vegetarian even though the content of my posts had nothing to do with vegetarianism (and in some cases little to do even with ethics)
what an absurdity!

it's only your 'logical' arguments and research that don't get too much respect (from me at least) since they really do have some problems and i have tried to show you why several times (even in this post).

however, i do think it is decent of you not to kill bugs and stuff - i don't either, just in case you wanted to know ;)
since neither of us eat bugs (i don't i know and hope i'm not being too presumptuous regarding you), does that make us ethical non-bugavarians?

Please, either deal with me substantially, or don't deal with me at all.
you have been dealt with and very substantially with several posts (even in this post), but as you admonish me, "May I respectfully request that you spend little more time in understanding my posts before critiquing them? All of your criticisms (above) could have been avoided had you considered what I posted with adequate care." (we seem to have this mutual difficulty LOL)
for instance, it would be a big help if you could use your "good graces" to understand that you cannot substitute "an" for "any" in an argument just because you feel like it and expect some people not to notice.

I expect to be back late next week, but am not likely to be strongly involved in this thread much longer. I have a suspicion that I have "peaked" here.
that's fine oneeye - enjoy your vacation and drop in from time to time when you get a chance.

in friendship,
prad

lengould

Dec27-04, 03:26 PM

since neither of us eat bugs

Where does seafood fit in, (eg. insect equivalents from water such as lobster, shellfish, crabs)? If I am to exempt these from my diet on moral grounds, then mustn't I also follow th Jainist principle of protecting every insect as well?

I've watched vegan-ism etc. from the sidelines for a long time, and conclude is is simply something between a religion and a fad, ideally destined for the same fate as ALL others of that ilk.

yedan

Dec27-04, 03:39 PM

I voted no that we shouldn't eat meat. Let me preface that by saying I'm one of the worst offenders of meat eating, so it may seem that I'm throwing the proverbial stone in the glass house. But with all our advanced technology, if we could find a way to eliminate the need for meat, I'd go for it. I'll admit I'm guilty of just following the herd on this, and I've never gone vegetarian. I've tried the various soy products and they are nasty. So I'd like to find a "tasty" alternative to meat before I chuck in the meat towel.

Also, being somewhat familiar with some asian cultures, I will agree that we do lead a sedentary lifestyle. We don't exercise nearly as much as they do, and we consume larger portions. If you go to any asian country, thier large is our small insomuch as portion sizes go.
Asians do eat meat, and then some. They just eat less of it, and exercise more. So we cannot blame meat for our weight problem.

I'm not sure how much of an impact we'd have on the environment if we went meat free, but I'm sure the world would be a little more crowded.
Most animals spend the bulk of their waking hours searching for food. Man has the ability to catch, grow, or kill his food almost at will or others such as butcher shops and food markets do it for him.
If man did not eat meat wouldn't the animimal population soon become so dense that we would be fighting for space to exist with them.?

enigmatatki

Dec27-04, 05:39 PM

who cares. men were eating meat for the longest time and they still managed to propagate the entire world. sure too much meat is bad for you, but if eating meat didnt wipe out our race, who cares if some eat it or not?

if you're a vegetarian, dont eat meat. if you are a meat lover, eat meat. who cares? this matter is so trivial.

Tom McCurdy

Dec27-04, 06:19 PM

I just took a trip to the planetrium
they told me of the story of the vegetarian
Never ate meat after she found out it was cow
in her hamburger that she ate and found an eyebrow
It just isn't right to eat meat
Wouldn't just be a feat
never to eat it ever again
Never to eat pork or a hen
For men who eat meat they derserved to be castrated
But we can't touch them because they may have masterbated
This poem is horrible but it serves a point
Eating meat is the choice of your mind and mouth's joint

hehehe
that was absoultly horrible
oh well
I AM goign to eat a big steak with taco meat and nachos

LET THOSE WHO WANT TO EAT MEAT
and if your a vegiterian good for you.... just don't tell me not to eat meat
or I will chop you up and grind you into my next hamberger

sheepdog

Dec27-04, 09:47 PM

Wow, so you've come up with a way to scientifically test morality?Of course. The future is the proof of the morality of our present choices. Everything has consequences.

learningphysics

Dec28-04, 12:05 AM

Of course. The future is the proof of the morality of our present choices. Everything has consequences.

How do you decide which consequences are good and which are bad?

sheepdog

Dec28-04, 11:36 AM

How do you decide which consequences are good and which are bad?Well, that is, of course, up to you. Ghandi believed that a free India by non-violent means was a good consequence. Hitler believed that the extermination of the Jews was a good consequence. Make your choice -- you decide.

But consider this. Would the future look differently if people actively chose to refuse meat eating in overwhelming numbers, than it will look if we continue to choose to eat meat as we are? It certainly would be very different in very many ways, I think. Which future do you choose? You decide.

loseyourname

Dec28-04, 04:17 PM

physicsisphirst

Dec28-04, 09:38 PM

WWould the future look differently if people actively chose to refuse meat eating in overwhelming numbers, than it will look if we continue to choose to eat meat as we are? It certainly would be very different in very many ways, I think.
i think you are correct about this - it would be a very different future if people refused to eat meat in overwhelming numbers.

while each of loseyourname's points have some validity ('excess' of animals, bankrupt agrifarmers, failing commodities markets etc), they are neither insurmountable nor catastrophic: the meat (and dairy) industry destroys the environment (water depletion, deforestation, excrement pollution etc - specifics available upon request) to a greater extent than the lack of the same; people learn to acquire new skills as they did when computers 'took' jobs away from people; and there are plenty of other commodity markets.

when slavery was terminated in US, there were financial consequences (as well as 'excess' people - since slaves really weren't thought of as people), but the future was dramatically changed.
when gandhi's efforts eventually caused the british to leave india, there were serious financial consequences as well as vicious fighting between the muslims and hindus (one of the 'excuses' the british had argued for keeping control of india), but the future was dramatically changed.

vegetarianism has been a growing movement (one of the fastest growing movements according to the Toronto Star in an article in the mid 90s, from what i recall) over the past 30 years. it will certainly be interesting to see how the future is dramatically changed when people refuse to eat meat in overwhelming numbers.

in friendship,
prad

OneEye

Dec28-04, 09:53 PM

How do you decide which consequences are good and which are bad?
Man is that a good question!

Probably one of the three-or-so most important question anyone can ask.

This question is too big for this thread. I am trying to put a few fence posts around it in "Three thoughts on morality."

Boy, what a great question!

OneEye

Dec28-04, 10:19 PM

that was an interesting effort trying to show i am an ethical veg.
Okay, that was a lot less painful than I expected.

I commend your restraint. You have certainly demonstrated character which is a cut above the sort usually found in a forum - and certainly above what I expected.

Of course, I stand by what I have said - but I commend the judgment of these matters to the readership of the thread (if anyone cares). Still, I am happy that you passed over an opportunity for small behavior (almost completely - a few snipes aside) and chose, instead, to be positive and constructive. This speaks well of you.

By the way, the particular deontological view (which is only one of an infinite set of possible deontological views, BTW) which you propose is an ethical argument. You seem to have a peculiar definition of "ethical".

since neither of us eat bugs, does that make us ethical non-bugavarians?
Yes, almost certainly. I admit to some sentimentalist projection on my part when it comes to sparing the lives of earthworms and spiders. But any argument against killing (say,) spiders must by necessity be either arbitrary or ethical. Mine is ethical. With a few exceptions, I do not believe that I have the right to kill what I do not eat. But this has to do with my particular ethical basis, which (as I have said before) is rooted in a religious position.
you have been dealt with and very substantially with several posts
If you are referring this to your posts, then you can only say this because you do not know how to process logic. Which, as I have already said, you have certainly demonstrated in a most glaring and poignant fashion.

The only question is whether you will take this opportunity to learn this crucial skill.

physicsisphirst

Dec28-04, 11:10 PM

Okay, that was a lot less painful than I expected.

I commend your restraint. You have certainly demonstrated character which is a cut above the sort usually found in a forum - and certainly above what I expected.
well thank you oneeye. i happen to like much of your character too - i have commented more than once that you are a pleasant and polite fellow. this doesn't excuse some of the things you post, but it does make it more palatable to read them.

Of course, I stand by what I have said - but I commend the judgment of these matters to the readership of the thread (if anyone cares).
i think you have correctly realized that essentially you and i are talking to each other. there really isn't any great audience watching with great anticipation at who scores the next point in our great debate LOL.

you insist that i am an ethical vegetarian without giving any consideration to what i might have to say about it. surely i should know my own reasons for being a vegetarian a bit better than you.

i admire and advocate ethical vegetarianism - but i am really not an ethical vegetarian. (i may just work a bit harder at it though as a result of some of the thought-provoking comments made by learningphysics, dooga, cogito, sangeeta and most recently sheepdog).

similarly, i also happen to admire and advocate christianity (i'll give you the links to posts if you want) - but i am not a christian. interestingly enough, even though i tend to be agnostic (i really like huxley), i have, because of my posts, been accused of being a christian (by certain irate people who think they have their 'opposition' all figured out).

if you really want to know my views, why don't you just ask me, instead of telling me?

Yes, almost certainly. I admit to some sentimentalist projection on my part when it comes to sparing the lives of earthworms and spiders.
i have found that they don't work well when they are squished. i think it takes kindness (that you no doubt possess) to show consideration towards those who are weaker than ourselves. (if you want, i'll tell you the rest of the st francis quote that you noted 'as evidence' you were compiling against me).

If you are referring this to your posts, then you can only say this because you do not know how to process logic. Which, as I have already said, you have certainly demonstrated in a most glaring and poignant fashion.
if it makes you happy to take one last parting shot broadcasting your superior grasp of logic, enjoy.

the purpose of these forums is to discuss topics of mutual interest. we express our views, make friends and when in the appropriate frame of mind, we can even treat ourselves to learning something about each other. hopefully, both of us will find benefit in and be of benefit to, this thread and the physicsforums.

shrumeo

Dec29-04, 03:16 PM

But consider this. Would the future look differently if people actively chose to refuse meat eating in overwhelming numbers, than it will look if we continue to choose to eat meat as we are? It certainly would be very different in very many ways, I think. Which future do you choose? You decide.
If they stopped eating it before we became Homo sapiens then, yes, the present would be quite different.

Think about the Ice Ages. What were humans eating mostly in the north?
What do current humans that live way up north eat mostly? Meat and fat from deer, whales, seals, etc.

omnivore is a large group - but not really large enough to include humans (see post #900) unless you really stretch things a lot and introduce hoove arguments which is really quite a feet.
So "omnivore" is a large enough group to include dogs but not humans.
You really are rewriting all the textbooks now.

Secondly, why is a "natural" diet necessarily good or desirable?
Why is anything that is good or desirable to you also good and desirable for me?

Thirdly, the changes in the way that we get food have changed what nutrients we get on what types of diets. A vegan jungle ape might get all the B12 it needs from the dirt...but we don't eat dirt-covered food anymore. We sterilize it (at least plant food, anyway!). Today, we live in a situation vastly different from the situation our prehistoric ancestors found themselves in. None of us will come close to replicating their diet, and it hasn't been established that it would be beneficial to do so.
Yeah, there was a population in India that got all their B12 from dirt, so it seems that a vegan should eat a little dirt once and a while.

Our diet is quite different from our ancestors. It now comes complete with pesticides, hormones, and a few re-arranged genes. Maybe 10,000 years from now, archeologists will look back and say "I'm glad we aren't still eating that garbage."

OneEye

Dec29-04, 10:36 PM

if it makes you happy to take one last parting shot broadcasting your superior grasp of logic, enjoy.

the purpose of these forums is to discuss topics of mutual interest. we express our views, make friends and when in the appropriate frame of mind, we can even treat ourselves to learning something about each other. hopefully, both of us will find benefit in and be of benefit to, this thread and the physicsforums.
Well, thanks for giving me the newbie's information packet.

I apologize if you felt slighted by my evaluation of your logical processes. I honestly intended no harm by it.

I don't mind just goofing around and gassing on a forum. That's fine. Not usually really interesting to me, but I've been known to so engage over the years.

However, if someone is making substantial claims, I expect them to pony up with solid fact and rationale. Over the years, I have refined my method so that my posts are thorough and solid. I do not, as you assert, make broad claims without rationale. As you saw when I demonstrated that you are an ethical vegetarian, I do my research, condense my facts, connect them together coherently, and build a tight case.

I admit that some of my reasoning takes a little more grinding to get than the forum format usually expects. But I have not made a substantial claim (e.g., "Everyone admits that the 3-point syllogism is cogent.") without solid grounds for saying so. So, rather than simply asserting that I make broad and insubstantial complaints, it would certainly be more respectful if you said, for instance, "I don't know why you say this," or, "You don't seem to have grounds to make this statemnt." You seem unwilling to take this tack with me - which is your business, but which I find more than a little tedious - especially when you won't ask questions, but rather just assume that I am careless. Since I take the time to work my case up with dilligence and respect, I would hope that you would take the time to read and consider with dilligence and respect.

In any case, I have about one more post on this subject, and then I am done with it.

But I would like to see a thorough response to my pro-meat rationale.

physicsisphirst

Dec30-04, 02:26 PM

I apologize if you felt slighted by my evaluation of your logical processes. I honestly intended no harm by it.
that is nice of you, but i don't feel slighted at all. thank you nevertheless for the kind acknowledgement.

As you saw when I demonstrated that you are an ethical vegetarian, I do my research, condense my facts, connect them together coherently, and build a tight case.
you demonstrated no such thing. you may have grounds for concluding that i am 'ethical' (by virtue of my posts) and you already know that i am veg. however, you have no argument for concluding that i am an 'ethical vegetarian' as you have defined it. furthermore, you are so convinced by your own reasoning that you seem unable to understand me when i say i'm veg for nutritional reasons. however, if it pleases you to think otherwise, by all means flatter me.

I admit that some of my reasoning takes a little more grinding to get than the forum format usually expects. But I have not made a substantial claim (e.g., "Everyone admits that the 3-point syllogism is cogent.") without solid grounds for saying so.
your 3 pt sillygism doesn't take any grinding to understand because it isn't really cogent at all.

here it is again in it's original form:

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

in this form it is either incogent (if your animal is non-human) or tautology (if your animal is human) as shown in post #786.

you admitted later that you meant "any animal" instead of "an animal". so now the thing gains cogency, but becomes a wonderful self-serving absurdity:

1. It is moral for any animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).[/i]

you first make it ok for the entire animal kingdom to eat meat, then turn humans into animals and therefore make it ok for them to eat meat. why bother with such effort? why not simply jump to your consequent without the extraneous fanfare? far better simply to say "i like the taste of meat, therefore i will eat it" than to engage in this sort of tripe (pun intended) :rofl:

also, as cogito pointed out in post #865 about your 'improved' version:

This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. (since humans are composed of meat).

then after you provided him with "an update", he went on to point out to you in post #883 that:

all you have established is that humans are rational and autonomous enough to act in accord with moral principles, while the rest of the animal world is not, then (pardon the pun) it seems you've been barking up the wrong tree.

he asked you an important question at the end of that post. (i asked it again on his behalf in post #951). so i'll state cogito's question once again:

Originally Posted by cogito
What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights. Your run-of-the-mill adult cow is by all measure capable of suffering, self-consciousness, and rational thought to an extent which far exceeds that of the newborn infant or the profoundly develpmentally disabled human. If we are disposed to take these latter entities are possessors of rights, then consistency demands we extend rights to the former entities as well. If the reply to this consistency argument is that the psychological capacities mentioned are not criterial of moral considerability, then, praytell, what is? (post #883)

In any case, I have about one more post on this subject, and then I am done with it.
perhaps you could focus your efforts on what you say is going to be your last post in answering this rather important question that cogito asks. (then i hope you continue participating in this thread since i really do appreciate your sense of ethics though admittedly not your logic).

physicsisphirst

Dec30-04, 02:58 PM

So "omnivore" is a large enough group to include dogs but not humans.
You really are rewriting all the textbooks now.

but shrumeo, i am not rewriting anything (though it might be interesting one day to look at who influences the writing of textbooks).

dogs, as russ correctly pointed out, have been classified in carnivora (nomenclaturistically at any rate). however, they have ample physiological characteristics enabling them to do very nicely with veggies. hence, dogs are seen as being omnivores.

similarly, humans do very nicely with veggies but fall miserably short when it comes to having physiological characteristics for handling meat. hence, they are not omnivores.

look at the mills article (and others in post #900). it shows on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
colon
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
mouth opening vs headsize
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
liver
kidney
nails

that the human anatomy lines up with that of the herbivores.

here is the Mills link again:
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

welcome back, btw!

OneEye

Dec30-04, 06:54 PM

perhaps you could focus your efforts on what you say is going to be your last post in answering this rather important question that cogito asks. (then i hope you continue participating in this thread since i really do appreciate your sense of ethics though admittedly not your logic).
Sorry, but I'm not going to play this silly time-wasting game.

I answered the ethical point in my longer post (#970). I also answered the cannibalism point in the same post.

Further, your treatment of the three-point syllogism (differentiating between "an" and "any") is nonsense - a pointless ruse. To begin with, you are probably the only person in the world who would take "an animal" to mean anything other than "any animal". Second, you admit that, when correctly interpreted (i.e., using "any animal"), this is a true and valid syllogism - although you do so in an insulting fashion ("why bother with such effort? why not simply jump to your consequent without the extraneous fanfare?").

You seem to be uninterested in thoughtful discussion. Very well. Far be it from me to force it on you.

OneEye

Dec30-04, 06:57 PM

look at the mills article (and others in post #900). it shows on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
colon
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
mouth opening vs headsize
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
liver
kidney
nails

Wonder how many of these characteristics are identical to those of chimpanzees?

sheepdog

Dec30-04, 08:32 PM

i think you are correct about this - it would be a very different future if people refused to eat meat in overwhelming numbers.
Quite true. You have made some very good points.

But also you can look at it this way. When people actively refuse to do something they could do, and that could be pleasurable, it implies that each individual has undergone a transformation of consciousness. No one forced them. They chose to do this in spite of any short-term rewards. So that's the end result. But how do you get there? The process in getting there is what makes the scenarios loseyourname has postulated extremely unlikely I think. People won't choose to stop eating meat to the expense of their overall well-being. So that end result must arise from proceeding in a new direction deliberately for the purpose of avoiding problems, not for creating problems.

It is that new consciousness, that new view of our relationship to other-than-self, that is the real payoff. Anyone can not eat meat for all kinds of reasons. But in a world in which most people purposely refuse to eat meat there is much more going on than what is being eaten. Ultimately vegetarianism is one small manifestation of who and what we are, and what our children become.

loseyourname

Dec30-04, 10:38 PM

while each of loseyourname's points have some validity ('excess' of animals, bankrupt agrifarmers, failing commodities markets etc), they are neither insurmountable nor catastrophic: the meat (and dairy) industry destroys the environment (water depletion, deforestation, excrement pollution etc - specifics available upon request) to a greater extent than the lack of the same; people learn to acquire new skills as they did when computers 'took' jobs away from people; and there are plenty of other commodity markets.

I'd say the people losing their livelihoods and the animals that can't survive in the wild and the ecosystems disrupted by them would not agree that these consequences should be so flippantly dismissed.

when slavery was terminated in US, there were financial consequences (as well as 'excess' people - since slaves really weren't thought of as people), but the future was dramatically changed.
when gandhi's efforts eventually caused the british to leave india, there were serious financial consequences as well as vicious fighting between the muslims and hindus (one of the 'excuses' the british had argued for keeping control of india), but the future was dramatically changed.

There were humans at stake in these cases that justified the consequences. Perhaps you think it is worth it to go through the overhaul of our agrarian economy and the disruption to rural ecosystems for the sake of the animals at stake (are you sure you're not an ethical vegetarian?), but clearly not everyone here agrees. Drawing parallels to instances of human genocide or oppression does not help your case unless you make the claim that animals have the same rights.

the meat (and dairy) industry destroys the environment (water depletion, deforestation, excrement pollution etc - specifics available upon request) to a greater extent than the lack of the same

Yes, please do so. Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that). Look, I'm with you on the harm to the environment wrought by many farming operations, whether they be vegetable or meat - in fact, I made the ecological argument for vegetarianism six months ago in this thread. That is, however, only an argument for cleaning up the act. There is nothing intrinsic in the act of farming meat products that demands that it be more harmful to the environment than vegetable farming. I believe it was Aquamarine who brought up many counterpoints to your argument to this effect, counterpoints that I don't think you ever answered.

vegetarianism has been a growing movement (one of the fastest growing movements according to the Toronto Star in an article in the mid 90s, from what i recall) over the past 30 years. it will certainly be interesting to see how the future is dramatically changed when people refuse to eat meat in overwhelming numbers.

I don't see how it would be dramatically changed at all, once we get past the initial shock. Meat farmers will go out of business and other farmers will get richer. People will find a different way to indulge their cravings and be just as unhealthy. All the land in Texas that is useless for any purpose other than cattle ranching might turn into housing developments if people don't mind the heat too much. Same world, different menus.

sheepdog

Dec31-04, 12:12 AM

I don't see how it would be dramatically changed at all, once we get past the initial shock. Meat farmers will go out of business and other farmers will get richer. People will find a different way to indulge their cravings and be just as unhealthy. All the land in Texas that is useless for any purpose other than cattle ranching might turn into housing developments if people don't mind the heat too much. Same world, different menus.I believe you are mistaken. Quite the opposite outcome would arise. However, without the experiment we will never know, will we? Without the experiment we go on "being just as unhealthy" on the same old menu.

The greatest obstacle to a better world is those who would keep it the way it is, those who believe it can only be worse. Here is a perfect case in point. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps this is as good as it can possibly get and anyone is a fool to try and improve it. Personally I think the future is filled with possibilities, many of them brighter than the present and I'm willing to stick my neck out a little for them. Forgoing meat seems the least I can do.

JPD

Dec31-04, 06:28 AM

I believe you are mistaken. Quite the opposite outcome would arise. However, without the experiment we will never know, will we? Without the experiment we go on "being just as unhealthy" on the same old menu.

The greatest obstacle to a better world is those who would keep it the way it is, those who believe it can only be worse. Here is a perfect case in point. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps this is as good as it can possibly get and anyone is a fool to try and improve it. Personally I think the future is filled with possibilities, many of them brighter than the present and I'm willing to stick my neck out a little for them. Forgoing meat seems the least I can do.

The difficulty comes in quantifying the effectiveness of improvements and being able to claim that it was your actions that contributed to them. Of course the future is filled with possibilities - that is why it is called the future.

derek1

Dec31-04, 12:42 PM

Hi everyone. This is an interesting discussion going on. I think you may be interested in some of the things I have witnessed. I have been inside many factory farms and witnessed the cruelty first-hand. I have taken photographs and video and posted them on the following websites.

http://www.EggCruelty.com

http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp

Some of the footage I've taken has also been incorporated in a video called Meet Your Meat, which is viewable from the following website:

http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

I believe visiting the above sites is necessary to really understand the issue, so everyone is on the same page, and understands what we're talking about when we talk about factory farms.

I have enjoyed reading some of the posts on this site, but I think the issue at hand is quite simple. While there are rare exceptions to the rule such as eating road kill, generally speaking, a vegan diet causes far less suffering than a diet that includes meat and other animal products.

Another way of looking at it is examining the fundamental rule of ethics, the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated. I wouldn't want to be confined for most of my life in a tiny cage or crowded into a warehouse. I wouldn't want to be mutilated. I would't want to be separated from my family or witness members of my family in pain. I wouldn't want to have my throat sliced open. I wouldn't want to be burned alive in a scalding tank. And I certainly wouldn't want anyone, human or non-human, to experience these things. Yet these are all common occurrences in factory farms and slaughterhouses. So how can we justify paying someone else to do this for us by eating meat and other animal products? I have seen many such justifications posted on this forum. I understand that it is a natural reaction to defend something that one is participating in. In fact, I initially made excuses for my behavior before I became a vegetarian. But in order to truly make this world a better place, we need to stop making excuses and justifications, particularly when such justifications are causing others to suffer immensely and needlessly. The suffering is just too extreme for us to continue to turn a blind eye.

May love and mercy guide us all.

Derek

physicsisphirst

Dec31-04, 12:50 PM

Drawing parallels to instances of human genocide or oppression does not help your case unless you make the claim that animals have the same rights.
drawing parallels is for showing that we've been through changes like this in the past. the point is that whenever the oppressed are freed from their oppressors, the latter may have to undergo some major modifications. (the comparison has nothing to do with animal rights though if you want to look more into it see post #748 on p50)

I believe it was Aquamarine who brought up many counterpoints to your argument [veg farming vs meat farming] to this effect, counterpoints that I don't think you ever answered.
i don't recall any of this, but i may have overlooked some posts. please give me the page and post numbers where he counterpointed me and i'll see what i can do, if you'd like.

Yes, please do so. Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that).
this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.
we didn't know what would happen if hitler hadn't been stopped, but it seemed a good idea to stop him so that the things he was doing to damage humanity didn't happen anymore.

since you are already aware of the usual ecological arguments such as pollution, water depletion, deforestation, i won't go into that right now (you seem to be more interested in the feasibility of an alternate future anyway, i think), but these are things that would be dramatically changed. you seem to be convinced that they would be replaced by equally worse - what is your justification for this belief?

It is that new consciousness, that new view of our relationship to other-than-self, that is the real payoff. Anyone can not eat meat for all kinds of reasons. But in a world in which most people purposely refuse to eat meat there is much more going on than what is being eaten. Ultimately vegetarianism is one small manifestation of who and what we are, and what our children become.
beautifully expressed, sheepdog! it is indeed a different consciousness.
as you say, greatest obstacle to a better world is those who would keep it the way it is (isn't that the everpresent law of inertia :rofl: )

i think one of the reasons it is difficult for some people (myself included) to acquire this consciousness is that you have to become 'aware' before it happens, but usually we don't make the effort to become 'aware' till we have some consciousness to begin with. however, for me at least, getting informed of the realities at least helps the 'awareness' which can later bring about the 'new consciousness'.

Personally I think the future is filled with possibilities, many of them brighter than the present and I'm willing to stick my neck out a little for them.
as the ancient saying goes, "turtle make progress only when it sticks its neck out." the discoveries and achievements throughout history seem to have come from people willing to make the effort to envision and try things beyond the status quo (and interestingly enough, most of these visionaries were always nagged with the recurring cry "it will never work").

ranjana

Dec31-04, 01:00 PM

physicsisphirst

Dec31-04, 01:40 PM

Hi everyone. This is an interesting discussion going on. I think you may be interested in some of the things I have witnessed. I have been inside many factory farms and witnessed the cruelty first-hand. I have taken photographs and video and posted them on the following websites.

http://www.EggCruelty.com

http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp

Some of the footage I've taken has also been incorporated in a video called Meet Your Meat, which is viewable from the following website:

http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

I believe visiting the above sites is necessary to really understand the issue, so everyone is on the same page, and understands what we're talking about when we talk about factory farms.
i think this is a very important point. some people just do not want to know (or even acknowledge after they learn), what happens in the meat industry. cruelty is easy to deny when hidden behind cellophane packaging. i think it was the McCartney's who said that if slaughterhouses had glass walls, we would all become vegetarian. if people would spend more time at the sites you mention (rather than avoiding them), they would get informed about what does happen and what they do support.

I have enjoyed reading some of the posts on this site, but I think the issue at hand is quite simple. While there are rare exceptions to the rule such as eating road kill, generally speaking, a vegan diet causes far less suffering than a diet that includes meat and other animal products.
some people try to deny this in remarkable ways (eg animals aren't really aware of their suffering or humans will suffer more if we don't keep doing what we are doing). however, when it comes to factory farms, the issue really is pretty simple, isn't it?

as dooga asked in an earlier post (#901):

Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?

shouldn't this question be asked before every trip to the supermarket?

loseyourname

Dec31-04, 05:59 PM

I believe you are mistaken. Quite the opposite outcome would arise. However, without the experiment we will never know, will we? Without the experiment we go on "being just as unhealthy" on the same old menu.

Well, I don't think we have to go on being "just as unhealthy." In fact, I'm not unhealthy at all. Many people are not. I just think its a function of eating a better diet and exercising more, not of eliminating meat.

The greatest obstacle to a better world is those who would keep it the way it is, those who believe it can only be worse. Here is a perfect case in point. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps this is as good as it can possibly get and anyone is a fool to try and improve it. Personally I think the future is filled with possibilities, many of them brighter than the present and I'm willing to stick my neck out a little for them. Forgoing meat seems the least I can do.

Whoa there, Dr. King. Nobody is saying the world shoudn't change and things will never be any better than they are now. I think the future is just as bright as you do. I just don't think eliminating meat from the diet of the human race will do a whole lot to bring a better future about. What exactly do you hope to accomplish on the world scale by doing so that cannot be accomplished in another way?

loseyourname

Dec31-04, 06:07 PM

drawing parallels is for showing that we've been through changes like this in the past. the point is that whenever the oppressed are freed from their oppressors, the latter may have to undergo some major modifications. (the comparison has nothing to do with animal rights though if you want to look more into it see post #748 on p50)

Okay see, there you go again. You cannot be oppressed unless you have rights. I contend that we have not been through changes like this in the past. In the past, we freed oppressed people from those who would take away their rights. Here we would be releasing farm animals. It is not the same thing to me and I don't how you can say that is unless you grant animal rights.

i don't recall any of this, but i may have overlooked some posts. please give me the page and post numbers where he counterpointed me and i'll see what i can do, if you'd like.

The thread moves fast. You probably missed it. It isn't that important to me, so I'm not going to go looking for it right now. If this continues, then maybe I will.

this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.
we didn't know what would happen if hitler hadn't been stopped, but it seemed a good idea to stop him so that the things he was doing to damage humanity didn't happen anymore.

There you go again, friendly Prad. You're comparing the use of animal products to the Jewish holocaust. Stopping Hitler and stopping the manufacture of meat products is not the same thing unless you grant animal rights. You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy.

since you are already aware of the usual ecological arguments such as pollution, water depletion, deforestation, i won't go into that right now (you seem to be more interested in the feasibility of an alternate future anyway, i think), but these are things that would be dramatically changed. you seem to be convinced that they would be replaced by equally worse - what is your justification for this belief?

That isn't quite my stance. My stance is only that the ecological problems with the meat industry can be cleaned up without eliminating the meat industry. To draw an analogy here, the production of electricity is very damaging to the environment, but we don't do away with electricity. We simply impose regulations on providers and do our best to minimize the impact. This isn't currently done very well with the meat industry and it it were, the impact would be much less.

derek1

Jan1-05, 11:05 AM

Derek,
What you've shared is very compelling. It's difficult to argue with eye witness accounts. What are some of the common excuses/justifications you've heard from people who continue to eat meat and animal products even after they learn of the atrocities and suffering?

Ranjana

I've heard so many excuses that I would be typing for hours if I listed them all. I've heard everything from religious justifications to claims of how "natural" it is to eat meat, but I have yet to hear a valid reason to cause others to suffer unnecessarily. I believe that most people know that it is wrong to cause others, human or non-human, to suffer unnecessarily, but they are not ready to change their own lifestyle, or they are afraid of what people will think of them if they choose to become vegetarian, so they make excuses instead.

I also think this is a case of non-critical thinking and the comfort of being in the majority. Most of us have been taught by parents, teachers, and others that eating meat is Ok and been told that animals should be viewed as property instead of beings that should be respected. When one doesn't want to make a change, it is easy for people to repeat what society reinforces, knowing that the majority of society will nod their heads in agreement. This is not surprising. In almost every case of systematic oppression, the majority went along with it. The oppression became a part of the oppressors' "common-wisdom" and even their "morality". This is exactly what is happening today with our society's treatment of animals.

Things will not change until we change our hearts to respect everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or species.

Derek

sheepdog

Jan1-05, 11:31 AM

What exactly do you hope to accomplish on the world scale by doing so that cannot be accomplished in another way?There is no other way. Any "other way", as you call it, is in fact only more of the same. This is an either-or situation. Either we are vegetarians, or we are not.

The reason you don't agree with what I have just said is because to see it would require a complete paradigm shift. The only real other way lies outside of your grasp. So you will not understand what I have said. What you call the "other way" does not touch upon what we are talking about here. What you call the "other way" does not change anything. What you call "other way" continues the present dominant paradigm. It is the continuation of the same, with trivial variation.

What can be accomplished on a world scale by a real paradigm shift, you ask? Well, it seems to me that physics gives us some good examples. Einstein's relativity was one of those moments of paradigm shift when a totally new direction emerged, previously hidden and completely unknown. Either-or situation. Either there is relativity or there is not. It is like that.

physicsisphirst

Jan1-05, 11:48 AM

The thread moves fast. You probably missed it. It isn't that important to me, so I'm not going to go looking for it right now. If this continues, then maybe I will.
ok thanks. i know i was away for several weeks more than once.

It is not the same thing to me and I don't how you can say that is unless you grant animal rights ...

You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy.

and there you go, loseyourname - you come to the same 'convenient' conclusion that russ did in post #723: the old "let's call the argument emotional and thereby disqualify it in our own minds" trick.

i am not making the slightest appeal to emotion by bringing in oppression of humans by humans, so please, please don't get emotional at all!

the point is specifically this:
1. people A oppressed people B
2. when people A were forced to stop oppressing people B they whined about it using excuses like
a) people B don't deserve rights because they are stupid, sub-human etc
b) we will lose money
c) we will lose money
d) it is traditional for us to oppress people B (they don't put it quite like that, of course)
e) it will be the end of civilization

(hmmmm ... it sounds like people A are getting rather emotional about it all.)

anyway, it is quite true that people A did lose much of what they controlled and even endured hardship (in some cases). they had to adapt.

this sort of thing happens in history on a regular basis - the key point is that people adapt - they do things differently (some of them may even experience a paradigm shift!)

now if you want to deal with the separate issue of animal rights (which has nothing to do with the very unemotional point i was making - that people adapt to circumstances), we can do so. however, you should consider 2 things:

1) some AR philosophies don't presume inherent animals' rights (eg singer, sapontzis) - but they don't accept what is done to animals either
2) animals don't need to have rights in order to suffer (ie feel pain etc)

if it is suffering that we wish to minimize, then it is perfectly reasonable to do away with say factory-farmed meat consumption based on our acceptance that animals do suffer regardless of whether you want to acknowledge their rights or not.

physicsisphirst

Jan1-05, 12:00 PM

I also think this is a case of non-critical thinking and the comfort of being in the majority. Most of us have been taught by parents, teachers, and others that eating meat is Ok and been told that animals should be viewed as property instead of beings that should be respected.
this is an excellent point, derek!

going along with the majority and maintaining status quo is a difficult issue to overcome - there's that 'safety' in numbers. it is that paradigm shift that sheepdog so eloquently explains in post #1002.

this is why what you do, derek, is so important.
you not only challenge the tradition, but through your investigations and revelations you challenge our very concept of humanity.

OneEye

Jan1-05, 12:47 PM

When I quit smoking (almost ten years ago), I put on about 55 pounds - and was never able to permanently take it off.

In the ensuing years, apart from the weight gain, I also noticed the following symptoms: Decreased circulation, thin skin, slow healing, daily acid reflux, and hypoglycemia.

My wife was trying the Atkins diet, and getting some good results with weight loss. So, suspecting that many of my symptoms were sugar-related, I went on the Atkins diet as well.

Not only did I lose weight, but all of the above symptoms were also alleviated or completely eradicated. I had thought that I had problems with excess fats in my diet, but it turns out to have all been a sugar/high carbohydrate problem!

Some people report some negative health effects from the Atkins diet - like bad breath, diarrhea, etc. I have experienced none of these effects. I always had high cholesterol; I have yet to have this checked under Atkins. But I guarantee you that my high triglycerides are reduced!

Bottom line: Atkins has been very good for me - a real health boon.

Some people might do better on a low-fat, high-carb diet. Not me. With my sugar-related difficulties, a low-carb, high protein diet is the way to go!

OneEye

Jan1-05, 01:12 PM

Most people don't live in a ranching area. I do, so I have the opportunity to investigate the "cruel oppression" of cows and pigs which goes on out here.

The cows and pigs which I have personally observed are not mistreated or treated inhumanely. They are kept well fed and, when penned, are no worse off than a dog in a suburban yard. The calves are kept out of the harsh weather, bottle and bucket fed, and released on the range when big enough. The food supply is more than adequate, and they are generally free from pain, disease, or threat of predation. Cushy life!

Cows in the feed lot are also protected from risk, and are less crowded than children in school. The powerful and pungent smell from the feed lot is not bovine waste, but is cattle feed - silage - which stinks like ammonia to you and me, but which the cows relish, and which they readily digest.

Pigs do smell bad, but that's because they are pigs. Hog farmers care for piglets and pigs in very clean, humane ways - because mistreating animals is costly. One sickly or ill-favored cow or pig can damage a rancher's reputation, which ends up losing them money.

With a few notable exceptions, farm animals are subjected to no worse surgical procedures than the average housepet experiences. Andf the surgical procedures which they do endure are for the good of the whole herd. One might argue that some of the surgical procedures could be performed less painfully, but they apparently do not do any long-term harm for the animals.

I tend to be tenderhearted when it comes to the treatment of animals, but I have had very few occasions to wince as I have visited with and sometimes worked with the ranchers out here.

By and large, though domestic animals have a shorter average lifespan than their wild counterparts, they are happier and healthier under human care than they would be in the wild - and so human care probably results in more "cow-years" than wild circumstances could allow.

I hope that this offers some helpful factual information to this discussion.

(P.S. Veal pens, BTW, are [in my opinion] unnecessary and inhumane. Neither my wife nor I will eat veal because of this.)

OneEye

Jan1-05, 01:16 PM

physicsisphirst,

You seem to be uninterested in thoughtful discussion. Very well. Far be it from me to force it on you.

Boy, was I a rude jerk!

You have my sincere apologies. I am very sorry! I was certainly impatient, and had no call to write that way.

I repent! I will endeavor to be better-mannered in the future.

JPD

Jan1-05, 02:57 PM

this is an excellent point, derek!

going along with the majority and maintaining status quo is a difficult issue to overcome - there's that 'safety' in numbers. it is that paradigm shift that sheepdog so eloquently explains in post #1002.

this is why what you do, derek, is so important.
you not only challenge the tradition, but through your investigations and revelations you challenge our very concept of humanity.

Yes, it must be simply marvellous to be as wonderful and amazing as you. Why, us meat eaters can't even imagine what it must be like to be so enlightened and just so fabulously supreme.

physicsisphirst

Jan1-05, 03:29 PM

You have my sincere apologies. I am very sorry! I was certainly impatient, and had no call to write that way.
that is kind of you, oneeye. i accept your sincere apologies, with sincerity.

Yes, it must be simply marvellous to be as wonderful and amazing as you. Why, us meat eaters can't even imagine what it must be like to be so enlightened and just so fabulously supreme.
now what's this all about, jpd?
i thought you didn't do the 'conventional' thing of getting your meat at the supermarket (post #954) - possibly because you didn't agree with the very agri-practices derek reveals.

anyway, i agreed with you in my post #966 that people telling me not to eat meat probably wouldn't have made me stop (when i was eating meat in the early '70s) - just as it seems to be getting your bristles up now.

however, people learn things if they take the time to explore the realities - and that's just what derek is letting us see. after realizing what does go on in factory farms, some people do become "enlightened" (although they don't have to become "fabulously supreme" - at least not until someone such as yourself grants them that title).

JPD

Jan1-05, 04:51 PM

that is kind of you, oneeye. i accept your sincere apologies, with sincerity.

now what's this all about, jpd?
i thought you didn't do the 'conventional' thing of getting your meat at the supermarket (post #954) - possibly because you didn't agree with the very agri-practices derek reveals.

anyway, i agreed with you in my post #966 that people telling me not to eat meat probably wouldn't have made me stop (when i was eating meat in the early '70s) - just as it seems to be getting your bristles up now.

however, people learn things if they take the time to explore the realities - and that's just what derek is letting us see. after realizing what does go on in factory farms, some people do become "enlightened" (although they don't have to become "fabulously supreme" - at least not until someone such as yourself grants them that title).

I found it rather gushing, that's all.

loseyourname

Jan1-05, 05:15 PM

There is no other way. Any "other way", as you call it, is in fact only more of the same. This is an either-or situation. Either we are vegetarians, or we are not.

Being vegetarian isn't what's at issue to me. The ethicals issues are ecosystem disruption and animal suffering. If you say there is no way to alleviate some of the problems we have here except by going vegetarian, then I cannot talk to you. You've already made up your mind and it's clear that you won't listen to anything else.

What can be accomplished on a world scale by a real paradigm shift, you ask? Well, it seems to me that physics gives us some good examples. Einstein's relativity was one of those moments of paradigm shift when a totally new direction emerged, previously hidden and completely unknown. Either-or situation. Either there is relativity or there is not. It is like that.

If's that all your speaking, then I guess the issue becomes "either it's right to eat meat or it's not." Well, jeez Einstein, isn't that the point. Clearly there are reasons that you think it is wrong. What are these reasons? I agree wholeheartedly that there are some issues involved in the way meat farming (heck, most farming, not just meat-farming) is conducted, but I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in the act of eating meat. Apparently you do. If you think it is intrinsically wrong, that's a personal conviction of yours. I can't argue with your personal conviction. I'm not sure why you would be involved in a discussion like this to begin with if that is the case.

loseyourname

Jan1-05, 05:24 PM

and there you go, loseyourname - you come to the same 'convenient' conclusion that russ did in post #723: the old "let's call the argument emotional and thereby disqualify it in our own minds" trick.

There's a rule of thumb at play here. I don't remember its name, but whenever a person appeals to an analogy with Hitler, he generally doesn't have much of a case. I don't know if that's the case here, but I do know it's always best to present the best analogy available. You are not doing that. You are presenting the one with the most emotional impact. Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. You're going to have to make an actual case.

the point is specifically this:
1. people A oppressed people B
2. when people A were forced to stop oppressing people B they whined about it using excuses like
a) people B don't deserve rights because they are stupid, sub-human etc
b) we will lose money
c) we will lose money
d) it is traditional for us to oppress people B (they don't put it quite like that, of course)
e) it will be the end of civilization

Now I'll tell you why this is a bad analogy. The word "people." A person is an entity with rights. Animals do not have rights. They cannot be considered "people" unless you grant them rights. We cannot get any further until you acknowledge this and make a more honest analogy that is not an appeal to pity.

now if you want to deal with the separate issue of animal rights (which has nothing to do with the very unemotional point i was making - that people adapt to circumstances), we can do so. however, you should consider 2 things:

1) some AR philosophies don't presume inherent animals' rights (eg singer, sapontzis) - but they don't accept what is done to animals either
2) animals don't need to have rights in order to suffer (ie feel pain etc)

if it is suffering that we wish to minimize, then it is perfectly reasonable to do away with say factory-farmed meat consumption based on our acceptance that animals do suffer regardless of whether you want to acknowledge their rights or not.

First off, they must have the capacity to suffer and the right to not needlessly suffer before this discussion can even begin. I'll grant you this for most feed animals. Then we can discuss how to minimize their suffering. You seem to think that the only way to do this is to eliminate the consumption of any and all meat products. I do not. There are perfectly humane ways to kill an animal that do not involve any suffering and do not impact an ecosystem any more than vegetable farming. If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it.

derek1

Jan1-05, 05:42 PM

Bottom line: Atkins has been very good for me - a real health boon.

Some people might do better on a low-fat, high-carb diet. Not me. With my sugar-related difficulties, a low-carb, high protein diet is the way to go!

Hi OneEye. I'm glad that your health appears to be improving, however there are a lot of health risks with the Atkins diet. You and others may find the following website helpful:

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

It is very well-referenced (I believe there are over 400 references) and well written.

I do agree that high sugar diets can be very detrimental to your health. However, I am concerned about the long-term implications of extremely high protein, low carb diets over the long term. But if you find that a high protein diet works for you, you may want to consider a high protein vegetarian diet. I know there is a diet called the Soy Zone which may be worth checking out.

Wishing you the best of health,
Derek

sheepdog

Jan1-05, 05:44 PM

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in the act of eating meat. Exactly. Therein lies the paradigm shift. I agree. We have nothing to talk about.

In fact, the reasons for not eating meat do not matter. Reasons are only a model for the real world. Models are arbitrary. Do the experiment. Shift the paradigm. What is the outcome? That's what counts.

derek1

Jan1-05, 05:44 PM

If anyone is interested in learning more about the issues regarding vegetarianism (animal, environmental, and health), visit:

http://www.ChooseVegetarian.com.

It is very well-referenced. It also has recipes and tips for making the switch.

loseyourname

Jan1-05, 05:59 PM

Exactly. Therein lies the paradigm shift. I agree. We have nothing to talk about.

In fact, the reasons for not eating meat do not matter. Reasons are only a model for the real world. Models are arbitrary. Do the experiment. Shift the paradigm. What is the outcome? That's what counts.

That isn't the thing, though. I don't think that any act is intrinsically wrong. Actions take on moral worth only because of either the motivation of the actor or the consequences of the action. If you think certain actions have intrinsic worth, and eating meat is one of these, there is no experiment that can do anything for you. An experiment can do nothing but test consequences, but consequentialism is inconsistent with the idea of intrinsic worth.

sheepdog

Jan1-05, 07:18 PM

That isn't the thing, though. I don't think that any act is intrinsically wrong. Actions take on moral worth only because of either the motivation of the actor or the consequences of the action. If you think certain actions have intrinsic worth, and eating meat is one of these, there is no experiment that can do anything for you. An experiment can do nothing but test consequences, but consequentialism is inconsistent with the idea of intrinsic worth.I think eating nails has intrinsic worth (whatever that means). So I eat nails, as an experiment. I believe the outcome of the experiment would change my thinking. Don't you? I think it is obvious that there are numerous experiments that can "do something for you".

The interesting question is, "Can we change? Is a paradigm shift possible"?" Of course, the answer is "yes", but how does that happen? Well, no amount of debate will have any effect. We have abundant, abundant evidence to that fact. This debate going on here is just entertainment, pure and simple -- of no consequence.

Human change occurs, paradigms shift, out of necessity, when the weight of reality cannot be denied. No one is going to talk you out of your point of view. You will either remain as you are, or you will be compelled to change by unknown, overwhelming circumstances and the paradigm will shift. Or you will do your own experiments driven by an irresistible need to know the whole truth and when you have fully completed them then the paradigm will shift.

All systems of reason and logic are ultimately based upon unprovable axioms. For this question it's up to each of us to determine the right axioms. Reason cannot assist us in doing this. It's a matter of experience. The future will be a direct reflection of the results of our efforts.

loseyourname

Jan1-05, 08:05 PM

I think eating nails has intrinsic worth (whatever that means). So I eat nails, as an experiment. I believe the outcome of the experiment would change my thinking. Don't you? I think it is obvious that there are numerous experiments that can "do something for you".

The experiment cannot change your mind, by definition of "instrinsic." Intrinsic worth is not dependent upon consequences, such as the outcome of an experiment. A consequence is an extrinsic factor.

The interesting question is, "Can we change? Is a paradigm shift possible"?" Of course, the answer is "yes", but how does that happen?

That isn't an ethical question and isn't relevant to this discussion. The question relevant to this discussion is "Should we change?" You obviously think we should, but what do you offer as backing? The suffering of animals. When I point out that meat can be produced for consumption without inducing any suffering in the animal, what is your answer? Is it that there is an intrinsic worth to eating meat, and that worth is negative? That would contradict many other things you have said, which I am trying to point out (the very notion of experimentation, for instance, is inconsistent with intrinsic worth). Or is it that you are an animal rights advocate and you think that animals should have the right to not be killed? In this case, whether or not they suffer is irrelevant. If this is the position you hold, I don't see how you can hold it based on anything other than personal conviction. Well, I am personally convinced that animals should not have the right to not be killed. I do agree that they should have the right to not needlessly suffer, but I will not go any further than that. That is why I say we are at an impasse. You are convinced animals should have rights. I am not. All either of us has to go on is personal conviction. You cannot argue personal conviction.

All systems of reason and logic are ultimately based upon unprovable axioms. For this question it's up to each of us to determine the right axioms. Reason cannot assist us in doing this. It's a matter of experience. The future will be a direct reflection of the results of our efforts.

You're being incredibly vague here. For one thing, we are not talking about logical systems here. We are talking about ethical systems. Do you hold it as axiomatic that animals should have the right to not be killed? If you don't, you lose your case. If you do, we can have no discussion and you really have no reason to argue the point because there is nothing on which to base the assessment that your axiom is any better than mine, which says animals do not have that right. I do have the slight advantage of being in accordance with nature, but to be honest, I don't find that to be relevant to ethical matters.

sheepdog

Jan1-05, 08:19 PM

All either of us has to go on is personal conviction. You cannot argue personal conviction.No you cannot argue personal conviction. That's what I said. In spite of that, the future will be a direct reflection of your personal conviction, and mine, and all of ours. So get it right. And I wish you well in doing so. All of our children's lives depend upon it.

loseyourname

Jan1-05, 08:27 PM

No you cannot argue personal conviction. That's what I said. In spite of that, the future will be a direct reflection of your personal conviction, and mine, and all of ours. So get it right. And I wish you well in doing so. All of our children's lives depend upon it.

Well jeez, sheepy, what is it? Is it personal conviction or consequentialism? If you are personally convinced that animals have the right to not be killed, that right is intrinsic. It is not dependent on any consequences of their being killed, nor should the consequences even be relevant. Are you arguing that animal life has intrinsic worth, or are you arguing that the good consequences you think will arise from not eating meat have intrinsic worth? And remember, if it is the latter, you must then acknowledge that there are ways of bringing those consequences about that do not require the complete abandonment of meat products. The only way to avoid this is to say that the only consequence you are trying to bring about is a lack of animal death at human hands, in which case you simply revert to the intrinsic worth of animal life.

physicsisphirst

Jan2-05, 01:13 AM

I found it rather gushing, that's all.
oh i see. well i guess i just found what derek does sort of inspirational because it really does deal with a paradigm shift that really has happened for a lot of people once they become aware of the factory farming cruelty they are supporting.

physicsisphirst

Jan2-05, 01:50 AM

Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. You're going to have to make an actual case.
hitler's evilness isn't the issue here. the issue is that hitler was stopped because of what he was doing. look at my post #996 again

while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.
we didn't know what would happen if hitler hadn't been stopped, but it seemed a good idea to stop him

and if your 'rule of thumb' gets you all upset because i use hitler, by all means substitute whatever you wish in there appropriately.

the point is:
when we stop something (or someone) we do so because we want to stop the bad things that something (or someone) causes. we may not know what subsequent ramifications there may be (which is what seems to be restraining you).

Now I'll tell you why this is a bad analogy. The word "people." A person is an entity with rights. Animals do not have rights. They cannot be considered "people" unless you grant them rights. We cannot get any further until you acknowledge this and make a more honest analogy that is not an appeal to pity.
this is fascinating. perhaps i really should make a concerted appeal to pity and emotion, since you seem to be convinced that is what i am doing even though i explained it very precisely (and pitilessly and unemotionally) in post #1003.

let's try it once again:

1. people A oppressed people B
2. when people A were forced to stop oppressing people B they whined about it using excuses like
a) people B don't deserve rights because they are stupid, sub-human etc
b) we will lose money
c) we will lose money
d) it is traditional for us to oppress people B (they don't put it quite like that, of course)
e) it will be the end of civilization

it is quite true that people A did lose much of what they controlled and even endured hardship (in some cases). they had to adapt.

the point is:
that people adapt to the situation - so if their job disappears they find another.

(your are a bit presumptuous in saying 'animals don't have rights unless we grant these to them' btw, but we can deal with that later - it has nothing to do with what we are talking about - which happens to be the ramifications of a major change).

Then we can discuss how to minimize their suffering. You seem to think that the only way to do this is to eliminate the consumption of any and all meat products.
i don't know where you get this strange idea - of course there are ways to minimize suffering of animals and still eat them afterwards.
however, are you going to argue that elimination of meat consumption will not reduce the suffering of those you are planning to eat?

There are perfectly humane ways to kill an animal that do not involve any suffering and do not impact an ecosystem any more than vegetable farming.
what does humane killing have to do with impact on the ecosystem?
the impact on the ecosystem has to do with everything that is done before you do the killing.

If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it.
i don't think we are at an impasse at all.

here are the only problems we have:

1. you are hung up on this pity emotional thing that you think i have introduced (which i haven't - actually it is you who has)
2. you don't read some things i write (eg you claim i have granted animals the right not to be killed - in fact, i specifically wrote that some AR philosophies don't argue inherent rights)
3. you haven't provided any of those alternatives you spoke of

so how about just dropping 1., work on 2. and present some specifics for 3. and we can certainly bypass this apparent impasse.

physicsisphirst

Jan2-05, 02:17 AM

Do you hold it as axiomatic that animals should have the right to not be killed? If you don't, you lose your case.
sheepdog doesn't lose the case at all.
you are not considering the idea that may be even if animals don't have the right not to be killed, we don't have the 'right' to kill them.

JPD

Jan2-05, 02:53 PM

Gosh is that the time? Must put the cat out.

rgoudie

Jan2-05, 03:42 PM

Okay see, there you go again. You cannot be oppressed unless you have rights. I contend that we have not been through changes like this in the past. In the past, we freed oppressed people from those who would take away their rights. Here we would be releasing farm animals. It is not the same thing to me and I don't how you can say that is unless you grant animal rights.

With all due respect, your blindness is becoming rather irritating. :cry:

He doesn't need to grant animals rights, since they inherently possess them by default. It is the humans that have been depriving animals of their rights. Since humans did not create the Universe and its contents (other than, perhaps, their little toys, such as computers, shoes, cell phones, automobiles, etc.) then humans don't themselves possess the right to assign rights wherever and whenever they wish, even though they may possess the intelligence and force required to do so.

Please, suspend the arrogant indignation that you are no doubt feeling as you read this and just accept the fact that you are oppressing entire species.

There you go again, friendly Prad. You're comparing the use of animal products to the Jewish holocaust. Stopping Hitler and stopping the manufacture of meat products is not the same thing unless you grant animal rights. You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy.

It is an excellent analogy because it works. I see no difference between how meat-eaters are defending animal suffering in the name of convenience and how Nazis might have defended their beliefs had this forum been available in the late 1930s, or how white slave-owners might have defended their beliefs about blacks being less than human. These white slave-owners also denied rights to non-whites, just as you are denying rights to non-humans. What is the difference?

-Ray.

rgoudie

Jan2-05, 03:50 PM

Yes, it must be simply marvellous to be as wonderful and amazing as you. Why, us meat eaters can't even imagine what it must be like to be so enlightened and just so fabulously supreme.

Could it be that this anger that you are feeling is due to the fact that, deep down, you somewhat agree with what is being written, however your ego is refusing to acknowledge it and this is causing conflict within yourself that was targeted towards the source of these conflicting feelings?

-Ray.

sheepdog

Jan2-05, 04:06 PM

Well jeez, sheepy, what is it? Is it personal conviction or consequentialism? If you are personally convinced that animals have the right to not be killed, that right is intrinsic. It is not dependent on any consequences of their being killed, nor should the consequences even be relevant. Are you arguing that animal life has intrinsic worth, or are you arguing that the good consequences you think will arise from not eating meat have intrinsic worth? And remember, if it is the latter, you must then acknowledge that there are ways of bringing those consequences about that do not require the complete abandonment of meat products. The only way to avoid this is to say that the only consequence you are trying to bring about is a lack of animal death at human hands, in which case you simply revert to the intrinsic worth of animal life.It is certainly none of this garbage. That's for damn sure.

JPD

Jan2-05, 05:41 PM

Could it be that this anger that you are feeling is due to the fact that, deep down, you somewhat agree with what is being written, however your ego is refusing to acknowledge it and this is causing conflict within yourself that was targeted towards the source of these conflicting feelings?

-Ray.

No, it arises from the placing of humans on pedestals based on words issuing from their mouths (well, fingers).
Do you want to place me in some kind of therapeutic unit so that I can regress and blame it all on a non-existant uncle who was too fond of sitting me on his knees?

JPD

Jan2-05, 05:42 PM

It is certainly none of this garbage. That's for damn sure.

Well that's a grand response.

sheepdog

Jan2-05, 06:08 PM

Well that's a grand response.No less than was deserved.

rgoudie

Jan2-05, 06:41 PM

Do you want to place me in some kind of therapeutic unit so that I can regress and blame it all on a non-existant uncle who was too fond of sitting me on his knees?

Not at all. I was just hazarding a guess. :tongue2:

-Ray.

OneEye

Jan2-05, 06:52 PM

It is certainly none of this garbage. That's for damn sure.
...at the risk of intermeddling: loseyourname is arguing factually. You are cursing at him.

Wonder who has the upper hand on this one?

OneEye

Jan2-05, 06:53 PM

I do agree that high sugar diets can be very detrimental to your health. However, I am concerned about the long-term implications of extremely high protein, low carb diets over the long term. But if you find that a high protein diet works for you, you may want to consider a high protein vegetarian diet. I know there is a diet called the Soy Zone which may be worth checking out.
Thanks for the info, Derek, but I am unconvinced by the "healthy vegetarian" arguments that are going around out there. As I pointed out in my long post on the pro-meat rationale (#970), the health arguments don't stand up in the light of human experience: If we are willing to use Hindu data to demonstrate the viability of the vegetarian lifestyle, then we should also be willing to use Inuit and Bedouin data to support the viability of a meat-heavy diet. (See my post #970, by the way, which provides solid ethical, health, and environmental support for the meat-eaters' position - and which no-one has attempted to reply to.)

By the way, did you know that epileptics are all placed on high-protein diets? And certainly you knew that many people do not tolerate soy sources at all well.

Bottom line: I am unimpressed by the "healthy vegetarian" arguments. If someone had a sound ethical argument for not eating meat, that would maybe be compelling to me. But the health argument is simply not persuasive.

OneEye

Jan2-05, 06:56 PM

It is an excellent analogy because it works. I see no difference between how meat-eaters are defending animal suffering in the name of convenience and how Nazis might have defended their beliefs had this forum been available in the late 1930s, or how white slave-owners might have defended their beliefs about blacks being less than human. These white slave-owners also denied rights to non-whites, just as you are denying rights to non-humans. What is the difference?
News flash: Animals are not people.

The Jews were people.

The slaves were people.

Animals are not.

The animals which people eat have an ecological role of prey. They serve as food in nature.

People have the ecological role of omnivores, and eat prey animals.

If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!

sheepdog

Jan2-05, 07:13 PM

...at the risk of intermeddling: loseyourname is arguing factually. You are cursing at him.

Wonder who has the upper hand on this one?The word was for emphasis, not insult. I understand his position. But it is certainly, certainly, not factual. There are, in fact, no facts whatsoever in his argument. That is exactly what makes it so dismissable. Where are the facts? Please, if you think there are facts, tell me what facts? All I see are abstractions. Useless abstractions. This is the very problem. The absence of facts. First come the facts. Then the abstractions to support the perception of facts. No facts, useless abstractions.

I suggest you evaluate the situation again.

sheepdog

Jan2-05, 07:17 PM

If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!Are you married, OneEye? Would your wife (if you have one) agree to chimpanzee sexual practices? Then why should she agree to chimpanzee eating practices?

We could be chimpanzees, or nearly so. But the question is, "Do we really want to be chimpanzees?" Not I. Then what do we want to be?

rgoudie

Jan2-05, 07:29 PM

If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!

Well, chimpanzees also scratch their butts and smell their fingers. :wink:

Does your statement imply that you expect to be able to at least do what a chimpanzee does, or at most do what a chimpanzee does?

In any case, I don't believe that chimpanzees hoard entire species of animals so that they can trot over to their local supermarket for a quick fix.

Isn't prey something that is hunted and caught for food? Where is the hunting in the manner in which you obtain your meat? Is your weapon your plastic debit card?

Your argument, in this particular case, is that it is natural to hunt prey animals. However, I am still at the point that it is not natural to hoard and exploit entire species of animals.

-Ray.

rgoudie

Jan2-05, 07:37 PM

Bottom line: I am unimpressed by the "healthy vegetarian" arguments. If someone had a sound ethical argument for not eating meat, that would maybe be compelling to me. But the health argument is simply not persuasive.

When I became a vegetarian in 1996, it was because of ethical reasons; the very same reasons that I have been spouting in this thread. I had effectively boycotted meat because of the obscenities in factory farming. As an aside, I am also enjoying the health benefits, but I am not debating that angle in this thread. Others are doing a fine job of debating this aspect.

OneEye, what would it take for your ethics to be insulted?

-Ray.

derek1

Jan2-05, 09:25 PM

Most people don't live in a ranching area. I do, so I have the opportunity to investigate the "cruel oppression" of cows and pigs which goes on out here....

Hi OneEye,

I don't know about the farms in your particular area, but I have been in many factory farms and I have witnessed extreme cruelty. You emphasize the word "factual", seeming to imply that my account is not factual despite the fact that I have provided dozens of photographs and videos of what I have experienced, while you have provided no documentation or evidence whatsoever. I have seen and documented numerous animals thrown away in trash cans or dumpsters left to die a slow death.

I agree that cows don't have it as bad as most of the other animals, since factory farming is less prevalent in the beef industry, but no doubt, they are still abused. They are branded, de-horned, and castrated without painkillers. If this were done to a human, a dog, or a cat, this would be considered torture. Likewise, slaughter can be quite brutal. For example, see this recent investigation at a slaughterhouse:

http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/

Numerous other instances of cruelty have been documented including animals being skinned alive as indicated in the Washington Post a few years ago, and documented thorougly in Slaughterhouse by Gail Eisnitz.

And as for pigs, approximately 80 percent are raised in extreme confinement. These are USDA figures from the swine survey they did a while ago...If anything the percentage has increased since then..

Once again, numerous abuses exist in the pork industry as well and have been well documented. I encourage you to visit the Humane Farming Association's website for more info on the cruel treatment of pigs, and its all just the tip of the iceburg.

http://www.hfa.org/campaigns/tribarticle.html

Derek

physicsisphirst

Jan2-05, 10:22 PM

..at the risk of intermeddling: loseyourname is arguing factually.
i don't think intermeddling is a problem on this thread, but claiming that loseyourname is arguing factually is. as sheepdog quite correctly points out, all that "if ... then" stuff about "intrinsic worth" and "consequences" is mere abstraction (and not fact). also, the consequents that are being dragged out from the antecedents do not follow (so as you no doubt know, the statement may be 'true', but is meaningless).
please give the thing another look as sheepdog suggests.

I pointed out in my long post on the pro-meat rationale (#970) ... which no-one has attempted to reply to.
ya i know how you feel!
rgoudie, dooga, cogito asked some important questions (one of them to you!) - but no one responded. i asked those same questions on their behalf again (post #951) - no one responded.
i'll respond to your post eventually, if no one else does.

News flash: Animals are not people. The Jews were people. The slaves were people.
yes these statements are quite correct, but i feel you are missing the point of what rgoudie wrote. the manner in which one party was treated by the other is very similar. the excuses that one party uses to justify what they do have been pretty well documented too.

People have the ecological role of omnivores, and eat prey animals.
this is a very strange thing to say (and not just that inaccurate tidbit about humans being omnivores - see post #900 again) - how can the billions of animals that are deliberately and artificially 'grown', be considered as prey in any ecological sense? (rgoudie also questions your statement in post #1037)

But the question is, "Do we really want to be chimpanzees?"
that is a very good point (as is your key question "Then what do we want to be?")
i'm a bit surprised you have had to draw it to oneeye's attention though, since in post #784 he stated quite adamantly

My thesis all along has been, "Man cannot be classed with other animals, since man has a unique moral responsibility.

I really find oneeye's recent "If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!" to be somewhat in conflict with his original thesis.

Your argument, in this particular case, is that it is natural to hunt prey animals. However, I am still at the point that it is not natural to hoard and exploit entire species of animals.
it is really amazing that some people actually consider going to the supermarket to pick up a slab of cellophaned meat as being some ritual that satisfies some supposed ancient predatory urge. interestingly enough, i have talked to more than a few hunters in the past who are repulsed by the supermarket and its factory farmed products. they at least do what they consider their own 'dirty work' and in the wild (what's left of it anyway) instead of drawing the weapon of choice - that plastic debit card (as you say) - and paying into this system that "hoards and exploits entire species".

Be Happy!

Jan2-05, 10:40 PM

Most people don't live in a ranching area. I do, so I have the opportunity to investigate the "cruel oppression" of cows and pigs which goes on out here...

I tend to be tenderhearted when it comes to the treatment of animals, but I have had very few occasions to wince as I have visited with and sometimes worked with the ranchers out here...

I hope that this offers some helpful factual information to this discussion.

(P.S. Veal pens, BTW, are [in my opinion] unnecessary and inhumane. Neither my wife nor I will eat veal because of this.)

OneEye,

I have been following your writings for sometime now, and I must say that I have been pleasantly surprised with your recent sincerity and was very happy to hear that you are concerned about animal cruelty. (sometimes it's hard to tell the individual from the writing on such forums as we are so disconnected from eachother)

Yes, veal crates are horrible...I think most European countries have banned them as well as other factory farming devices such as gestation crates(which keep pregnant pigs confined) and battery cages (where 3-6 hens are stuffed for about 2 years of their miserable lives just to lay eggs!) Europe is certainly ahead of us when it comes to humane treatment of animals and I commend you for not wanting to participate in the cruel treatment of baby cows. It takes action from kind and concerned people like you to make changes- it happened in Europe and it can certainly happen here!

I am glad that the farms near you provide ample space for animals, but the truth remains that over 90% of farmed animals (10+ billion land animals killed in the US alone) are factory farmed! I wish the ranch was more common than it is because at least the animals would have a better life, but that is not the case. The problem is that factory farms are so "efficient" at creating profit that they end up squelching the small farms. There is actually an organization that you might be interested in which is a coalition of small animal farmers who are against factory farming http://www.factoryfarm.org- this is not a vegetarian group by any means, so I think you will be able to relate to their concerns. Also, you might enjoy watching their award winning video called the Meatrix, it's very well done you can watch it at http://www.themeatrix.com/

Anyhow, I visited the websites that derek1 listed: http://www.EggCruelty.com and http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp. I think you might find the pictures enlightening. It's sad, but most of the animals we buy at grocery store come from conditions such as the ones he is working to expose. It's a very admirable effort and if nothing else, i think a conscious consumer is better than an unconscious one.

I'd be very interested in hearing what you think of the links I've provided. I look forward to hearing from you! :)

Sincerely,

Sangeeta

derek1

Jan2-05, 11:24 PM

Thanks for the info, Derek, but I am unconvinced by the "healthy vegetarian" arguments that are going around out there.

Here's a quote from one of the largest and most respected group of dieticians in the world:

“Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”

--American Dietetic Association, June 2003 position paper

For more info on the health benefits of a vegetarian diet, visit

http://www.ChooseVegetarian.com

OneEye

Jan3-05, 08:41 AM

OneEye

Jan3-05, 08:48 AM

Are you married, OneEye? Would your wife (if you have one) agree to chimpanzee sexual practices? Then why should she agree to chimpanzee eating practices?

We could be chimpanzees, or nearly so. But the question is, "Do we really want to be chimpanzees?" Not I. Then what do we want to be?
Sure, why not?

That may sound flippant, but the fact is that you will have an extraordinarily hard time answering that question.

And it's basically the same question - and founded in the same rationale - as the question, "Should humans eat meat?"

I challenge you to do so.

OneEye

Jan3-05, 08:59 AM

Does your statement imply that you expect to be able to at least do what a chimpanzee does, or at most do what a chimpanzee does?

In any case, I don't believe that chimpanzees hoard entire species of animals so that they can trot over to their local supermarket for a quick fix.

Isn't prey something that is hunted and caught for food? Where is the hunting in the manner in which you obtain your meat? Is your weapon your plastic debit card?

Your argument, in this particular case, is that it is natural to hunt prey animals. However, I am still at the point that it is not natural to hoard and exploit entire species of animals.

-Ray.

I really don't know why it matters as to how we get our prey.

Some species of ant enslave and milk aphids.

Butcher birds kill many more insects and rodents than they can eat, and store them on a thorn bush.

Crocodile pile up meat in a larder.

Termite mounds are chimpanzee refrigerators.

Skuas raid gull nesting grounds.

Bluejays ruthlessly destroy the eggs of other birds - even if those birds don't compete in the bluejay's niche.

Wake up and smell the nature, will ya?

It seems to be human nature to husband flocks and herds.

So what?

OneEye

Jan3-05, 09:01 AM

OneEye, what would it take for your ethics to be insulted?
My ethics are insulted by some of the farming practices discussed in this forum. But this does not equate to an obligation to vegetarianism.

A variety of reasons as to why this is come to mind, but I would like to ask you a question (and I invite every vegetarian who reads this to respond as well):

If farming methods were reformed, would you then think it ethically acceptable to eat meat?

If not, then you are not basing your vegetarianism on farm cruelty, and so you should stop using that argument - and argue your actual position.

A little clarification, please...

OneEye

Jan3-05, 09:28 AM

You emphasize the word "factual", seeming to imply that my account is not factual
...sorry to seem to make that allegation. I was not aiming at you in particular. However, I am scandalized and offended by crusading veggies who constantly make claims with no experiential basis whatsoever - just a lot of web links to veggie sites, with no reference to balancing information.

Take, for instance the infamous:
For example, see this recent investigation at a slaughterhouse:

http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/

Were you aware that Agriprocessors is the last large processing company to use the chain-lift method to comply with federal guidelines? Most of the industry has gone to raised cages. Veggies don't find this reform useful, however, so they don't bother to mention that Agriprocessors is using an uncommon and antiquated practice - and that Congress is currently considering legislation to make the tackle-and-lift technique illegal.

So - a serious false emphasis on an uncommon practice.

It's this sort of biased reporting that drives me away from the veggie position.

I wish some veggie crusader would crusade through the veggie world and fight for honest reporting!

OneEye

Jan3-05, 09:34 AM

i don't think intermeddling is a problem on this thread, but claiming that loseyourname is arguing factually is. as sheepdog quite correctly points out, all that "if ... then" stuff about "intrinsic worth" and "consequences" is mere abstraction (and not fact). also, the consequents that are being dragged out from the antecedents do not follow (so as you no doubt know, the statement may be 'true', but is meaningless).
please give the thing another look as sheepdog suggests.
I'm shocked at you, standing up for that sort of behavior!

"if...then" is an essential rational practice. "intrinsic worth" is an indispensable ground of the ethical question of eating meat.

Just tossing off those questions is intellectual irresponsibilty. And doing so with a cuss word is rude - and in my view, a concession of defeat.
ya i know how you feel!
rgoudie, dooga, cogito asked some important questions (one of them to you!) - but no one responded. i asked those same questions on their behalf again (post #951) - no one responded.
You keep saying this sort of thing, but it's not true. I have answered all of those points - most of them individually, but all of them in my longer post.
yes these statements are quite correct, but i feel you are missing the point of what rgoudie wrote. the manner in which one party was treated by the other is very similar. the excuses that one party uses to justify what they do have been pretty well documented too.
The slavery and genocide arguments only work because they were done to humans. This is the substantial difference that you are repeatedly ignoring.

this is a very strange thing to say (and not just that inaccurate tidbit about humans being omnivores - see post #900 again) - how can the billions of animals that are deliberately and artificially 'grown', be considered as prey in any ecological sense? (rgoudie also questions your statement in post #1037)
1) You never bothered to research how many of the supposed "herbivorous" traits of humans are also found in chimpanzee physiognomy - and chimps are, undisputedly, omnivores. My guess is that every "herbivorous" trait of humans is also found in chimps - a significant point which completely explodes this nonsense about humans being natural herbivores.
2) You define "prey" as something stalked and pounced on. Why? Humans seem to have a different method of obtaining prey. So?

that is a very good point (as is your key question "Then what do we want to be?")
i'm a bit surprised you have had to draw it to oneeye's attention though, since in post #784 he stated quite adamantly

My thesis all along has been, "Man cannot be classed with other animals, since man has a unique moral responsibility.

I really find oneeye's recent "If chimpanzees can do it, so can I!" to be somewhat in conflict with his original thesis.
You are quite right. Just as you do, I am not arguing my actual position. I do not believe that humans are essentially animals - which is why I believe that humans have the right to husband and consume herd animals. My argument targets those (probably the majority on the board) who believe that humans are merely another member of kingdom Animalia.

But either way you cut it, the end result is the same: If humans are a fundamentally different kind of creature than animalia, then it's quite appropriate for them to eat animals - for the same reason that humans may appropriately eat carrots. And, if humans are just another animal, then it's as appropriate for a human to go to the larder to pick up a chunk of meat as it is for a crocodile to do so.

OneEye

Jan3-05, 09:36 AM

I'd be very interested in hearing what you think of the links I've provided. I look forward to hearing from you! :)
I don't mean to spurn your contribution, but I'm not going to do a lot more reading on this. I think that I understand the issue well enough - I know how these things work, and further reading and investigation cannot help my understanding of the matter.

The question that I have for you is the same question I posted above:

If meat were not factory farmed, would it be ethical to eat it?

If not, then the factory farming question has not bearing on this discussion.

If so, then you are free to eat meat - ethically. Just go to one of the many supermarkets that sell free range meat. Vote with your dollars!

OneEye

Jan3-05, 09:39 AM

Here's a quote from one of the largest and most respected group of dieticians in the world:

--American Dietetic Association, June 2003 position paper

...yeah, politics is wonderful, ain't it? About as balanced as the APA.

This dogma - though developed in response to real health problems - was just a grasping at a straw. The real culprit in American diets is not animal products, it's sugar, sweeteners, and white flour. Dr. Atkins' work is helping to make this clear.

lilboy

Jan3-05, 10:05 AM

sheepdog

Jan3-05, 10:47 AM

Sure, why not?Are you asking (I query, incredulous) why should we not practice the sexual practices of chimpanzees, and why should my wife not agree to such practices? Is that really the question?

This is not some stupid game we are playing. Life is not just some stupid game, you know. This is for real. No redos. No instant replays.

Of course I do not want to behave sexually as a chimpanzee. And I know for sure that my wife would not want me to do so either. That is the answer. Because I do not want to. I choose not to. I could. But it is obvious to me that the consequences would not be to my liking. So I choose not to.

But you do. Ok, fine. You are certainly correct that there are direct parallels between this question and eating meat. I choose to not behave sexually as a chimpanzee because of the consequences. You choose to do so. Fine. Let the consequences follow. Whether your practices or mine prevail will determine the condition of life for all future generations.

This is precisely why I do not eat meat. Were I to eat meat I would be placing myself in the category of those who do not even have the sense to behave sexually better than a chimpanzee. Now why would anyone want to associate themselves with such as that?

sheepdog

Jan3-05, 01:11 PM

Seafang

Jan3-05, 01:40 PM

since we are not omnivorous via comparative anatomy (see last link, for instance, in post #900 which refers to the Mills article), we can only claim to be omnivorous via action which is a bit like saying because we can be airborne on a plane, we can fly.

so given that we are not omnivorous as the articles and explanations explain, i probably for that reason didn't bother to address that particular point of yours. however, in certain areas where it is very difficult to access suitable plant foods, humans do eat creatures that can process the existing vegetation (but the anatomy of these humans really doesn't change because of doing so).

considering it takes a lot less energy to grow crops than cattle, it would be far easier to feed the planet on a veg diet. one of the 3 main arguments for vegness is the environmental factor.

in friendship,
prad

Well the cited articles don't prove MAN is not omnivorous. Cows are not carnivorous; yet if they happen to chomp a fly or grasshopper that is sitting on that last bunch of grass they grabbed, it will certainly provide them with food energy. Likewise dogs are not herbivores, at least not in the wild they are not. I haven't ever seen a coyote climb a tree to eat an apple or orange from my yard, but they certainly do eat the birds, and lizards and ground squirrels and anything else zoological they can catch.

But neither cows nor dogs are omnivores, although humans have invested a lot of effort in trying to convince dogs to eat soy products and other plant materials. But don't ever give them a choice of plant of meat and expect them to choose the plant.

No other living species is as omnivorous as humans. We literally eat anything that does not poison us, and even some things that do such as certain mushrooms and fugu.

Our ability to eat such a great range of foods, whether our digestive tract is optimised for it or not is one reason we rose to dominance in the animal kingdom.

Vegetarianism or Vegan (I thought that was witchcraft) is a life style choice; just like some other socially weird lifestyle choices. My niece chooses to be a vegetarian, because her husband has several major food allergy problems that relate to certain specifically animal food products. He is not by choice opposed to eating zoo-food, it is just safer for him when dining out to be a vegetarian so she accommodates him in their joint lifestyle. Yes she does also have a concern for eating Bambi, but it is her husband's medical problem that primarily motivates her. So the family has to accommodate them whenever we meet for the holiday season festivities. They don't complain when the rest of us chow down on the ham and turkey or fish.

Since mother nature makes ALL food for ALL species, out of plain rocks and water and solar energy, there is no fundamental reason why we couldn't do the same. Then vegans wouldn't have to ask themselves whether the apple tree screams when they tear one of its children from the nursery and devours it without a thought for the grieving parent tree.

OneEye

Jan3-05, 04:18 PM

Biochemically speaking, humans cannot possibly be herbivores.

Humans lack the capacity to digest cellulose. True herbivores either produce the enzyme cellulase (which breaks down cellulose), or have a rumen or cumen populated with symbiotic bacteria which produce this enzyme.

This ability to break down cellulose is characteristic of an herbivore - an ability which humans do not have.

Sorry.

OneEye

Jan3-05, 04:28 PM

Are you asking (I query, incredulous) why should we not practice the sexual practices of chimpanzees, and why should my wife not agree to such practices? Is that really the question?
Yes.
This is not some stupid game we are playing. Life is not just some stupid game, you know. This is for real. No redos. No instant replays.
Believe me: I am not playing a game. I am quite in earnest. And you, apparently, hoped to make your argument on the grounds of an ad hominem appeal to "common sense", I guess.

But your response to my question rests on a merely emotional appeal. You believe that people shouldn't behave like chimpanzees, sexually. I happen to agree. I believe that sexuality is a matter of moral concern, and that humans are uniquely burdened to behave according to a strict sexual ethic.

But you also believe that people shouldn't eat meat. You cast this as a moral (ethical) statement. However, I disagree that this is a moral issue at all. Or, put another way, I subscribe to a moral system different from yours, in which the eating of meat is not wrong.
Of course I do not want to behave sexually as a chimpanzee. And I know for sure that my wife would not want me to do so either. That is the answer. Because I do not want to. I choose not to. I could. But it is obvious to me that the consequences would not be to my liking. So I choose not to.
Well, while I don't want to behave sexually like a chimpanzee, I do want to eat meat. I choose to. I could be a vegetarian - would get along fine with it, and have sometimes considered it. But it is obvious to me that there are no particular moral consequences to my eating meat. And I like it. So I choose to. There. Now we are even.
Whether your practices or mine prevail will determine the condition of life for all future generations.
Dire. I suppose that eternal damnation rests on it, what with the gravity of your writing and all.
This is precisely why I do not eat meat. Were I to eat meat I would be placing myself in the category of those who do not even have the sense to behave sexually better than a chimpanzee. Now why would anyone want to associate themselves with such as that?
Thanks, again, for the ad hominem argument and the false correlation (eating meat=chimpanzee sex). Unfortunately, you are not doing much to advance the debate.

You know, this sounds a lot like the Wilberforce/Huxley debate - with you on the harrumphing and humbugging Wilberforce side. Bummer that I have ended up in Huxley's shoes, as I am not an evolutionist. But it makes for great theater!

OneEye

Jan3-05, 04:29 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I put it to you that it is not for vegetarians to justify our diet, but it is for the meat eaters to justify meat eating.
News flash, sheepdog: No-one is asking vegetarians to justify their diet. As far as us omnivores and carnivores are concerned, you can stick to strict veggies all you like. We don't care - that's just one more hamburger for us in the barbeque line.

What you are expected to justify is why you think that vegetarianism is the "simple, clear, ethical choice" (emphasis added). You are not just promoting vegetarianism, you are condemning meat eating on the grounds that it is "unethical". You can't just go blustering about like a Victorian clergyman and expect people to admire your superior ethics. You have to make an ethical case.

FYI, as a meat-eater, I think that I have done a fine job of justifying the meat-eater's position - post #970 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=411911&postcount=970).

OneEye

Jan3-05, 04:30 PM

This post is most probably irrelevant.
However I felt the necessity to slap those who are so obsessed with their "superiority complex" - that humans are the only ones conscious, capable of feelings and emotions.
The link below is dedicated to those who are still incapable of understanding animal consciousness.

Dog Rescues 7-Year-Old in India
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1104&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050102%2F2223269085.htm&sc=1104
Thanks. I feel slapped. Very wooing.

So, a human-imprinted pack animal responds in a pack-oriented way to one of its imprintors.

Yes, I can see how that makes the case for animal consciousness.

The fact that we could program a robot to do the same probably didn't cross your mind, did it?

OneEye

Jan3-05, 04:56 PM

And if someone insists that you tell them why you do not eat meat, it is enough to say, "Because I do NOT want to screw like a chimp. We can do better than that."

A simple, clear, ethical choice. And therein lies the paradigm shift.
Ooh! Ooh! I almost missed this one!

Thanks for the speciesist statement, sheepdog. Apparently, you are "better than" a chimp!

And your ethics are better than a chimp's, too! How chauvinistic!

I suppose you're more "evolved" as well!

Sounds like lilboy's "superiority complex" to me!

sheepdog

Jan3-05, 06:03 PM

Well, while I don't want to behave sexually like a chimpanzee, I do want to eat meat. I choose to.That you want to, that you choose to, eat meat, implies that you might want to screw like a chimp, and, without sufficient "moral consequences" as you say, you would.

The difference here is that I cannot find a sufficient reason to eat meat and you cannot find a sufficient reason not to. For me, wanting to do something is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to do it. For you it is. You do reflect the prevalent view, and meat eating is only one manifestation of such a position. But it does make a very significant difference in all aspects of life as to whether one reacts strictly to one's wants, restrained only by perceived "moral consequences" perhaps, or whether one acts on the basis of something other than merely one's desires even when one could. This is a divide that cannot be straddled.

OneEye

Jan3-05, 07:08 PM

That you want to, that you choose to, eat meat, implies that you might want to screw like a chimp, and, without sufficient "moral consequences" as you say, you would.
I borrowed the term "consequences" from you. That was your word. I do admit that my libido is broader than my morality - as, I think, it is with any human. Perhaps you are different - perhaps you never experience the desire to engage in inappropriate sexual activity. Amaze me, and say that this is so.

Further, we are both agreed that we abstain from certain actions - me from chimpanzee sex, and you from eating chimpanzees - because we have moral objections to these actions, and so we (hopefully) restrain ourselves from what we consider to be wrong.

(By the way, you have again falsely equated meat eating with chimpanzee sex. Nonsense, but apparently appealing nonsense to you.)
For me, wanting to do something is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to do it.
I totally agree with this statement. The fact is that I believe that I am morally justified in eating meat.

I am not, as you paint me, a libertine. I am an intensely moral creature. May I recommend that you actually read some of my other posts before jumping to conclusions? Post #970 is a good example.
But it does make a very significant difference in all aspects of life as to whether one reacts strictly to one's wants, restrained only by perceived "moral consequences" perhaps, or whether one acts on the basis of something other than merely one's desires even when one could.
Which, again, completely misconstrues what I am saying. But I wouldn't let that bother me if I were you, since if you actually dealt with my position, you would have to stop your highfalutin pontification.

As far as I can tell, you seem to think yourself a paragon of virtue because you do not eat meat. Indeed, this posture does make you a paragon - an ideal example of the "ugly vegetarian" - that critter that judges all others as unworthy based upon their own veggie values.

For a little more to chew on: If one wishes to engage in an action, and that action is not inherently wrong, then there is no moral objection to engaging in the action. Thus, if I want to eat meat, and it is not morally wrong to eat meat, then I may eat meat without moral objection.

You would have to prove that it is, in fact, wrong to eat meat in order to be justified in such righteous condescension toward me.

But you haven't tried to do this. Instead, you have just assumed your moral superiority, and then judged me on that basis. And, to boot, you have falsely represented my position - all the while attacking me for doing what you, yourself do! Quite the feat in such a brief series of messages. You are to be commended!

P.S. physicsisphirst, cogito, Dooga Blackrazor, and Dissident Dan have been making the argument that eating meat is wrong. You might want to apply to them for help. Then, go deal with "The Ethical Argument" in my post #970.

Be Happy!

Jan3-05, 08:17 PM

...yeah, politics is wonderful, ain't it? About as balanced as the APA.

This dogma - though developed in response to real health problems - was just a grasping at a straw. The real culprit in American diets is not animal products, it's sugar, sweeteners, and white flour. Dr. Atkins' work is helping to make this clear.

I don't understand what politics has to do with the American Dietetic Association?

Are you suggesting that the dieticians of the American Dietetic Association are propogating dogma and that Dr. Atkins' people are preaching the "gospel"?

Sincerely,
Sangeeta

Be Happy!

Jan3-05, 08:45 PM

However, I am scandalized and offended by crusading veggies who constantly make claims with no experiential basis whatsoever - just a lot of web links to veggie sites, with no reference to balancing information...

I'm not going to do a lot more reading on this. I think that I understand the issue well enough - I know how these things work, and further reading and investigation cannot help my understanding of the matter.
Hi,

I am not sure that you understand the issues well at all. You have claimed fact in many posts, but I have yet to see references from you. If you want references, many people who have posted on this forum have provided references which you seem to want to ignore. derek1 for example, mentioned a great site www.ChooseVegetarian.com which is fully referenced (provides over 60 references i believe and at the bottom of each page is a list of credible references). If you have a problem with their references, I suggest you can take it up with the universities or authors they site or even with the USDA as they are referenced numerous times throughout the site. derek1 even provided experiential evidence (with numerous photos and videos)that you say was lacking...and he provided the www.AtkinsExposed.com site (which has over 400 references) and even quoted the American Dietic Association (the position paper he quoted cited hundreds of studies)...as you can see there are plenty of facts backing our stance.

Sincerely,

Sangeeta

OneEye

Jan3-05, 08:45 PM

I don't understand what politics has to do with the American Dietetic Association?

Are you suggesting that the dieticians of the American Dietetic Association are propogating dogma and that Dr. Atkins' people are preaching the "gospel"?

Sincerely,
Sangeeta

Not really, but I like your poetic turn of phrase!

Here's my thesis: The AMA, the APA, the ADA, ABA, etc., are political organizations which pay a lot too much attention to current thought trends and very little attention to factual data. They are more concerned with being "politically correct" than they are with actually sifting for truth.

At the same time, a health crisis (obesity, adult onset diabetes, etc) is clearly happening in America today. (That this is the result of meat consumption is patently ridiculous, but you'll probably want to argue that. Nolo contendre.)

Again at the same time, fear over Amazon deforestation has led to a blot on the reputation of beef farming. And, the realization that the avearge American's standard of living is bound to decrease over the coming decades has led to a politically-motivated rearrangement of the basic dietary guidelines. Meat was an easy target, since it is expensive and politically disadvantaged.

But also at the same time, Dr. Atkins made the startling proposal that a high-fat, low-carb diet could be as healthy as - or healthier than - a low-fat, high carb diet. Contrary to intuition, his method seems to work for many people (myself included).

I disagree with the Atkins crowd that carbohydrates are necessarily unhealthy. As far as I can tell, one can have either high fats or high carbs, but not both. The former corresponds to a meat-heavy diet (a la the Inuits, Bedouins, etc.); the latter to a vegetarian diet (a la the Hindus). In my opinion, either can be healthy - but the average American diet is high-fat, high carb - a deadly combination. I choose the low-carb diet, because I have trouble with serum sugar - probably my own fault, but here I am, stuck with very few options.

What the ADA is not condemning - irresponsibly, I think - is the high sugar and natural sweetener level in the American diet. They should go after this before they go after fats. But, since sugar is cheap and Coke and Pepsi are powerful, I don't expect the ADA to do that.

It would be tempting to draw a line between "white hat" Atkinsites and "black hat" everybody else - but, as usual, the picture is more complex than that. Anyway, I hope this clears up my position.

OneEye

Jan3-05, 09:04 PM

I am not sure that you understand the issues well at all. You have claimed fact in many posts, but I have yet to see references from you.What else do you want references for?
You are wrong to think that I don't understand the issues. I could easily come on the board with and assumed pro-veggie, anti-meat persona, and do as good a job of it as anyone here. You are falling into the trap of believing another poster's hype about me. I do not make vain claims, and I make it my business to know the facts. I have not disputed that the information provided is well-cited. But you seem to think that well-cited and true are the same thing. If you wanted to, you could come up with counter-cites for every cite you make. Just as derek1, for instance, referred to the Agriprocessor case but left out crucial information, so propapganda is usually constructed with true information - but peculiarly arranged or carefully selected to show only one side of the issue. Which is what I am saying: There are many pro-meat, pro-agriculture sources out there - but you never cite them, even for balance. Why not?

Second,
As for free-range meat...sorry, but the animals don't have it as good as you think. Here is an article that you might find interesting...at the bottom you will notice 19 references backing up this information.
Sorry to say this, but I think that you are being evasive. Let me put my question a different way:

Is there any possible ranching scenario which makes it moral to eat meat?

My point in asking this should be obvious: I strongly suspect that most pro-veg. posters on this thread are so extremely anti-meat that they would not countenance eating meat under any circumstances - not even if every effort was made to raise animals according to the highest humane standards and to kill them with the utmost care. "No meat, period," is what I expect the pro-vegetarians on this thread will say.

And if this is the case, then there is no real point in discussing ranching practices, since there is no conceivable method of animal husbandry which will satisfy the anti-meat crowd. Thus, such discussions are only a red herring. The real aim is (I believe) to completely remove meat from the human diet, period - and so discussions about farming methods are vain time-wasters.

I'll be happy to have you (or any pro-vegetarian) say, "No, really, if the ranchers would just raise them this way and kill them that way, I would be okay with it."

But I don't think that's going to happen.

Any takers?

physicsisphirst

Jan3-05, 09:13 PM

Well the cited articles don't prove MAN is not omnivorous.
and just because MAN eats meat doesn't make MAN an omnivore - certainly not via comparative anatomy. if you look at the Mills article in particular you will see that based on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
colon
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
mouth opening vs headsize
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
liver
kidney
nails

that the human anatomy lines up nicely with that of the herbivores and not omnivores such as the bear (which was used for comparison).

(nice to see you back after your absence btw)

physicsisphirst

Jan3-05, 09:30 PM

oneeye! you've certainly been busy!

The slavery and genocide arguments only work because they were done to humans. This is the substantial difference that you are repeatedly ignoring.
like i said you are missing the point of the argument - it is the action of those 'doing' it that is being compared.

and chimps are, undisputedly, omnivores.
well not really for the reasons you'd like to think, oneeye. the chimpanzee can be said to be an omnivore because it eats fruit, leaves, seeds, buds, bark, stems, and insects (occasionally). chimpanzees are considered to be in the middle of the food chain because it mostly eats plants (does that mean they can digest cellulose???). chimps may eat meat rarely and only as a 'delicacy' no doubt a nasty habit they learned from certain humans - you know the 'monkey see monkey do' bit.

2) You define "prey" as something stalked and pounced on.
i did not - read post #1040 again! not that it really matters.
however, you seem to be suggesting that animals in factory farms are prey. that is really very strange!

If humans are a fundamentally different kind of creature than animalia, then it's quite appropriate for them to eat animals - for the same reason that humans may appropriately eat carrots.
there's that incogency again. your consequent doesn't follow from your antecedent. the "eh what's up doc" justification you provide doesn't make it any better.

physicsisphirst

Jan3-05, 09:39 PM

This post is most probably irrelevant.
However I felt the necessity to slap those who are so obsessed with their "superiority complex" - that humans are the only ones conscious, capable of feelings and emotions.
The link below is dedicated to those who are still incapable of understanding animal consciousness.

Dog Rescues 7-Year-Old in India
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1104&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050102%2F2223269085.htm&sc=1104
your post is very relevant, lilboy - a great story too.

it is stories like these that some of those exceptionally 'conscious' and 'capable of feelings and emotions' humans like to ignore and thereby manage to keep themselves convinced that they are "the only ones conscious, capable of feelings and emotions".

it is a convenient arrangement by which they don't have to examine links, research, eyewitness reports etc. and they can simply dismiss it all as being not there: "as long as i don't look, it can't exist" :rofl:

physicsisphirst

Jan3-05, 09:54 PM

I could easily come on the board with and assumed pro-veggie, anti-meat persona, and do as good a job of it as anyone here.
no, please don't do this.

physicsisphirst

Jan3-05, 10:09 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I put it to you that it is not for vegetarians to justify our diet, but it is for the meat eaters to justify meat eating. And I further put it to you that anyone who has a choice about his diet and chooses to eat meat can only justify it with reasons all of which fall into one category, the "Because I want to screw like a chimp" category. Look:

"Because I want to (and I want to screw like a chimp)"
"Because it tastes good (and it feels good to screw like a chimp)"
"Because my ancestors ate meat (and they were chimps and I want to screw like a chimp)"
"Because it's natural (and chimps naturally screw a lot and I want to screw like a chimp)"
And if someone insists that you tell them why you do not eat meat, it is enough to say, "Because I do NOT want to screw like a chimp. We can do better than that."

A simple, clear, ethical choice. And therein lies the paradigm shift.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
great post sheepdog! you've really put this whole discussion into proper perspective!!

why should a veg have to 'justify' the diet when it
- is extremely well-documented and demonstrated to be healthy (none of this heart disease, cancer, impotence, osterporosis, impotence, madcow, impotence etc etc etc);
- doesn't ravage the environment (none of this pollution, deforestation, water depletion etc etc etc);
- is wonderfully ethical (none of this hoard, hoard, hoard then kill, kill, kill etc etc etc)

you have also summarized quite delightfully the 'justification' for the meaters' side - only a few are straight-forward enough to admit that they eat it because "they like the taste". the rest bring on bizarre arguments without backing (or validity) as well as provide remarkable excuses, and, burying their heads in the sand, refuse to look at the realities (be happy! and derek1 have provided extensive and excellent references #995, #1013, #1015, #1039, #1041, #1042) even when they are just a click away.

learningphysics

Jan3-05, 10:10 PM

Is there any possible ranching scenario which makes it moral to eat meat?

My position is, anyone can eat anything, human, animal, vegetable, as long as we are reducing pain and suffering. Raising of humans for consumption is fine with me, as is raising of animals for consumption, if this condition can be satisfied.

So I grant that there is a possible ranching scenario which makes it moral to eat meat. Whether or not this can be practically done, I don't know.

Would you grant that there is a similar ranching scenario that makes it moral to eat a human?

0TheSwerve0

Jan4-05, 12:39 AM

Wow, amazing that this thread is still going. My mom had to start eating fish (are the anti-meat people against this too?) because she had cancer treatments, etc and needed to supplement her diet with meat. She was a strict vegetarian before. Are there exceptions that the veggies make?

sheepdog

Jan4-05, 10:13 AM

great post sheepdog! you've really put this whole discussion into proper perspective!!So glad you appreciated it, prad. But we really owe it all to OneEye. It is amazing how much one can learn from even the most bizarre of encounters. The whole idea that someone would consider behaving, in any way, like a chimpanzee never even occurred to me. But look how revealing it was!

By the way, OneEye claims that I made all of this up. That he had nothing to do with it:
(By the way, you have again falsely equated meat eating with chimpanzee sex. Nonsense, but apparently appealing nonsense to you.)But I think he is being too modest since I got the idea from him in post #1044:Sure, why not?

That may sound flippant, but the fact is that you will have an extraordinarily hard time answering that question.

And it's basically the same question - and founded in the same rationale - as the question, "Should humans eat meat?"

I challenge you to do so.Don't you think? He is a slippery devil!

OneEye has stimulated another idea which I offer as another statement of the "Because I don't want to screw like a chimp" principle.

We are the sum of our choices. Any particular choice can be made in one of two ways. Either it serves the interests of the self. Or it serves the interests of other-than-self. To the extent our choices serve other-than-self we also choose the brighter alternative future. To the extent our choices serve self we are choosing the darker alternative future. I believe this is a law of nature, true fractally at all levels. Whether to eat meat or not is one of those choices, which determine our future.

Thank you, OneEye.

My best,
-- Michael

sheepdog

Jan4-05, 10:36 AM

But you haven't tried to do this. Instead, you have just assumed your moral superiority, and then judged me on that basis. And, to boot, you have falsely represented my position - all the while attacking me for doing what you, yourself do! Quite the feat in such a brief series of messages. You are to be commended!If you feel attacked you flatter yourself too much. I don't know who you are and do not care to. You are just words on a page, some of which have been most amusing and others most enlightening. Whether that was intentional or accidental I really don't know and it doesn't matter. I'm not going to waste my time attacking you or judging you or anybody else. Surely we all have more important things to do?

theriddler876

Jan4-05, 11:10 AM

OneEye

Jan4-05, 11:11 AM

and just because MAN eats meat doesn't make MAN an omnivore - certainly not via comparative anatomy. if you look at the Mills article in particular you will see that based on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
*
*
*
nails

that the human anatomy lines up nicely with that of the herbivores and not omnivores such as the bear (which was used for comparison).

1) Repeatedly posting the same material is generally considered rude.
2) Repeatedly posting the same material without answering serious objections to the material is generally considered obtuse and rude.
3) Diet is not determined by any set of physical characteristics. Diet is determined by what the creature eats. Consider the many creatues which seem to have carnivorous characteristics (the panda, gorilla, and fruit bat - which all have horribly carnivorous dentition, among other carnivorous features - come most readily to mind) which taxonomically might seem to be carnivorores, and yet which are vegetarian.

Until recently, it was assumed that the South American kinkajou was a carnivore - based on skull structure and dentition. Researchers were surprised when they couldn't trap the kinkajou with a piece of chicken - but it went for a banana!

So, one doesn't determine a creature's dietary role by comparing it with other creatures. One determines its dietary role by examining what it eats. Biologically, this is the only important arbiter of a creature's gastronomic classification. Scientific fact. And, as you admit, man eats meat. So, by any scientific definition, man is an omnivore. You can play peekaboo by carefully arranging facts to fit your predetermined conclusion all you want - but if there is a real biologist around here, she is laughing her omnivorous head off at this "analysis" you are posting.

I really wish that you would stop posting biased material like the above. Or, at least, that you would allow yourself to be corrected by factual responses.

OneEye

Jan4-05, 11:36 AM

oneeye! you've certainly been busy!
Yeah, I'm about done here.
like i said you are missing the point of the argument - it is the action of those 'doing' it that is being compared.
But of course, I'm not missing the point at all, am I? It's you who are persistently missing the point. My point is that actions which are not comparable are not comparable. In order for the "doing" comparison to work, the actions of herders and meat packers have to be the same kind of actions as those of slavers and Nazis. Since the former actions were perpetrated against non-humans and the latter against humans, the sets of actions are not comparable. It doesn't matter what else you say, since you are not making a true comparison.

I say (and this is the point that you persistently miss) that herding is no less moral than planting, slaughtering is no less moral than harvesting - because in both cases, it is people acting on non-humans.
well not really for the reasons you'd like to think, oneeye. the chimpanzee can be said to be an omnivore because it eats fruit, leaves, seeds, buds, bark, stems, and insects (occasionally). chimpanzees are considered to be in the middle of the food chain because it mostly eats plants (does that mean they can digest cellulose???). chimps may eat meat rarely and only as a 'delicacy' no doubt a nasty habit they learned from certain humans - you know the 'monkey see monkey do' bit.
Wow! Factual error and a conspiracy theory thrown in to boot!

You are quite wrong about the chimpanzee diet. Although they are "opportunistic carnivores", they will eat anything they can kill - up to and including other monkeys. Chimpanzees are opportunistic omnivores. Humans are cultivating omnivores. But both are omnivores.
i did not - read post #1040 again! not that it really matters.
however, you seem to be suggesting that animals in factory farms are prey. that is really very strange!
Only if you want to define prey as "a wild creature hunted and caught". If prey is defined as "an animal killed and eaten", then it is not strange at all. The fact that humans manage and raise their own prey does not change the fact that they are prey for humans. You are drawing a false distinction.
there's that incogency again. your consequent doesn't follow from your antecedent.
It's one thing for you to be wrong. But this is downright offensive - and you do it all the time. You seem to think that just by saying "the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent", you have provided a rational critique - and that your mask of logical terminology makes this a logical process. If you are going to say that "the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent," you must explain why not - either by demonstrating the formal, structural flaw in the argument, or by critiquing the premisses. You do neither - you just say "Oh, there you go again with your incogency!" As if saying it makes it so.

I guess if that's the way you want to "argue", that's your business. But for those of us who have bothered to learn how to demonstrate how a consequent might or might not follow from an antecedent, your pseudological terminology ranges from humorous to offensive (as in this case). You should either make your method match your language, or just switch back to "Is not!"

OneEye

Jan4-05, 11:43 AM

My position is, anyone can eat anything, human, animal, vegetable, as long as we are reducing pain and suffering.
This would really be an excellent concession except for what follows - which leads me to doubt your sincerity.
Would you grant that there is a similar ranching scenario that makes it moral to eat a human?
No, because it would require killing a human for personal gain - murder. One can murder a human. One cannot murder a cow. Important distinction, apparently lost on many thread participants.

OneEye

Jan4-05, 11:51 AM

You are just words on a page...
Yeah, I consider you a non-person, too. I'll be over your house to eat you this afternoon.

learningphysics

Jan4-05, 12:00 PM

This would really be an excellent concession except for what follows - which leads me to doubt your sincerity.

No, because it would require killing a human for personal gain - murder. One can murder a human. One cannot murder a cow. Important distinction, apparently lost on many thread participants.

I think we get to the crux of the issue here. Why exactly is killing a human for personal gain (when utilitarian principles don't forbid it) wrong, whereas killing a cow for personal gain (when utilitarian principles don't forbid it) alright?

OneEye

Jan4-05, 12:01 PM

another thing is that when we eat starch, or sucrose/glucose/galactose you know veggies and grains our body takes them breaks them down into glucose, then the body absorbs them and releases insulin, which is a growth hormone, which makes people fat, it's the whole concept behind atkins. anywhoo the receptors for glucose are close to the opiate receptors, so glucose makes us happy, so taking away veggies from the vegetarians would be like taking pot from a pot head, they will start craving it and go through withrdawal. Glucose is a minor addictive drug, and it shouln't consist most of our diets
Close, but not quite right: Flour does turn into glucose in the bloodstream, which provokes an insulin/insulinase cycle. Insulin is not a growth hormone, but provokes the liver to store glucose in the form of glycogen. The problem comes because the human body is so very well-designed: A high-serum-sugar diet (high sugar/high carbohydrate) causes the body to "recalibrate" to a higher insulin level - thus, the liver is less responsive to insulin, and so does not do its job in cleaning the sugar out of the bloodstream. This is Type II diabetes mellitus - also know as adult onset diabetes: Adequate insulin is produced, but the body is "not listening" to it.

This is a major health crisis in America today. And unfortunately, there is no known way to recalibrate the insulin receptors, and so Type II diabetics must stay well away from serum sugar inducing carbohydrates. A vegetarian diet - usually carb-heavy - is probably not a good idea for a diabetic or pre-diabetic.

I strongly suspect, based on a number of observations, that I am pre-type-II-diabetic. I have been looking at changing my diet for some time, and (as I have often said) have seriously considered a vegetarian diet for health reasons. As it turns out, this is probably a very bad idea, since it would exacerbate my condition. So, I chose a low-carbohydrate diet. (Epileptics, by the way, need a low-carb diet as well.) The easiest way to achieve a low-carb diet is the Atkins method. The alternative is to switch to an almost-completely soy diet, which can have serious health effects as well (soy is known to depress the thyroid).

Hope this info is helpful!

Seafang

Jan4-05, 12:12 PM

and just because MAN eats meat doesn't make MAN an omnivore - certainly not via comparative anatomy. if you look at the Mills article in particular you will see that based on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
colon
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
mouth opening vs headsize
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
liver
kidney
nails

that the human anatomy lines up nicely with that of the herbivores and not omnivores such as the bear (which was used for comparison).

(nice to see you back after your absence btw)

An impressive list of anatomical characteristics to be sure; but not one of them DEFINES either herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore.

Herbivores are animals that eat plants; not animals that are equipped to eat plants.

Carnivores are animals or plants that eat animals; not animals or plants that are equipped to eat animals.

Omnivores are animals (or plants) that eat anything, or most anything whether plant or animal (or something else like rocks or dirt)

You cite the bear as the perfect omnivore, that eats (and is equipped to eat) almost anything, including plastics; so then what about the giant panda that is as close to a bear as you can get yet it eats and is equipped to eat only one kind of one kind of plant (bamboo grass).

Humans eat and are equipped to eat both plants and animals, including insects and bugs, not to mention snails and anything else which does not immediately poison us. We eat grass but only the seed part of the grass as in wheat/rice/barley etc. Eating ruminants and other animals allows us to use the rest of the grass.

To argue that humans are not omnivores because of some completely arbitrary list of anatomical characteristics is simply silly. By definition, omnivores eat plants and animals (and rocks (dirt)). That your list of human anatomical characteristics does not describe an optimum set of characteristics for eating anything, does not change the fact that humans are omnivores; the premier omnivore in fact; it simply proves that your list does not define an omnivore. Eating plants and animals does.

As for the morality of it, remove humans from the universe and you remove morality. Good and evil exist only in our minds.

Animals (and some plants) consume each other for food without any pangs of impropriety; they simply do it for survival of themselves and their progeny and their species. There is no morality about it.

We invented morality; and we aren't at all universal about what it means.

So while I have no comlaint with the person who decides to be strictly herbivorous for whatever reason they make that choice; it is simply none of their business what I choose to eat.

Society as a whole has decided we shouldn't eat each other; but mother nature would tell us that anyway; it does not lead to species survival improvement, although it has on rare occasion led to the survival of certain specific human individuals.

If the PETA folks were to extend their philosophy to the animals, and decree that the big fish shouldn't eat the little fish, the whole balance of life on earth would be disrupted with disastrous consequences.

As I said before, we could manufacture all the nutritional necessities of sustenance out of rocks and water and sunlight, and stop eating anything else that is alive (or was).

That would be silly and also not necessarily moral; and it would be a total misuse of our intelligence (whatever that is).

OneEye

Jan4-05, 12:18 PM

It is amazing how much one can learn from even the most bizarre of encounters. The whole idea that someone would consider behaving, in any way, like a chimpanzee never even occurred to me. But look how revealing it was!
There are an untold number of correlations between chimpanzee and human behavior - the vast majority of which have no moral weight. Which is the distinction which I make, and which you are deftly and deviously dodging.
By the way, OneEye claims that I made all of this up. That he had nothing to do with it:
But I think he is being too modest since I got the idea from him in post #1044:Don't you think? He is a slippery devil!
What I am claiming that you made up - what you did make up - was the idea that human engagement in chimpanzee sexual practice is morally equivalent to human engagement in chimpanzee gastronomic practice. This is entirely an invention of your own mind - one which you proudly parade over your pavilion (though others may not share your pride and joy). My point in bringing the subject up was to demonstrate this distinction - a distinction which you seem to be philosophically immune to.
We are the sum of our choices. Any particular choice can be made in one of two ways. Either it serves the interests of the self. Or it serves the interests of other-than-self. To the extent our choices serve other-than-self we also choose the brighter alternative future. To the extent our choices serve self we are choosing the darker alternative future. I believe this is a law of nature, true fractally at all levels. Whether to eat meat or not is one of those choices, which determine our future.
Thanks for the bizarre moral ramblings ("true fractally"????). I don't know why anyone would sign on to your inchoate and practically incoherent moral proclamations. But I'll go ahead and plug something in to it:

Meat eating is the best way for humanity to serve self+others.
Thank you, OneEye.
You're welcome.

learningphysics

Jan4-05, 12:29 PM

Society as a whole has decided we shouldn't eat each other; but mother nature would tell us that anyway; it does not lead to species survival improvement, although it has on rare occasion led to the survival of certain specific human individuals.

If society decided cannibalism was acceptable in the future, is that alright to you?

OneEye

Jan4-05, 02:35 PM

I think we get to the crux of the issue here. Why exactly is killing a human for personal gain (when utilitarian principles don't forbid it) wrong, whereas killing a cow for personal gain (when utilitarian principles don't forbid it) alright?
You are quite right. The moral question is exactly the crux of the issue. Thank you for spotlighting this.

This will be my last post in this thread - I'm putting way too much time into this - so all of my correspondents are granted the luxury of getting the last word against me. Make it a good one! "Shoot straight... and don't make a mess of it!"

The hidden part of this discussion all along has had to do with defining morality with regard to diet - and so, defining morality at all. I'll get to that question in a minute, after recapitulating a few problems with the animal rights position.

Problems with the Animal Rights position
The ethical vegetarian/animal rights position accords animals the same "right to be free from inflicted pain" as humans (supposedly) have. (Some people like to complain that I am not representing the ethical vegetarian/animal rights position correctly. In order to disarm this complaint, I quoted the above statement from the words of an ethical vegetarian/animal rights advocate on the board - Dissident Dan, if I recall correctly, but maybe cogito - and which most AV/ER people on the thread endorsed.)

As far as I can tell, no ethical vegetarian/animal rights person has yet ponied up and gone on record to answer the question: "Do non-human animals have the right to be free from pain inflicted by other, non-human animals?" - or the consequent question, "Should humans intervene to stop non-human animals from inflicting pain on other, non-human animals?". So I will have to deal with both sides of that question.

Case A: Non-human animals have the right to be free from human-inflicted pain, but do not have the right to be free from pain inflicted by other, non-human animals.
1) Non-human animals have the same rights as humans.
2a) Non-human animals have the right to inflict pain on each other, but
2b) Humans do not have the right to inflict pain on non-human animals.
3) Therefore, non-human animals have inherently more rights than humans.
(Which explicitly disagrees with A1, but we pass this over as a refinement of position rather than an actual contradiction.)

Case 1B: Non-human animals have the right to be free from human-inflicted pain, and do have the right to be free from pain inflicted by other animals, but humans should not interfere in non-human relationships.
1) Non-human animals have the same rights as humans.
2a) Non-human animals should not be stopped from inflicting pain on each other.
2b) Humans should be stopped from inflicting pain on each other.
2c) Humans should be stopped from inflicting pain on non-human animals.
3) Therefore, practically speaking, the right of others to be free from inflicted pain restricts only humans - and therefore, again, non-human animals have greater rights than humans.

Case 2B: Non-human animals have the right to be free from human-inflicted pain, and have the right to be free from pain inflicted by other animals, and humans should intervene to prevent non-human animals from inflicting pain on other, non-human animals.
1) Animals have the same rights as humans.
2a) Animals don't share the human value system - do not concern themselves about inflicting pain on others.
2b) Animals do not have the right to enforce their value system (their expressed right to inflict pain) on humans or other, non-human animals.
2c) Humans have the right to enforce their value system (the right to be free from inflicted pain) on non-human animals.
3) Therefore, humans have more rights than non-human animals.
(Which cannot be called anything but a contradiction of 2B1 - and speciesist - since the aim of this series of considerations was to elevate non-human animal rights to the status of human rights, so intending to controvert the "speciesist" tendency to subordinate non-human animal rights to human rights.)

So, as we see, there is no equation of human and (non-human) animal rights which actually ends up with a parity of rights between humans and non-humans. In two cases, humans end up with fewer rights than non-human animals; in the third, humans end up with more.

(I apologize about inserting "non-human" in front of "animals" throughout, but there are a few people in this thread whose niggling complaints have made it necessary.)

(And finally, the above consideration will not benefit those who cannot recognize or process logical considerations of a position. Sorry. No help, there.)

The Moral Question
But what is really at stake here is the basis of moral evaluation. It may sound all righteous and good to say, "Animals have the same right to be free of inflicted pain as humans do," but the obvious question is, "Why?", "Who says?" On what grounds can one make such a statement? If this is an overarching moral truth, what makes it so? Why are not other moral statements valid? For example, why cannot I say, "Humans may kill and eat non-human animals, but may not torture them for pleasure"? Or why is it wrong to say, "Anything which I may morally do to a tree, I may morally do to a (non-human) animal"?

What is actually going on here - pretty much unremarked - is a clash of moral systems. Meat eaters believe that they are well within their rights to eat meat - and, based on their moral system, they are right. Ethical vegetarians may well believe that "Meat is Murder" (as Morrissey sings) - and within their value system, they are right.

So the real question is, Which value system (if any) is right?

This question has really been at the foundation of the disagreement here - and without facing and resolving this question, there can be no resolution on the matter. Or, put another way, unless the ethical vegetarian or animal rights activist is able to show that my value system is wrong and theirs is right, they have no business condemning me for eating meat - they are wrong to do so.

But that, it turns out, is probably the subject of another thread. At least.

OneEye

Jan4-05, 03:36 PM

why should a veg have to 'justify' the diet when it
- doesn't ravage the environment (none of this pollution, deforestation, water depletion etc etc etc);

Sorry. This is really my last post:
If you think vegetable farming is environmentally friendly, then you are really out of it.

Corn farmers cannot touch the seed they plant because of the additives it is coated with.
Irrigated grain production in my area has caused so much depletion in the water table that we are being declared a "red zone" by the feds. Yet without irrigation farming, much of the US becomes agriculturally useless.
We are facing a farming crisis in many areas of the US because the prevalent "deep tillage" methods have denuded the soil of nutrients and helpful symbiotes - but without these methods, farming becomes untenable in many areas.
Planting and harvesting methods kill millions - perhaps billions - of animals a year.
We live in the shadow of the grain elevators, and suffer grievously from sinus infections whenever the fans are turned on to dry the grain.
Deadly phosphorous chemicals are injected into the intakes of grain elevators to kill pests.
Herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers are heavily used in all phases of veggie farming - and without these methods, we might not be able to produce an adequate food supply.

Sorry, but veggie-only farming is really no superior to animal farming. And at least, with pasturing, large sections of the land are left as native grassland.

Sorry for the reality dose. But that's the way it is.

Sayonara, everyone!

loseyourname

Jan4-05, 03:42 PM

The word was for emphasis, not insult. I understand his position. But it is certainly, certainly, not factual. There are, in fact, no facts whatsoever in his argument. That is exactly what makes it so dismissable. Where are the facts? Please, if you think there are facts, tell me what facts? All I see are abstractions. Useless abstractions. This is the very problem. The absence of facts. First come the facts. Then the abstractions to support the perception of facts. No facts, useless abstractions.

I suggest you evaluate the situation again.

There are no such things as ethical facts, sheepy, only ethical arguments. You cannot empirically verify that it is wrong to do something. There is no property of "wrongness" in an action that can be detected with the senses. All you can do is either argue that the action is intrinsically wrong or that its consequences are intrinsically wrong. Then when I demonstrate the inconsistency of your arguments, I guess you can make further bald assertions, which I might remind you are a violation of the forum rules.

sheepdog

Jan4-05, 10:45 PM

What is actually going on here - pretty much unremarked - is a clash of moral systems. Meat eaters believe that they are well within their rights to eat meat - and, based on their moral system, they are right. Ethical vegetarians may well believe that "Meat is Murder" (as Morrissey sings) - and within their value system, they are right.

So the real question is, Which value system (if any) is right?

This question has really been at the foundation of the disagreement here - and without facing and resolving this question, there can be no resolution on the matter. Or, put another way, unless the ethical vegetarian or animal rights activist is able to show that my value system is wrong and theirs is right, they have no business condemning me for eating meat - they are wrong to do so..
The animal rights movement made a big mistake when it tried to argue the "rights" angle. Animals have no rights. What we put in our mouths and how it got there has nothing to do with morality or ethics. There is no argument to be made, won or lost. There are no rules to be obeyed or broken. There are only a series of moments, surrounded by the facts in which we are embedded -- for a very, very short time. A vegetarian does not eat meat because she believes it is moral or ethical. There is no clash of value systems with meat eaters or others. Yes, we may argue on moral or ethical principles, but only for the company. We don't really believe any of that garbage. We place in our mouths what we see belongs there, at that moment, for no reason that can be completely articulated, except that it is right action. I'm sure it is the same for meat eaters. The values are the same. Only the outcome will be different.

physicsisphirst

Jan4-05, 10:56 PM

There are no such things as ethical facts, sheepy, only ethical arguments.
i think that was precisely the point sheepdog was making to oneeye. you weren't presenting facts, only arguments. it was oneeye who was claiming that you were arguing factually and sheepdog was trying to point out to him that that you were making abstractions.

Then when I demonstrate the inconsistency of your arguments, I guess you can make further bald assertions, which I might remind you are a violation of the forum rules.
i don't think you demonstrated the inconsistency of sheepdog's position. you merely offered him 2 choices (post #1020, at least i think this is what you are talking about) in the form of a question:

Are you arguing that animal life has intrinsic worth, or are you arguing that the good consequences you think will arise from not eating meat have intrinsic worth?

and then proceeded to provide your own answers to them:

if it is the latter, you must then acknowledge that there are ways of bringing those consequences about that do not require the complete abandonment of meat products. [praditor's note: this remains to be shown]. The only way to avoid this is to say that the only consequence you are trying to bring about is a lack of animal death at human hands, in which case you simply revert to the intrinsic worth of animal life. [praditor's note: how is it that the only consequence must be the intrinsic worth of animal life? why couldn't a human not kill an animal because the human refuses to kill rather because animal life has intrinsic worth?]

(i am also curious to know exactly what forum rule you think sheepdog has violated.)

btw, i am very interested in hearing your ideas on more humane killing processes. i indicated that way back in post #1022, but i think you may not have seen it, because the thread has moved several pages since our earlier exchanges.

physicsisphirst

Jan4-05, 11:22 PM

Sorry. This is really my last post
we shall see ...

if you think vegetable farming is environmentally friendly, then you are really out of it.
while some of the items on your list are legitimate qualitatively, they don't add up quantitatively. considering that most of the land is used to grow stuff to fatten animals that are then eaten, surely it is a simple matter to see that if people ate the stuff first, you could by pass the 'middleman'. i could show you why, but i think you'd dismiss all my links and facts as being veg propaganda and simply ignore it as you have done to date with anything presented to you along these lines.

Sorry for the reality dose. But that's the way it is.
i think the only reality you have demonstrated is that you are unwilling to even consider any of the information that is presented if it disagrees with your present beliefs. perhaps this approach of yours to discussion will change in the future - perhaps it won't. either way, if you are really leaving, best wishes.

physicsisphirst

Jan4-05, 11:47 PM

An impressive list of anatomical characteristics to be sure; but not one of them DEFINES either herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore.

Herbivores are animals that eat plants; not animals that are equipped to eat plants.

Carnivores are animals or plants that eat animals; not animals or plants that are equipped to eat animals.

Omnivores are animals (or plants) that eat anything, or most anything whether plant or animal (or something else like rocks or dirt)

what you are saying is certainly consistent, but only because you go by the 'define by doing' approach as expressed in the first article in post #900. because humans eat meat, you are saying that humans are omnivores. however, the point that Mills and Roberts were making is that human physiology lines up much more closely with herbivores than with the 'classic anatomical omnivore' the bear (as in Mills' article).

if you go by the 'define by doing' approach, you can technically say that factory-farmed cows, pigs and chickens are omnivores because they actually do eat animals - rendered animal products (including feces) are often mixed into their feed. in fact, a canadian company Maple Leaf prides itself by stating in their commercials (tv and otherwise) that their animals are not fed any animal by-products:

Maple Leaf pork and poultry have been fed a strict and exclusive diet of all Vegetable-Grain, with NO ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS.
http://www.saveonfoods.com/1/brightlife/safety/article_meat_safety.htm

(you probably already know why this concern came about)

the point Mills was demonstrating was that humans don't have the mechanisms to process meat very well, because their physiology is closer to that of herbivores.

now, for humans, being an omnivore 'by doing' rather than 'by being' can lead to some serious consequences such as heart disease, cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, excema, obesity, impotence, etc etc.

You cite the bear as the perfect omnivore, that eats (and is equipped to eat) almost anything, including plastics; so then what about the giant panda that is as close to a bear as you can get yet it eats and is equipped to eat only one kind of one kind of plant (bamboo grass).
i'm not sure what your point is here.
i don't know if you read the Mills article, but here is a quote from it:

Bears are classified as carnivores but are classic anatomical omnivores. Although they eat some animal foods, bears are primarily herbivorous with 70-80% of their diet comprised of plant foods. (The one exception is the Polar bear which lives in the frozen, vegetation poor arctic and feeds primarily on seal blubber.) Bears cannot digest fibrous vegetation well, and therefore, are highly selective feeders. Their diet is dominated by primarily succulent lent herbage, tubers and berries. Many scientists believe the reason bears hibernate is because their chief food (succulent vegetation) not available in the cold northern winters.

bears are in carnivora (like cats and dogs), but are equipped to handle all kinds of foods. the polar bear has as a result of its habitat developed a pechant for eating meat. similarly the giant panda (scientists think is more closely related to racoons rather than bears) has bamboo processing equipment:

Giant pandas live almost solely on a diet of bamboo, up to 33 pounds a day, and will very rarely eat other plant matter or scavenge the meat of dead deer

bears are not omnivores only 'by doing' - they actually do have the physiological equipment.

Humans eat and are equipped to eat both plants and animals
the first bit is correct, but the second really isn't. humans are not very well equipped to eat meat. humans are however, very well equipped to eat leafy greens and fruits and do well with other veggies.

To argue that humans are not omnivores because of some completely arbitrary list of anatomical characteristics is simply silly.
well let's look at that list again:

these have to do with munching
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
human munching abilities line up with herbivores rather than omnivores

these have to do with digestion:
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
colon
human digestive abilities line up with herbivores rather than omnivores

there is much more in the article and we can go through it together in another post, if you wish, but surely you can see that the selection isn't arbitrary at all. (on the otherhand, someone noted that humans don't have hooves so that means that they are not aligned with herbivores - that sort of thing is arbitrary LOL).

no one is saying that a human is a cow. however, the physiological characteristics of humans line up much closer to herbivores than omnivores. here is the Mills link from post #900 again (in case anyone missed it): http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

By definition, omnivores eat plants and animals (and rocks (dirt)).
this is the definition 'by doing' again. just because you do, doesn't mean you have the tools to do it - and consequences are forthcoming as cited earlier.

We invented morality; and we aren't at all universal about what it means.

So while I have no comlaint with the person who decides to be strictly herbivorous for whatever reason they make that choice; it is simply none of their business what I choose to eat.
i don't think anyone has told you not to eat meat - that isn't the point of the discussion here at any rate which is to answer the question "should we eat meat". however, surely it is incorrect to conclude that "it is simply none of their business what I choose to eat" if their choice of morality (and you do grant them this because you say "we aren't at all universal about what it means") dictates that animals should not be eaten.

Society as a whole has decided we shouldn't eat each other; but mother nature would tell us that anyway; it does not lead to species survival improvement
i'm not sure war leads to species improvement, but has mother nature told us that? actually, mother nature has made fairly clear comments about eating meat in terms of the human physiology and health consequences.

If the PETA folks were to extend their philosophy to the animals, and decree that the big fish shouldn't eat the little fish, the whole balance of life on earth would be disrupted with disastrous consequences.
where you get this idea that the PETA folks have a "big fish shouldn't eat the little fish" philosophy (they tend to be pretty utilitarian anyway). i know certain individual(s), in this thread, have fabricated their own statements regarding animal rights, and then tried to claim that these are the foundations of the animal rights movement, but if you really want to know about AR philosophies go to post #748, p50 and you'll find summaries of some of them (as well as follow-up links).

As I said before, we could manufacture all the nutritional necessities of sustenance out of rocks and water and sunlight, and stop eating anything else that is alive (or was).
i'm not sure that would be particularly healthy or necessary especially when veg eating has proven itself to be wonderfully healthy over the centuries - it is not a new fad, but it is certainly a growing movement.

physicsisphirst

Jan5-05, 01:11 AM

There is no clash of value systems with meat eaters or others. Yes, we may argue on moral or ethical principles, but only for the company.
that's surely it, sheepdog! :rofl:
we are all such lonely individuals :frown:

To the extent our choices serve other-than-self we also choose the brighter alternative future. To the extent our choices serve self we are choosing the darker alternative future. I believe this is a law of nature ...
this is so beautifully expressed, michael! these ideas are what we hold as honorable, what our role models have provided us throughout history and what we teach our children because we want that 'brighter alternative future' for them!
wow!!

JPD

Jan5-05, 07:10 AM

that's surely it, sheepdog! :rofl:
we are all such lonely individuals :frown:

this is so beautifully expressed, michael! these ideas are what we hold as honorable, what our role models have provided us throughout history and what we teach our children because we want that 'brighter alternative future' for them!
wow!!

But how do you know that those other individuals to whom you give are going to do something good themselves, which may or may not include reciprocating the gesture, with or without material benefits?

Philocrat

Jan5-05, 09:48 PM

sheepdog

Jan5-05, 10:05 PM

But how do you know that those other individuals to whom you give are going to do something good themselves, which may or may not include reciprocating the gesture, with or without material benefits?You don't. But you know that life is a numbers game. The outcome is statistically determined. If benefit predominates then life will continue. If harm and disadvantage predominate then Nature will remove that species from the system. You cannot cheat Nature. Those against her will eventual be eliminated. So on balance one can be certain benefits will predominate. It is our task to figure out how to act to swing the balance to benefit.I have set before you life and death, blessings or curses.
Oh that you would choose life, that you and your children might live.
--Deuteronomy 30:19/20

physicsisphirst

Jan5-05, 10:07 PM

But how do you know that those other individuals to whom you give are going to do something good themselves, which may or may not include reciprocating the gesture, with or without material benefits?
good point, jpd! however i don't think the issue sheepdog is making is one of simply giving (at least, that's not how i took it).

here's his quote:

To the extent our choices serve other-than-self we also choose the brighter alternative future. To the extent our choices serve self we are choosing the darker alternative future. I believe this is a law of nature ...

i think what he is getting at is that when we make a choice, it can be a self-service or other-than-self-service. when the latter, the being that benefits from our choice may not 'pay it back' or even 'pay it forward'.

sometimes, what is 'returned' may be dangerous. for instance, a couple of AR activists saved a stranded cat during the east coast hurricane last year. in the process, the cat scratched them up badly enough that they needed to go to emergency (they didn't have protective gloves). i've encountered unpleasant situations trying to help high school students from abusive homes - just because you 'serve' them, doesn't mean they will express gratitude in the expected fashion (some of them had a justifiably heavy and unpleasant chip on their shoulders).

i think what sheepdog was getting at though is that there may be merit in serving others, regardless of how they end up utilizing this service. i think that there have been many in history who were willing to take the chance.

for instance, consider the words

of John Kennedy:
ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country.

or John Wooden:
You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you.

or Leo Tolstoy:
The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity.

or Emily Dickinson:
If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Up to his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.

or Damien Hess:
Service...
Giving what you don't have to give.
Giving when you don't need to give.
Giving because you want to give.

or Anthony Robbins:
Only those who have learned the power of sincere and selfless contribution experience life's deepest joy: true fulfillment..

or Albert Einstein:
Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.

or Helen Keller:
Happiness cannot come from without. It must come from within. It is not what we see and touch or that which others do for us which makes us happy; it is that which we think and feel and do, first for the other fellow and then for ourselves.

or Albert Schweitzer:
I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve.

or Ann Radcliff:
One act of beneficence, one act of real usefulness, is worth all the abstract sentiment in the world.

or Ann Frank:
How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.

or Martin Luther King Jr:
Everybody can be great... because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.

so why is it that we find these words and those from whom they came inspirational? it is not because doing good things for others, just makes us feel good (even though that is obviously a fringe benefit - as Gandhi said The fragrance always remains on the hand that gives the rose.). it is because in each of us there flickers the hope that not only may tomorrow be better than today - but that we may be able to do our part to make it so.

we can do this because it is deeply in our nature - some would hope as result of evolution, some would insist because it has been branded into our souls.

mother teresa put it very beautifully:

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives; be kind anyway
If you are honest and sincere, people may deceive you; be honest and sincere anyway
The good you do today will often be forgotten; do good anyway
Give the best you have, and it may never be enough; give your best anyway
In the final analysis, it is between you and God; it was never between you and them anyway

the thoughts and the actions of these (and many other) people throughout history is some of that other-than-self-service they performed for us.
how will we choose to reciprocate their gesture?

sheepdog

Jan6-05, 08:36 PM

i think what he is getting at is that when we make a choice, it can be a self-service or other-than-self-service. when the latter, the being that benefits from our choice may not 'pay it back' or even 'pay it forward'.
Yes, that's right. And I very much enjoyed the rest of your remarkable list of quotes.

Also to be noted is that giving includes "giving up", as in giving up meat. That too is a type of giving and a very important type. This is the way I think of vegetarianism. By giving up meat I pass a benefit to those that would have been eaten.

When you serve or give to yourself you benefit one. When you serve or give to other-than-self you benefit many. There is only one of you and there are many other than you. The benefit is necessarily multiplied, amplified. This is, in the scientific, analytical sense, why it works.

Most of what the Dahli Lama says I do not find very interesting, except for this one statement, which I find to be extremely true. He has said, "Compassion is completely logical." We can see clearly what he meant by working through the issue of vegetarianism like this.

Thank you for your beautiful comments, prad.

loseyourname

Jan6-05, 11:42 PM

i think that was precisely the point sheepdog was making to oneeye. you weren't presenting facts, only arguments. it was oneeye who was claiming that you were arguing factually and sheepdog was trying to point out to him that that you were making abstractions.

That is how arguments are critiqued - through abstractions.

Are you arguing that animal life has intrinsic worth, or are you arguing that the good consequences you think will arise from not eating meat have intrinsic worth?

and then proceeded to provide your own answers to them:

if it is the latter, you must then acknowledge that there are ways of bringing those consequences about that do not require the complete abandonment of meat products. [praditor's note: this remains to be shown]. The only way to avoid this is to say that the only consequence you are trying to bring about is a lack of animal death at human hands, in which case you simply revert to the intrinsic worth of animal life. [praditor's note: how is it that the only consequence must be the intrinsic worth of animal life? why couldn't a human not kill an animal because the human refuses to kill rather because animal life has intrinsic worth?]

A human can refuse to kill animals, but he cannot contend there is any moral worth in doing so unless he contends that there is worth to animal life. If he cannot contend that there is moral worth in such an action, then there is no reason to advocate that other people follow in his course.

(i am also curious to know exactly what forum rule you think sheepdog has violated.)

Rather than respond to arguments being made, he has simply labelled them "garbage." Doing that is insulting and not conducive to furthering a discussion, which is the aim of the forum.

btw, i am very interested in hearing your ideas on more humane killing processes. i indicated that way back in post #1022, but i think you may not have seen it, because the thread has moved several pages since our earlier exchanges.

Any method of killing that does not involve any pain on the part of the animal being killed. Instantaneous breaking of the neck, a gunshot wound to the brain, lethal injection, electrical shock to stop the heart all fit the bill. No, I have not seen that post.

yanglobal

Jan7-05, 05:23 AM

the tiltle "Should we eat meat "is very important for human being,from buddish religion concept,the each kind creature including animals and plants has life chartistic ,especially human was the leader among the creature ,human born with wisdom and can handle the world most important thing.
but in the buddish meaning /principle ,the human was among the six kind of ways of creature,the six kind ways including upper 3 way:heaven way,human way, AUSHLO(own angry mind/giant power capacity)way,and downward 3-way:animal way ,hungry ghost way,evil hill way.
why human being can not eat meat ,because now the existing animals was human everyone of relatively relation before,why they became to be animal because they do not do advantage everything for each creature and even do many many hurt or killed creature things.so When they (bad creature(man)) died,he will fall into downward 3-way among the six kind of ways .
and I think the human being finally shall be keep very kind and mercy mind, do not hurt any creature and peaceful with any kind of creature,and the world will become to be heaven forever.

yanglobal

Jan7-05, 06:11 AM

the title "Should we eat meat"is very import thing for human being,the Human
is the leader among the creature including animal and plant ,he own the wisdom and handle control the earth beyond anyone earth creature ,

In buddish /Tao religon concept, That eat or kill any animal is very serious crime matter,let me shortly introduce the buddish theory /principle ,the buddish thought generally that the world /universe has six styles way of creature ,including upper 3-way :Heaven(was angel/lucky creature life)way
,human way ,Aushulo(violent temper and own giant power) and below 3-way :hungary ghost way ,animal way ,and evil hall way.

when the human do not do advantage thing for creature and do many many bad thing even killed creature ,and finally the bad-man for being himself evil behavior will fall into below 3-way to become one of creature among the hungary ghost way ,animal way ,or evil hall way.

human shall follow up the god mercy and be peacefully with any kind creature.let the world become more brightness and happiness.

physicsisphirst

Jan7-05, 09:53 PM

A human can refuse to kill animals, but he cannot contend there is any moral worth in doing so unless he contends that there is worth to animal life. If he cannot contend that there is moral worth in such an action, then there is no reason to advocate that other people follow in his course.
what does the worth of animal life have to do with whether a human thinks there is moral worth in not killing? for instance, i can say that we should 'love thy neighbour' even if that neighbour is hitler (now don't get all upset because i said hitler - it's only for dramatic effect LOL). surely, there can be no worth in loving hitler as your neighbour, but there may be some worth to me to 'loving my neighbour'. i may also find moral worth in meditating about say palm leaves, even though there may not be anything particularly worthy about palm leaves - the meditation may make me a better person and having discovered this i could certainly recommend that others follow this practice as well.

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

Rather than respond to arguments being made, he has simply labelled them "garbage." Doing that is insulting and not conducive to furthering a discussion, which is the aim of the forum.
i'm not sure that is really a violation of forum rules though it may not encourage further discussion.

would you agree that statements like these:

There you go again, friendly Prad. ... You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy. (your post #1000)

There's a rule of thumb at play here. I don't remember its name, but whenever a person appeals to an analogy with Hitler, he generally doesn't have much of a case. ... Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. (your post #1012)

If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it. (your post #1012)

are "not conducive to furthering a discussion"?

for instance, i have explained twice already that the point i'm making has really nothing to do with your specific concern about hitler (i even encouraged you to substitute your favorite character in place of him), yet you insist that i am trying to run an emotional campaign. i also have been trying to discuss this without the acceptance of animal rights (and have even explained certain AR philosophies do not promote inherent rights for animals), yet you keep insisting that i am granting animals their rights. then you go on to say that we have reached an impasse here because of this.

i do not understand 2 things here about your approach:

1) why do you tell me what i am doing, rather listen to what i am actually saying?
2) why are you in such a hurry to end discussion - you do this with your 'impasse' line to me and you did the same thing to sheepdog in post #1011 If you say there is no way to alleviate some of the problems we have here except by going vegetarian, then I cannot talk to you.

for someone who has just pointed out that the aim of the forums is to further discussion, can you not at least consider what is being said (rather than insist on your own interpretations) and make an attempt to continue communications (rather than cut them off)?

(i'm not complaining or even requesting, btw - nor do i find anything you have said insulting. i do think that there is ground to be explored in this thread, but it will require a bit more than simply discounting ideas because you don't like them.)

Any method of killing that does not involve any pain on the part of the animal being killed. Instantaneous breaking of the neck, a gunshot wound to the brain, lethal injection, electrical shock to stop the heart all fit the bill.
these all sound like improvements. in fact, i believe the second one was suggested by john robbins in his book diet for a new america - however, it seems that the meat industry is unwilling to adopt any of them because of the added expense.

now my next question is why is it that you seem interested in killing animals painlessly? (please note that i am not arguing whether your techniques really are or are not painless - for the purposes of continuing this discussion, suffice it to say that if you think they are painless, that is sufficient).

specifically, if you had the choice of buying your meat from a store that has 'compassionately killed' meat or the regular brutal stuff, what would you choose? (also, i am assuming that since you are interested in making the killing compassionate, you would also insist that the living conditions be humane as well.)

sheepdog

Jan7-05, 10:02 PM

That is how arguments are critiqued - through abstractions.No. Arguments are critiqued through comparison with the real, experiment. We only share reality. I cannot share with you what is confined to your head.A human can refuse to kill animals, but he cannot contend there is any moral worth in doing so unless he contends that there is worth to animal life.I contend there is no worth to moral worth. I contend there is no worth to animal life. The only worth there is is the worth in not killing. All the worth is in the choice. It goes no farther than that. Understand the act itself. Anything else is only a distraction If he cannot contend that there is moral worth in such an action, then there is no reason to advocate that other people follow in his course.We all follow our own courses. What I need from you is your eyes, your ears, your sensibilities. Each of us sees the world through a very small window. Without sharing your experience, and the sensibilities and experience of a multitude of others, I cannot hope to see and understand enough to do my job. If your sensibilities tell you to eat meat I don't understand that. Mine tell me not to. No one is right here. No one is in the wrong. One of us is missing something.Rather than respond to arguments being made, he has simply labelled them "garbage." Doing that is insulting and not conducive to furthering a discussion, which is the aim of the forum.I accept that as a fair criticism. I only regret that I was asked a question and could find no softer way of answering. What does one call nonesense? Gibberish? Ignorant confusion? You see? It was the least offensive term my limited vocabulary could find. If you could suggest a better way of phrasing my answer I would appreciate the lesson.

The question, "Should we eat meat?" can be better phrased, "What should we take from the world?" Eating is a kind of economic transaction with Nature. She has an abundance to give, more than any of us could ever use. What is it best for us to take from this abundance? As much as we can? Anything we like? That would seem to be the popular answer. Personally I think there must be a better solution for the long run.

physicsisphirst

Jan7-05, 10:14 PM

Also to be noted is that giving includes "giving up", as in giving up meat. That too is a type of giving and a very important type. This is the way I think of vegetarianism. By giving up meat I pass a benefit to those that would have been eaten.
for the billions that are eaten each year (and don't need to be), that is indeed an important benefit. i hope you receive the same benefit, since oneeye threatened (in post #1079) to eat you :surprised:

When you serve or give to yourself you benefit one. When you serve or give to other-than-self you benefit many. There is only one of you and there are many other than you. The benefit is necessarily multiplied, amplified. This is, in the scientific, analytical sense, why it works.
it really is quite logical. as mr spock would say, "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or one" - of course, mr spock was veg LOL

He [Dahli Lama] has said, "Compassion is completely logical." We can see clearly what he meant by working through the issue of vegetarianism like this.
it is interesting that certain people throughout history see this sort of thing. they don't advocate peace and compassion simply because their 'religion' dictates it - they do so because civilized behavior stands on its own feet. rather than being wishful pie-in-the-sky, it is extraordinarily pragmatic. as the saying goes, "there is nothing so practical as idealism"

Thank you for your beautiful comments, prad.
my pleasure, michael! your posts have always provided many wonderful insights (as well as much humorous delight). i am glad if i have been able to return some of it.

physicsisphirst

Jan7-05, 10:58 PM

but in the buddish meaning /principle ,the human was among the six kind of ways of creature,the six kind ways including upper 3 way:heaven way,human way, AUSHLO(own angry mind/giant power capacity)way,and downward 3-way:animal way ,hungry ghost way,evil hill way.
thank you yanglobal and welcome to the thread.
i was not aware of this buddhist 6 way.
it is interesting and i shall look into it.

sheepdog

Jan8-05, 04:16 PM

for the billions that are eaten each year (and don't need to be), that is indeed an important benefit. i hope you receive the same benefit, since oneeye threatened (in post #1079) to eat you.Let's be specific about the magnitude of the carnage. 9 billion animals are slaughtered every year for meat. That is to say a population greater than all the people who have ever lived are killed unnecessarily every single year, year in and year out.

Yet it is the vegetarians who must shoulder much of the responsibility, paradoxical as that sounds. The meat eaters have devised a society that reinforces meat eating. The religion preaches domination over animals rationalizing the carnage. Businesses promote meat eating for fun and profit. Meat eaters put their efforts into supporting their churches, businesses, schools, sports and social clubs. Vegetarians mostly do not. We have a tendency to sit on the sidelines and complain. Shame on us.

We should be forming churches where Compassion is worshiped. We should only do business with businesses that promote Compassion. We should be forming schools, sports centers and social clubs centered on Compassion. This would be a difficult and painful process because we would be denying ourselves many of the luxuries of our rich societies. But we are mere hypocrites so long as we whine about all the slaughter while continuing to reap the lavish products of that slaughter.

To change society we must propose a completely new one. It isn't enough to simply deny the validity of the present one with no clear plan for what would replace it. Without a clear alternative people are compelled to keep what they have.

loseyourname

Jan9-05, 02:50 AM

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

Sure, but there aren't many ethical theories that hold action categories, in and of themselves, to be good or bad. Most theories stipulate that actions be taken in context. The ending of a life is not always a good or bad thing. It depends on the nature and quality of that life, as well as the reasons that it is being ended. Granted, there are certain theories that hold all killing, regardless of the life ended or the reason for the killing, to be immoral (Jainism comes to mind), but they aren't widely held. If this is the paradigm shift you are hoping for, so be it, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

would you agree that statements like these:

There you go again, friendly Prad. ... You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy. (your post #1000)

There's a rule of thumb at play here. I don't remember its name, but whenever a person appeals to an analogy with Hitler, he generally doesn't have much of a case. ... Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. (your post #1012)

If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it. (your post #1012)

are "not conducive to furthering a discussion"?

No, silly. These were answers to questions of yours. I was explaining why I felt the appeal to analogy with anything having to do with Hitler is not generally a good idea. I didn't just say "this is garbage." There is a difference. Either way, I am perfectly willing to address your arguments, regardless of what I may personally think of them.

for instance, i have explained twice already that the point i'm making has really nothing to do with your specific concern about hitler (i even encouraged you to substitute your favorite character in place of him), yet you insist that i am trying to run an emotional campaign. i also have been trying to discuss this without the acceptance of animal rights (and have even explained certain AR philosophies do not promote inherent rights for animals), yet you keep insisting that i am granting animals their rights. then you go on to say that we have reached an impasse here because of this.

To be honest, I didn't consider the possibility that you just consider the ending of any life to be a bad thing. That being the case, why the heck are you going to such great lengths to demonstrate secondary effects of meat consumption such as ecosystem degradation and animal suffering?

To specifically address your genocide analogy, I didn't like it because it is obvious that the actions of those who would defend genocide are morally bad because they are defending the killing of persons that had the right to not be killed. I do not consider it a bad thing to kill a living organism that does not have that right. Because I do not consider farm animals to have that right, your analogy meant nothing to me. Defending the killing of these animals is not the same as defending the killing of persons. The physical actions and arguments used are often the same, but the moral worth of the arguments is not. I don't consider an argument form to be immoral in and of itself and I would think that you do not either. It is the application of the argument that is immoral.

1) why do you tell me what i am doing, rather listen to what i am actually saying?

It's not that I'm telling you what you are doing. I am just trying to conceive of the possible systems under which your claims might be true, and then using other conclusions drawn from the implications of that system in an attempted reductio ad absurdum. Either that or demonstrate an inconsistency between the system under which one claim of yours may be true and other claims you have made. It's not an uncommon technique.

2) why are you in such a hurry to end discussion - you do this with your 'impasse' line to me and you did the same thing to sheepdog in post #1011 If you say there is no way to alleviate some of the problems we have here except by going vegetarian, then I cannot talk to you.

If you say that meat consumption is bad because of secondary effects it has, and then ignore the fact that there may be other methods of alleviating these secondary effects, then I cannot talk to you any further along those lines. I'm just frustrated that neither of you are getting at the actual reason that you think meat consumption is wrong. If it was the ecological consequences, then you would only advocate the amelioration of these consequences - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it was about animal suffering, then you would only advocate the amelioration of animal suffereing - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it is as you say, and you just think the ending of any life is a bad thing, period . . . then just argue that. Why confuse the matter?

(i'm not complaining or even requesting, btw - nor do i find anything you have said insulting. i do think that there is ground to be explored in this thread, but it will require a bit more than simply discounting ideas because you don't like them.)[/QUOTES]

I only discount ideas that are inconsistent with one another. I have nothing against any of your ideas by themselves.

[QUOTE]these all sound like improvements. in fact, i believe the second one was suggested by john robbins in his book diet for a new america - however, it seems that the meat industry is unwilling to adopt any of them because of the added expense.

It's expensive to break an animal's neck?

now my next question is why is it that you seem interested in killing animals painlessly?

I'm not interested in killing animals at all, unless they are a threat to me and I have no other choice. Heck, I even try my best not to kill insects and annelids, despite the fact that they don't have brains and cannot suffer either way (again, unless they are a threat of some sort, like termites that taking out the infrastructure of my house). I'm just saying that if the purpose of vegetarianism is to ameliorate animal suffering, it isn't necessary. All you have to do is kill in a humane manner and not inflict pain on the animal while it is still alive. Heck, you can even try being a scavenger and only eat meat that has died from a non-human cause.

specifically, if you had the choice of buying your meat from a store that has 'compassionately killed' meat or the regular brutal stuff, what would you choose? (also, i am assuming that since you are interested in making the killing compassionate, you would also insist that the living conditions be humane as well.)

It's difficult to answer that question. No meat farming facility is supposed to inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. It is difficult to research the operating habits of every company that one buys from. By the same token, I would prefer that the car I am buying does not contain parts that were manufactured by a worker that was mistreated by his boss. But the amount of research necessary to make sure no product I buy was ever produced or refined or shipped by a company that has either advertently or inadvertently promoted the suffering of a sentient being would be so daunting and time-consuming that conducting this research would keep me from ever buying anything. In this case, I would starve. How do I know that the vegetable farmer I am buying from doesn't use some of his profits to buy underage prostitutes? Granted, it's a bit of a stretch, but you can see what I'm getting at.

loseyourname

Jan9-05, 03:07 AM

No. Arguments are critiqued through comparison with the real, experiment. We only share reality. I cannot share with you what is confined to your head.

I'm a seasoned debater and a large part of my major consists of logic and critical thinking classes. I know how to critique an argument. One method is by critiquing the form. I can do this either through formal analysis, which I do not generally get into outside of the logic forum, or I can do this by demonstrating an obvious false conclusion drawn from true premises in the same argument form. I can also demonstrate an inconsistency in your views that I think I have uncovered. All are abstract methods and are the proper methods of critiqueing an argument. If you had presented empirical evidence, then you would be right to say that I can only critique by an appeal to other pieces of empirical evidence. You did not.

I contend there is no worth to moral worth. I contend there is no worth to animal life. The only worth there is is the worth in not killing. All the worth is in the choice.

I contend that such worth is only in your head. You cannot empirically demonstrate the worth of something. You can either make a good argument, or (as you seem to be doing here) simply say it is so. The latter is not particularly convincing. Arguments from personal conviction rarely are.

If your sensibilities tell you to eat meat I don't understand that. Mine tell me not to. No one is right here. No one is in the wrong.

If I am not wrong, then why the heck are you in here telling all of us carnivores not to eat meat? If you consider it a purely personal decision dictated by conscience, then follow your conscience and I will follow reason (I don't consider my conscience to be generally reliable). My reasoning may be wrong, but since you're not using reasoning anyway, and seem to think reasoning is invalid, why bother criticizing my decision?

I accept that as a fair criticism. I only regret that I was asked a question and could find no softer way of answering. What does one call nonesense? Gibberish? Ignorant confusion? You see? It was the least offensive term my limited vocabulary could find. If you could suggest a better way of phrasing my answer I would appreciate the lesson.

How about you just don't make arguments unless you are willing to analyze them? The method of analysis by abstraction is common to the philosophy forums (in fact, it is common to all of philosophy). Maybe this isn't the place for you. If you think you have empirical evidence of the worth of an act, present it. If you have personal conviction, then fine; present that. Don't present an argument if you won't see a critique of it. Arguments in and of themselves are abstractions.

The question, "Should we eat meat?" can be better phrased, "What should we take from the world?" Eating is a kind of economic transaction with Nature. She has an abundance to give, more than any of us could ever use. What is it best for us to take from this abundance? As much as we can? Anything we like? That would seem to be the popular answer. Personally I think there must be a better solution for the long run.

Well, if you do rephrase it as such, then my answer becomes much the same as yours. I personally consider The Future of Life to be somewhat of a bible to me. The Sceptical Environmentalist, however, is my apocryphal gospels. I hold as axiomatic that nature does not hold such an abundance that we can afford to take all that we can and, as such, we should not simply take all that we can. It doesn't follow from that fact that I hold the act of ending the life of an organism to always be a morally wrong act.

sheepdog

Jan9-05, 10:29 AM

I hold as axiomatic that nature does not hold such an abundance that we can afford to take all that we can and, as such, we should not simply take all that we can. It doesn't follow from that fact that I hold the act of ending the life of an organism to always be a morally wrong act.I agree with both statements completely. Now you see how easy that was? All I had to do was find the words that suited you sufficiently and suddenly we have found something we may share, you and I, between us. I think we should take some pride in this moment.

My only request is that we drop the word "moral" and its relatives from the conversation. Just tell me what you think is a wrong act, without unnecessary qualifications. If an act is wrong it doesn't really matter whether it is wrong "morally" or "temporarily" or "relatively" or "transformationally" or whatever. It is wrong. That's good enough. Let's keep it simple. I can understand simple.

So now I'd like to ask you when it is wrong to end the life of an organism? But I fear your answer will be "when it is morally wrong". Let me suggest that what I'm looking for is concrete examples of a life that is wrongly ended, not more morality abstractions. And I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat what you have written in prior posts. It's a very long thread. A brief summary would be great, thanks.

I would also ask if it is "axiomatic" (is that the same as personal conviction? No, probably not) that "nature does not hold such an abundance that we cannot afford to take all that we can", what about "taking whatever we want" even if is not "all that we can". Where do your axioms land on that approach?

selfAdjoint

Jan9-05, 11:15 AM

So now I'd like to ask you when it is wrong to end the life of an organism? But I fear your answer will be "when it is morally wrong". Let me suggest that what I'm looking for is concrete examples of a life that is wrongly ended, not more morality abstractions. And I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat what you have written in prior posts. It's a very long thread. A brief summary would be great, thanks.

Fine. Let's start with a normal two year old child, one that can walk and speak and express emotions - and say "No!" Ending that life deliberately would be wrong for me under almost any circumstances.

sheepdog

Jan9-05, 11:48 AM

Fine. Let's start with a normal two year old child, one that can walk and speak and express emotions - and say "No!" Ending that life deliberately would be wrong for me under almost any circumstances.Excellent! Since we met at the "What should we take from Nature?" question, let's say it would be wrong for you or me to take a healthy child from Nature for any reason. OK? Now what is it about the physical characteristics, what are the facts of this situation, that put this particular situation in the category of "wrong"? Is it that the child is two that makes it wrong? If she were three would it no longer be wrong? Is it that she can walk, speak and express emotions? What facts are you using to make the judgement?

And thank you for being so responsive.

loseyourname

Jan9-05, 06:22 PM

I agree with both statements completely. Now you see how easy that was? All I had to do was find the words that suited you sufficiently and suddenly we have found something we may share, you and I, between us. I think we should take some pride in this moment.

I'm very proud of us, Sheepy.

My only request is that we drop the word "moral" and its relatives from the conversation. Just tell me what you think is a wrong act, without unnecessary qualifications. If an act is wrong it doesn't really matter whether it is wrong "morally" or "temporarily" or "relatively" or "transformationally" or whatever. It is wrong. That's good enough. Let's keep it simple. I can understand simple.

All right, I cannot agree to this. The word "wrong" has to be qualified. Saying that 2+2=7 is not wrong in the same way that it is wrong to beat your spouse. Each is wrong within a certain system that says what is wrong and what is right. The former example is wrong within a formal system of numerical arithmetic. The latter is wrong within my ethical system. Neither is wrong within the other system {Edit: Actually, this one is wrong under two systems - my personal ethics, and US law}. I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong; that is, wrong without reference to a certain system of right and wrong.

So now I'd like to ask you when it is wrong to end the life of an organism? But I fear your answer will be "when it is morally wrong".

Nope, but I will take your question as "When is it morally wrong to end the life of an organism?"

Let me suggest that what I'm looking for is concrete examples of a life that is wrongly ended, not more morality abstractions. And I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat what you have written in prior posts. It's a very long thread. A brief summary would be great, thanks.

First, I'll give some examples. Then I will give the abstraction - simply because I cannot give you an exhaustive list of wrong instances, but I can give you the set of circumstances under which the action is wrong.

Examples:

The little girl buying ice cream that gets caught in gangwar crossfire.
Death-row inmates.
Laci Peterson.
Dave in Mystic River.

Now the set of circumstances under which I will consider killing to be morally wrong:

First off, the organism killed must have the right to not be killed. Whether or not I want to call this right "innate" isn't too important of a distinction to me. It seems difficult to say that any right is "innate." We have rights because we are given rights. I do think that we should give these rights; that is, it is the right thing to do. Still, I will shy from calling them "innate" or "self-evident" or anything like that.
This right must not have been forfeited. Circumstance of forfeiture include: posing a direct threat to the life of an innocent person, being engaged in military conflict, etc.
The killing must be intentional.

Everything now seems to hinge on what qualifies an organism to be given this right not to be killed. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain. Being a human that is not brain-dead obviously qualifies you. What would it take to qualify a non-human animal for this right? Consciousness, the ability to conceive of a self separate from its environment, the ability to recognize and fear death (not simply flee because of evolutionary programming), as well as other considerations. This is obviously anthropomorphic, it's the best I can do. I can't think of any better set of qualifications.

I would also ask if it is "axiomatic" (is that the same as personal conviction? No, probably not) that "nature does not hold such an abundance that we cannot afford to take all that we can", what about "taking whatever we want" even if is not "all that we can". Where do your axioms land on that approach?

It is a matter of personal conviction. Again, one cannot empirically demonstrate what something ought to be, only what it is. I think that nature ought to be preserved to a high degree of functional autonomy and biodiversity. There are good reasons to do this aside from my personal conviction, but they are all contingent upon being of benefit to humans, in which case we must hold on conviction alone that we ought to do that which is beneficial to our species.

"Taking whatever we want" is not the best way to go about it. The ecological consequences of the taking have to be considered. Nature exists in homeostasis that depends upon physical disequilibrium, chemical equilibrium, and biological interdependence. It is important to preserve these factors in order to preserve the integrity both of individual ecosystems and of the biosphere itself.

learningphysics

Jan9-05, 07:02 PM

It is a matter of personal conviction. Again, one cannot empirically demonstrate what something ought to be, only what it is.

Is there ANY way to demonstrate what ought to be? If there isn't, then it appears that any discussion about morality is a waste of time.

selfAdjoint

Jan9-05, 08:40 PM

Is there ANY way to demonstrate what ought to be? If there isn't, then it appears that any discussion about morality is a waste of time.

Moral philosophers try to present stories that appeal to our intuition to undergird their teachings. For example the "veil of ignorance" of Rawls. But Marxists, for example, regard all such stuff as just bourgeois posturing and "fetishism" (a term of art in marxism). And indeed it is not clear that such stories a culture-free.

russ_watters

Jan10-05, 01:06 PM

Is there ANY way to demonstrate what ought to be? If there isn't, then it appears that any discussion about morality is a waste of time. There are actually two questions here:

First, is morality absolute or relative? I believe it is absolue and I believe there are serious flaws in relativism, but in any case, you're right that if we can't come to an agreement on this point, further discussion is entirely useless: whatever I say is right for me is right for me - whatever you say is right for you is right for you - whatever SA says is right for him is right for him. End of discussion.

IMO, the basic flaw in this is where does it end? If morality is relative, how does anyone have any moral authority? Why can't a kid tell his dad its ok to smoke pot in his morality? Why can't a murderer tell his country that its ok to murder in his morality? Why can't a country tell the world its ok to wipe out an ethnic group in their morality? Just saying we have a contract (the Constitution and treaties) isn't enough: all of these things are based on larger moral principles.

Now, if we could agree that morality is absolute (even if only de facto - we signed a contract with the Constitution) and we must adhere to a specific code, the second question is: where does it come from/what does it say?

You can't really say its written in the Constitution because it isn't - a great many court cases require going beyond the explicit intent of the framers and exploring morality (polygamy). You could say its decreed by God, but that doesn't satisfy scientists and athiests. Still too arbitrary.

It is my view that morality, like physics, can be arrived at empierically. Science is largely predicated on the assumption that there are absolute laws that govern how the universe works and if we are smart enough we might find them (paraphrase, Hawking). But we can't really be sure God isn't just up there screwing with us. Now, it can be said that every successful experiment supports this assumption, and there is no evidence to the contrary - no reason to believe the God postulate - but it can't ever be proven absolutely. It is assumed like any other postulate.

So what about morality? Why can't we start with the same assumption (in my view, a reasonable assumption, but even if you don't buy it, try it anyway and see how it works) and attempt to find moral laws emperically?

How would we do this? Well, in many ways, game theory is the scientific study of morality: you set up various scenarios - various dilemas - and see what happens with different approaches to the problem. Obviously, this is more difficult on the big-scale, but the US has been called an expierment: why can't it be viewed that way?

One quick, apt example: murder. Two possibilities: either it's moral or it isn't. If its moral, it should be ok if everyone does it. My hypothesis is that murder is immoral and my prediction is that a societey predicated on murder will break down and fail. So we set up a society (even in a simulator - how about "The Sims: Morality"?) that encourages murder and see how it works. If the society fails as predicted, we have a piece of evidence to support the moral theory that murder is immoral.

Now, quite obviously, the problem with this is complexity. Human behavior is complex and moral dilemas quickly become extremely complex. But that isn't to say it can't be modeled mathematically, simulated, and predicted. With computers and chaos theory (not an expert in chaos theory), scientists have, in the last few decades, been able to model systems that previously were thought to be utterly random. Why not morality?

So, bringing us back to this thread, my argument would be that whether or not eating meat is immoral is something that can be observed, modeled, hypothesized, and theorized. That is how new moral dilemas should be approached.

learningphysics

Jan10-05, 01:43 PM

One quick, apt example: murder. Two possibilities: either it's moral or it isn't. If its moral, it should be ok if everyone does it. My hypothesis is that murder is immoral and my prediction is that a societey predicated on murder will break down and fail. So we set up a society (even in a simulator - how about "The Sims: Morality"?) that encourages murder and see how it works. If the society fails as predicted, we have a piece of evidence to support the moral theory that murder is immoral.

How is the breaking down of society evidence that murder is immoral? Remember we have no morals yet, and are trying to determine the rules empirically... so you can't assume that breaking down of society is immoral...

plusaf

Jan10-05, 07:08 PM

Excellent post Sir.
(snipped)

In essence it says eat fruit on an empty stomach so as it can be quickly digested, and don't dump fruit on top of other foods as the stomach will have to secrete both acid and alkaline to digest differing chemical natures, thus neutralizing the stomach juices and forcing increasing amounts of secreted digestive juices which cost the body energy from it's limited daily energy budget and also prolonging the time taken to digest the stomach contents allowing for putrefaction of the protein and fermentation of any carbohydrates.

ah, help me with this, please? did human physiology change since i was a kid?
i learned that saliva was alkaline, breaking down some chemicals in some foods before they went on to the stomach, and the stomach's main chemical reaction was acidic, breaking down (i.e, digesting) the chemicals in foods that were best broken down by acids.

so, today, the stomach secretes both acid and base? makes a lot of those tv commercials look pretty silly, doesn't it?

i don't think so.......
+af

JonahHex

Jan10-05, 07:48 PM

This thread is nothing more than a variation of the abortion debate. The veggies, like fundamentalist christians, know that they are soooo correct that they are justified in wanting to impose their view on everyone else, by law if necessary. The carnivorous, like the 'pro choice', are sufficiently concerned about appearing to be sensitive and politically correct that they are willing to argue with morons whose minds couldn't be changed by brain replacement.

Nature doesn't value life. People don't value life and the veggies don't value life. It is impossible to survive without killing. Generally speaking, carnivores are not prey for other carnivores. The 'natural order' of things is for carnivores to eat herbivores...vegitarians qualify as herbivores...no wonder they are so concerned.

After 75 pages now, perhaps this thread should address the morality of masturbating in public.

plusaf

Jan10-05, 08:16 PM

(snip) If you want to eat dead, rotting flesh and have it sit around in your gut for days, weeks, even years . . . be my guest! One thing I can agree with Dan about is to work for more compassionate treatment of slaughter animals.

baloney!

will the vegans and vegetarians who keep claiming that stuff collects in the human digestive system PLEASE GET OFF IT!

it doesn't.

it takes a few days, maybe 3-4, for most food to get through the human digestive system, but it doesn't set up camp there for months!
+af

Dissident Dan

Jan10-05, 08:22 PM

baloney!

will the vegans and vegetarians who keep claiming that stuff collects in the human digestive system PLEASE GET OFF IT!

it doesn't.

it takes a few days, maybe 3-4, for most food to get through the human digestive system, but it doesn't set up camp there for months!
+af

I'm not going to agree with Les that it will sit around for weeks or months, but a few days at internal body temperature is enough to make animal matter rot.

learningphysics

Jan10-05, 08:31 PM

russ_watters

Jan10-05, 08:48 PM

How is the breaking down of society evidence that murder is immoral? Remember we have no morals yet, and are trying to determine the rules empirically... so you can't assume that breaking down of society is immoral...Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

russ_watters

Jan10-05, 08:49 PM

If the pro-meat eaters are pro-cannibalism, then there is no inconsistency in their position. If they are against cannibalism, then there's an inconsistency in their position that needs to be addressed. Not at all - canibals eat humans. Animals aren't human. You're operating on the assumption that everyone already agrees that humans and animals are the same and deserve the same rights - if we agreed with that, we'd all already be vegitarians!

learningphysics

Jan10-05, 09:10 PM

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

Ah, but not everyone agrees with your basis for morality... My personal basis for morality is that moral actions lead to minimal pain and suffering...

learningphysics

Jan10-05, 09:13 PM

Not at all - canibals eat humans. Animals aren't human. You're operating on the assumption that everyone already agrees that humans and animals are the same and deserve the same rights - if we agreed with that, we'd all already be vegitarians!

Ok. Why is it that humans have the right not be eaten, whereas other animals don't have that right?

plusaf

Jan10-05, 09:50 PM

I'm not going to agree with Les that it will sit around for weeks or months, but a few days at internal body temperature is enough to make animal matter rot.

sure, outside a body, but not necessarily inside one!.

[illogical assertion.]

plusaf

Jan10-05, 09:59 PM

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.

if you replaced "moral" with "useful" or "sensible", and nothing changed, what would be the value of the word "moral" in those statements?

i'd like to suggest several things:

1) "rights" are things that humans agree are "rights"; there ain't no other source: a "Supreme Being", the Constitution, John Locke, or what-or whoever.... it's all by agreement. if humans assert that certain things are "rights" and a bunch of other humans agree to that, then those things are "rights."

2) if certain actions improve the "general welfare" and don't degrade it, those things might be called "useful" or "sensible", and some of the heat might be taken off the emotionally charged word, "moral."

there might be times that killing animals, and even people, is "sensible" and "a good idea", but arguing morality is about the same "usefulness" as arguing which religion is "correct."

futile.

:)

sheepdog

Jan10-05, 10:38 PM

All right, I cannot agree to this. The word "wrong" has to be qualified. Saying that 2+2=7 is not wrong in the same way that it is wrong to beat your spouse. Each is wrong within a certain system that says what is wrong and what is right. The former example is wrong within a formal system of numerical arithmetic. The latter is wrong within my ethical system. Neither is wrong within the other system {Edit: Actually, this one is wrong under two systems - my personal ethics, and US law}. I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong; that is, wrong without reference to a certain system of right and wrong.Yes, this gets right at the heart of the matter. Very nicely said.

I'd like to focus on your statement, "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem.

First, just because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't true.

It should also be very clear that any system you choose is arbitrary. And what is arbitrary has no physical meaning or significance. We may choose coordinates arbitrarily but the physical laws are not altered by the choice of coordinates. They are arbitrary, the physical laws are not.

So what you are telling me is that you are answering the question, "When is it wrong to kill?" arbitrarily. What you are saying is that you may select an answer as you please. Oh, sure. You have reasons. Everyone has reasons. The same with the question, "What can we take from Nature." Your answer is, "Anything we want. I'll just cook up a system to suit the circumstances." Of course it is couched in the "system" of morality, but it is obvious that that system, or any other system you may devise, is of your choosing and you may choose arbitrarily. You made this explicitly clear when you said you could not conceive of an absolute basis for wrongness. If not absolute then it is relative. Relative to what? Well, only you can decide that. Are we together on this?

Now just take a moment and look closely at the questions, "When is it wrong to kill?" and "What should we take from Nature?" They are the same question. And these are not questions anyone should be answering arbitrarily. We see around us all the time, throughout the world, the consequences of applying arbitrary answers to these questions, and the consequences are horrendous.

The Nazis arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to cleanse the world of inferiors. The Turkes arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to exterminate the Armenians. Over and over again we see, generation after generation, what results from this. And now you are telling me you too find the best you can do is choose some system and live by that, answer these fundamental questions with yet another arbitrary system of meaningless thought.

That just isn't good enough. What has been cannot continue to repeat itself in endless wars and deadly application of "rights". Whether you can conceive of it or not, whether it suits your systems or not, we can and will find a better way. One that is not arbitrary. One that is absolute. Physical laws govern whether it is or is not wrong to kill, not some arbitrary system you dream up. Physical laws determine what we should or should not take from Nature. russ_waters is perfectly correct in saying that it can be determined empirically. The only problem is that the experiments are one-time-only, non-reversible paths to the future, no refund, no returns. We have to make good choices of which experiment to execute. It will be the only one.

What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary. Vegetarianism arises out of a consciousness that answers these questions without an intellectual system, in the absence of all arbitrary frames of reference. This is true morality. That morality cannot be separated from the bodies of the animals eaten, nor from the bodies eating them. They are the system of that morality. There is only one such system, and it is absolute.

sheepdog

Jan10-05, 10:50 PM

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.This is exactly, precisely, how the Nazis explained their morality. And by these standards they were right in the short run, and might have been correct in the long run if the Americans, British and Russians had not rained on their parade.

I put it to you russ_watters, that there is no basis for judging morality, except that basis which you, or I, or someone else chooses arbitrarily. And if it becomes moral just because a lot of people agree that that is what moral is, welcome to the Inquisition.

History has proven morality to be a very destructive concept. This is why a moral vegetarian is an oxymoron.

physicsisphirst

Jan10-05, 11:26 PM

Sure, but there aren't many ethical theories that hold action categories, in and of themselves, to be good or bad. Most theories stipulate that actions be taken in context. The ending of a life is not always a good or bad thing. ... If this is the paradigm shift you are hoping for, so be it, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.
i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

I was explaining why I felt the appeal to analogy with anything having to do with Hitler is not generally a good idea. ... Either way, I am perfectly willing to address your arguments, regardless of what I may personally think of them.
good! in that case, i'll assume hitler will not cause us any further problems. (besides, i have genuinely enjoyed our exchanges).

To be honest, I didn't consider the possibility that you just consider the ending of any life to be a bad thing. That being the case, why the heck are you going to such great lengths to demonstrate secondary effects of meat consumption such as ecosystem degradation and animal suffering?
i don't really understand what you are saying here, but i'll try to answer anyway. i have not made any statement to the effect that 'the ending of any life is a bad thing' - (i'm not sure that it is - neither has AR). what i have said is that not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill, regardless of whether the being not being killed is deserving of not being killed. ecosystem degradation has nothing to do with killing, but is a consequence of the meat industry (as is animal suffering).

To specifically address your genocide analogy, I didn't like it because it is obvious that the actions of those who would defend genocide are morally bad because they are defending the killing of persons that had the right to not be killed.
it seems you've forgotten what the 'genocide analogy' was about or you simply ignored it because it contained the word 'hitler'. here it is again:

posted by you:
Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that).

response by me (post #996):
this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.
we didn't know what would happen if hitler hadn't been stopped, but it seemed a good idea to stop him so that the things he was doing to damage humanity didn't happen anymore.
as you can perhaps see this time round, the issue has nothing to do with genocide or hitler - it only has to do with the idea that we can take an action based on our wanting to stop what is happening - rather than getting all apathetically or otherwise worked up because we don't know what the consequences of our action might be.

I am just trying to conceive of the possible systems under which your claims might be true ... Either that or demonstrate an inconsistency between the system under which one claim of yours may be true and other claims you have made. It's not an uncommon technique.
i'm sure it is not uncommon, but there may be life beyond 'technique'.
in any case, which claim of mine are you talking about?

If it was the ecological consequences, then you would only advocate the amelioration of these consequences - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it was about animal suffering, then you would only advocate the amelioration of animal suffereing - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it is as you say, and you just think the ending of any life is a bad thing, period . . . then just argue that. Why confuse the matter?
what exactly is so confusing? if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

I only discount ideas that are inconsistent with one another. I have nothing against any of your ideas by themselves.
so what is so inconsistent about the idea that if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

It's expensive to break an animal's neck?
the idea in robbins' book was actually a bullet to the brain, but it is not done because of the added expense.

I'm just saying that if the purpose of vegetarianism is to ameliorate animal suffering, it isn't necessary. All you have to do is kill in a humane manner and not inflict pain on the animal while it is still alive. ... Heck, you can even try being a scavenger and only eat meat that has died from a non-human cause.
amelioration of animal suffering is certainly foremost in the minds of some vegetarians (usually the 'ethicals'). some (such as the leader of the hare krishna movement) even suggested that meaters let the animals die a natural death and then eat them. however, you can see why this (and your scavenging solution) really wouldn't do for nutritional and environmental veggies.

I'm not interested in killing animals at all, unless they are a threat to me and I have no other choice. Heck, I even try my best not to kill insects and annelids ...
well that's decent of you of course, but one should wonder why to see if there is an inconsistency here or not.

No meat farming facility is supposed to inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed.
well that's a nice thought, but you might want to check into some of the realities rather than simply uphold the idea that they aren't supposedto inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. you might check sites like the ones derek1 has listed (there is shortage of them):

http://www.EggCruelty.com
http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp
http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

if you do so, perhaps you will not be so willing to simply argue in favor of 'humane killing' and actually take a closer look at the industry.

But the amount of research necessary to make sure no product I buy was ever produced or refined or shipped by a company that has either advertently or inadvertently promoted the suffering of a sentient being would be so daunting and time-consuming that conducting this research would keep me from ever buying anything.
come now loseyourname! is it really all that hard to do a bit of research? surely, it cannot take all that much time to find out about what happens in the industry when people have provided links for you (a lot of the research has already been done many, many times for anyone who cares to look). have you come to the conclusion that since you cannot do everything, you must do nothing?

How do I know that the vegetable farmer I am buying from doesn't use some of his profits to buy underage prostitutes? Granted, it's a bit of a stretch, but you can see what I'm getting at.
so do you want to keep stretching (with technique, of course LOL) or are you willing to do a bit of investigating? here's why i ask:

i am actually puzzled by an apparent 'inconsistency' in some of what you have said:

you don't seem to think that farm animals have rights, yet you want to kill them humanely. why is that?

you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with killing a creature unless they have a right to life (your prime example being a human, for whatever reason), yet you (like some other meaters here) 'try your best' not to kill insects and annelids. why is that?

why is there such a determination to kill animals that 'taste good' (because they don't have rights in your view), yet such insistence to terminate those lives 'humanely' or in the case of the bugs (who knows what they taste like!), not to kill them at all.

do you feel that you yourself benefit by the act of not killing (even those that you do not grant your right to life)?
have you covertly granted these creatures rights (but don't want any of your friends to find out)?
or could it be that you are writhing in the throes of that paradigm shift?

loseyourname

Jan10-05, 11:51 PM

Yes, this gets right at the heart of the matter. Very nicely said.

I'd like to focus on your statement, "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem.

First, just because you cannot conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't true.

It should also be very clear that any system you choose is arbitrary. And what is arbitrary has no physical meaning or significance.

I think you're getting wrong idea. I just said the word "wrong" has to refer to some action of conclusion being wrong given a certain set of rulels that declare what is right and what is wrong (again, 2+2=7 is not wrong morally or legally, but it is wrong arithmetically). The rules need not be abitrary, and I don't think they are. In fact, I don't think the rules of ethics are any more abitrary than the rules of mathematics, just much more difficult to derive. The problem with ethics is that we don't have a method of logic like mathematics does by which we can resolve disputes like the one we have here. We mostly just have appeals to intuition. Because the intuition of two different people - the conscience you were talking about earlier - do not always agree, how do we make a decision? Your conscience tells you that eating meat is wrong, my conscience does not.

There is really no way to tell which conscience is correct in its assessment of the matter. Most ethical systems rely on an appeal to intuition, but a further appeal to intuition isn't going to help the matter. We can apply the categorical imperative, as Russ suggests. If everyone ate meat (and did so without excess and did so compassionately - which is what I've suggested), what would result? Even here I'm not sure we're going to reach an agreement. Obviously, the world will not be much affected. Living organisms have always used other living organisms as a source of food, so continuing that practice will not results in any dire harm. But since you are an absolutist in this matter, that won't make a difference to you. Whether dire consequences result or not matters little, because any act of killing is wrong, according to you. The only think I can ask is this: Why is it that you feel any act of killing is wrong? Did you arrive at the conclusion through some method of reasoning, or is it just another matter of conscience?

physicsisphirst

Jan11-05, 12:47 AM

What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary.
i think that is an interesting matter that you astutely reveal. it seems that there are some meaters who don't advocate cruelty (they won't even hurt a fly), yet they will defend their habit to the death!

it brings us back to dooga's question again (and again and again and again):

Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat? (post #901)

i do think that it must require considerable flexibility and plyability (or straight-forward avoidance) to try to reconcile this issue. it seems there are 2 main approaches:

1) avoid the reality (don't look at links, don't find out what happens to the animals, deny that anything the otherside presents is true)
2) argue the argument (try to find or insist there are flaws in the otherside's reasoning even if it means fabricating the otherside's reasoning LOL)

if you work at 1), you are at an advantage for 2) (since actual information doesn't have to enter the picture).
if you put your effort into 2), you don't even need to bother about 1) because you can assume that you are dealing with people who are self-contradictory.

it becomes a game, but is somewhat unfortunate, imho.
as you wrote in post #1052:

Life is not just some stupid game, you know. This is for real.

and some would prefer not to know anything about the reality that others have to endure.

physicsisphirst

Jan11-05, 01:28 AM

baloney!

will the vegans and vegetarians who keep claiming that stuff collects in the human digestive system PLEASE GET OFF IT!

it doesn't.

yes it does as does baloney.

plusaf

Jan11-05, 01:38 AM

yes it does as does baloney.

LOL, prad!

i think the more accurate reference would be "sausage" than "baloney".

:smile:

physicsisphirst

Jan11-05, 01:38 AM

Heh, didn't really explain that, did I? The basis for judging morality would be that a law (action) that is moral enables society to succeed (be stable, safe, grow, prosper, etc.), while an immoral one would cause society to disintegrate.
while i tend to agree with what you said about absolute morality and empirical derivation, i don't see how what you have written here supports it.

certain societies that encouraged directed violence (within or without) were stable, safe, grew and prospered as a result of that violence (eg empires of the past sparta, rome, spain, nazi). are you maintaining that the stability (albeit temporary) is proof that they were moral?

physicsisphirst

Jan11-05, 03:00 AM

LOL, prad!

i think the more accurate reference would be "sausage" than "baloney".

:smile:
welcome to the thread plusaf!
i am taking the liberty to post some info below regarding meat putrification in the intestines (just in case anyone is interested and to serve as a break from the moral discussions which really are more appropriate here).

in friendship,
prad

Because it can take up to five days for meat to be digested, putrification is common and is the prime source of growth of undesirable bacteria, which are the forerunners to disease. A plant-based diet is eliminated from the body within a 24-hour period, thereby preventing any potential accumulation.
http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/diet/vmeat.htm

Although many references point to the fact that vegetarians are at a greater risk of pernicious anemia, meat eaters may be in more danger. Digesting meat can take up to five days to complete, which causes putrification because of the delay. During this time, more meat has been consumed; and harmful bacteria begin to proliferate, crowding out the "friendly" bacteria needed for the formation and absorption of nutrients, including B12. Even when enough B12 is consumed, this type of environment cannot provide for it to reach its intended destination.
http://www.innvista.com/health/ailments/anemias/pernanem.htm

Eliminating meat from your diet is likely to eliminate distress from your belly. I know a person who cured his chronic indigestion just by giving up pork. For another fellow, it was quitting hot dogs that helped the most. The dead muscles of a dead animal are not a boon to digestion. Meat contains zero fiber, clogging the pipes and literally decaying in your digestive tract.
http://www.doctoryourself.com/digestion.html

The human intestine is long and coiled, much like that of apes, cows, and horses. This configuration makes digestion slow, allowing time to break down and absorb the nutrients from plant food sources. The intestine of a carnivore, like a cat, is short, straight, and tubular. This allows for very rapid digestion of flesh and excretion of the remnants quickly before they putrefy (rot).
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm

Carnivorous animals, including the lion, dog, wolf, cat, etc., have many unique characteristics which set them apart from all other members of the animal kingdom. They all possess a very simple and short digestive system -- only three times the length of their bodies. This is because flesh decays very rapidly, and the products of this decay quickly poison the bloodstream if they remain too long in the body. So a short digestive tract was evolved for rapid expulsion of putrefactive bacteria from decomposing flesh, as well as stomachs with ten times as much hydrochloric acid as non-carnivorous animals (to digest fibrous tissue and bones).
http://www.jtcwd.com/vegie/plant_or_meat_eaters.html

Meat moves through the gastrointestinal system very slowly and in many cases undergoes putrification before leaving the body. This stagnant rotting flesh is high in toxins and these leach into the surrounding cells of the bowel wall.
http://essenes.net/whyv.html

russ_watters

Jan11-05, 01:12 PM

I have a lot to respond to and I'll do that later, but for now, one thing brought up a few times: certain societies that encouraged directed violence (within or without) were stable, safe, grew and prospered as a result of that violence (eg empires of the past sparta, rome, spain, nazi). are you maintaining that the stability (albeit temporary) is proof that they were moral? [emphasis added] I think you just answered your own question with that logical contradiction. :wink:

Nazi Germany in particular was exceedingly unstable, and that was a direct result of Hitler's morality.

Sho'Nuff

Jan11-05, 03:51 PM

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050110/full/050110-7.html

some wood for the fire, perhaps it was posted before but you'll forgive me not reading through 1100 posts

Kurdt

Jan11-05, 05:33 PM

Picking up on an earlier point if humans have the right not to be eaten then tell the likes of the great white shark and the tiger and the crocodile and anything else that would have a go given a chance. We don't have the right we merely chose not to eat our own kind.

Dissident Dan

Jan11-05, 07:28 PM

sheepdog

Jan11-05, 08:07 PM

I don't think the rules of ethics are any more abitrary than the rules of mathematicsThe rules of mathematics are also arbitrary. I can direct you to the literature on this point. And the rules of ethics are, just as you say, equally as arbitrary. Every system is arbitrary. True morality is absolute. Because the intuition of two different people - the conscience you were talking about earlier - do not always agree, how do we make a decision? Your conscience tells you that eating meat is wrong, my conscience does not.I make the decision within the context of the absolute. How do you make the decision?But since you are an absolutist in this matter, that won't make a difference to you. Whether dire consequences result or not matters little, because any act of killing is wrong, according to you. The only think I can ask is this: Why is it that you feel any act of killing is wrong? Did you arrive at the conclusion through some method of reasoning, or is it just another matter of conscience?To feel that "any act of killing is wrong" is only one more system in an endless parade of systems. I reject that system and all other systems completely. There is no substitute for the absolute.

loseyourname

Jan11-05, 08:14 PM

i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them.

Yes! God yes! How can you have moral actions without a system of morality? Telling me "suffice it to say" tells me nothing. Why is it of benefit to us not to kill? And what can we kill and not kill? Can I kill a weed that is destroying my garden? Can I kill a man that is pointing a gun at my daughter? Can I kill a bacterium that is making me sick? I don't think humans have any intrinsic squeamishness about killing at all, unless the thing they are killing acts like them. The more anthropomorphic, the less willing we are to kill them. That's exactly why people have no issues with swatting a fly, but they get outraged when certain cultures eat dogs.

If you don't think we need an ethical system to deal with whether or not killing is good, well fine for you! Without a system, how exactly is it that you determine what is good and what is bad? Again, if it is just intuition, what do you do when your intuition doesn't agree with mine?

i don't really understand what you are saying here, but i'll try to answer anyway. i have not made any statement to the effect that 'the ending of any life is a bad thing' - (i'm not sure that it is - neither has AR). what i have said is that not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill, regardless of whether the being not being killed is deserving of not being killed. ecosystem degradation has nothing to do with killing, but is a consequence of the meat industry (as is animal suffering).

If all you are going to say is "not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill," you aren't going to get far. I don't base my concept of what is right by what is of benefit to me. Killing can be of benefit, too. It is of quite a bit of benefit to the man who kills his wife for the insurance, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. So this gives you no basis by which to say that eating meat is the wrong thing to do. It might not be of benefit to some, it might be of benefit to others. It is certainly of benefit to Inuits and Eskimos that have little else to eat.

posted by you:
Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that).

response by me (post #996):
this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.

Ok, cut it off right here, because before you got into Hitler, you were getting at something. What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?

so what is so inconsistent about the idea that if you end the meat industry you also eliminate the ecological destruction caused by the meat industry, the animal suffering caused by the meat industry, and you don't even have to get to those humane methods of killing you thought of because you don't have to do any killing on behalf of the meat industry.

It is inconsistent to say that you simply want to alleviate ecosystem destruction or animal suffering and then not accept a solution that does these things while leaving the practice of eating meat intact. When you do not accept solutions unless they include not eating meat, it becomes clear that neither the alleviation of ecosystem destruction nor of animal suffering is your real aim. Your aim is simply to end the eating of meat, but you've run out of reasons to do so. Granted, it is still one way to bring about the results that you say you want to bring about. That's fine. But what reason is there to prefer this solution over other solutions? If someone else solves the problem a different way, what reason do you have to say that what they are doing is wrong?

well that's a nice thought, but you might want to check into some of the realities rather than simply uphold the idea that they aren't [i]supposedto inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. you might check sites like the ones derek1 has listed (there is shortage of them):

I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. I don't doubt that it exists in some places, but I'll repeat what I said before. That is the case with any industry. Have you researched the activities of every seller of goods and services that you buy from to ensure that they do not contribute to the suffering of sentient beings? Finding them all out and boycotting them isn't a viable solution to me. I would rather promote and enforce existing laws and, should I find out that one particular company is guilty of infractions, then I will no longer buy from them. I'm certainly not going to boycott an entire industry. Decent farmers do not deserve to lose business because of the immoral actions of their competitors.

i am actually puzzled by an apparent 'inconsistency' in some of what you have said:

you don't seem to think that farm animals have rights, yet you want to kill them humanely. why is that?

I've said that I will recognize their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly. I will not grant them the right to not be killed.

you don't seem to think that there is anything wrong with killing a creature unless they have a right to life (your prime example being a human, for whatever reason), yet you (like some other meaters here) 'try your best' not to kill insects and annelids. why is that?

I will not do it if there is no reason to do it. If they are in my way somehow (infesting my garden, eating the scraps from my floor, etc.) then I have no problem killing them. By the same token, if killing them will feed me and my family, then I will them. I just don't want to kill for no good reason.

why is there such a determination to kill animals that 'taste good' (because they don't have rights in your view), yet such insistence to terminate those lives 'humanely' or in the case of the bugs (who knows what they taste like!), not to kill them at all.

I have no problem with eating bugs, I just don't kill them for no reason. If you really need to ask why I would be more likely to kill an animal that can provide nourishment for me over one that cannot, I'm not sure why. I would think the answer is obvious.

do you feel that you yourself benefit by the act of not killing (even those that you do not grant your right to life)?
have you covertly granted these creatures rights (but don't want any of your friends to find out)?
or could it be that you are writhing in the throes of that paradigm shift?

Nope. In general, I don't do anything unless I have a good reason to do it. This doesn't just apply to the act of killing. If I have a reason to kill, I'll do it. I'm not opposed to the act itself.

sheepdog

Jan11-05, 08:23 PM

and some would prefer not to know anything about the reality that others have to endure.It is a mentality that says, "I will live in my head, where I can make the world whatever I want it to be. My mental systems will be better and stronger than any systems ever devised. And there my systems will allow me to have from world whatever I want to have." Meat eating is but the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. All of Nature is drained and denuded to taters through the operation of these many, ceaseless mental systems. The waste and gross disrespect is stifling.

russ_watters

Jan12-05, 09:08 AM

And why are stable, safe, growing, and prospering the criteria to use? Because they all indicate the system "works." When Nazi Germany went down in flames, thats a "failure."

That said, you can set up any experiment in science to get any result you want - so I suppose if you want you could call instability, famine, and poverty your criteria and a system that "works" is one that causes these things. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems self-evident that not starving to death is, de facto, a good thing. Suffering is a bad thing (at least, I'd prefer not to suffer...). Similarly, it'd be pretty easy for me to successfully develop a model that doesn't accurately predict the orbits of the planets. But what would the point of that be?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.

And I missed this before: i don't think we need 'many ethical theories' to deal with whether killing is a good or bad thing. my statement had little to do along those lines:

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

do you really need an ethical theory to deal with this idea? do you need context? suffice it to say by not killing we do ourselves a benefit, generally (there may well be exceptions). i don't think most people like to kill - that's one reason they pay others to do that 'dirty work' for them. OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say. Are you an anarchist? (but hey, at least it means you can't argue eating meat is immoral!)

In any case, the ethical theory tells you why an action is good. Otherwise, its just "I said so!" and anarchy is the result (and this discussion is pointless). An ethical code tells you what actions are good and unless you choose it arbitrarily (The Ten Commadments), why? is an important consideration.

russ_watters

Jan12-05, 09:59 AM

Ah, but not everyone agrees with your basis for morality... My personal basis for morality is that moral actions lead to minimal pain and suffering... Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to. Ok. Why is it that humans have the right not be eaten, whereas other animals don't have that right? Whoever said that? Cannibalism is humans eating other humans. It is, in my view, perfectly acceptable for a lion to eat you. But if lions started eating (primarily) other lions, they'd hunt themselves into extinction. Similarly, cannibalism is detrimental to humans exactly because it is humans eating humans. if you replaced "moral" with "useful" or "sensible", and nothing changed, what would be the value of the word "moral" in those statements? Morality is the word who'se definition is "a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." When you take what is "useful" or "sensible" to make equations describing the motion of a cannon-ball, you get "physics." Similarly, when you take what is "useful" or "sensible" in the ideas of right and wrong conduct, you get "morals." Its simply the definition of the word. 1) "rights" are things that humans agree are "rights"; there ain't no other source: a "Supreme Being", the Constitution, John Locke, or what-or whoever.... it's all by agreement. if humans assert that certain things are "rights" and a bunch of other humans agree to that, then those things are "rights." But people don't always agree: what if I don't agree? How do we remedy that? Majority rule? Ever hear of "the Tyrany of the majority"...? No, morality must be predicated on something bigger and more fundamental than just a consensus. 2) if certain actions improve the "general welfare" and don't degrade it, those things might be called "useful" or "sensible", and some of the heat might be taken off the emotionally charged word, "moral." There is no reason why the word needs to be emotionally charged. That's the definition of the word: that's what its for. Shall we call it "Bob" instead to remove this emotional content? (I've never heard anyone say that about the word "morality" before). there might be times that killing animals, and even people, is "sensible" and "a good idea", but arguing morality is about the same "usefulness" as arguing which religion is "correct."

futile. WHY? Maybe its due to what you are saying above: that morality is something just arbitrarily plucked out of the air. I can see the futility that would lead to, but can you see the anarchy that would lead to? It can't be that arbitrary. It just wouldn't "work." I'd like to focus on your statement [loseyourname], "I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong." This has launched an excellent discussion of this issue. It is at the center of the problem It is, indeed... and your discussion that follows is exactly correct. The highlights: The Nazis arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to cleanse the world of inferiors. The Turkes arbitrarily decided they had a "right" to exterminate the Armenians. Over and over again we see, generation after generation, what results from this. And now you are telling me you too find the best you can do is choose some system and live by that, answer these fundamental questions with yet another arbitrary system of meaningless thought.

That just isn't good enough. [emphasis added] That is exactly why moral relativism fails - why arbitrary morality is invalid. What has been cannot continue to repeat itself in endless wars and deadly application of "rights". Whether you can conceive of it or not, whether it suits your systems or not, we can and will find a better way. One that is not arbitrary. One that is absolute. Physical laws govern whether it is or is not wrong to kill, not some arbitrary system you dream up. Physical laws determine what we should or should not take from Nature. russ_waters is perfectly correct in saying that it can be determined empirically. The only problem is that the experiments are one-time-only, non-reversible paths to the future, no refund, no returns. We have to make good choices of which experiment to execute. It will be the only one. Yes, I only alluded to this before, but this is, indeed, the problem with empirical investigation of rights: the experiments are all practical ones. When they fail, they fail badly and millions of people die as a result. That said, I think that morality, like science, is progressing and things like the UN, Wilson's 14 points, and the Marshall Plan, the Geneva Conventions, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are evidence of it in international politics. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - its not just de facto universal, it says universal because its a delcaration that human rights are truly universal (this idea was first put into politics in the U.S. Declaration of Independence). They are not arbitrary (which does not imply they can't be debated). What you call morality is flexible and plyable. It can be adapted to whims of the moment because it is imaginary. Vegetarianism arises out of a consciousness that answers these questions without an intellectual system, in the absence of all arbitrary frames of reference. This is true morality. That morality cannot be separated from the bodies of the animals eaten, nor from the bodies eating them. They are the system of that morality. There is only one such system, and it is absolute. Now this part, I'm not sure I understand.... This is exactly, precisely, how the Nazis explained their morality. And by these standards they were right in the short run, and might have been correct in the long run if the Americans, British and Russians had not rained on their parade. Considering how much we agreed on, I'm surprised you would say such a thing. But maybe its easily explainable - its historically inaccurate: Hitler's rule was chaotic from start to finish. It did not work and was not correct in any way, shape, or form. But even worse, Hitler's morality was not universal! It didn't apply to all humans, only his chosen few.

So not only did Hitler's theory fail, it wasn't even internally consistent. I put it to you russ_watters, that there is no basis for judging morality, except that basis which you, or I, or someone else chooses arbitrarily. And if it becomes moral just because a lot of people agree that that is what moral is, welcome to the Inquisition.

History has proven morality to be a very destructive concept. This is why a moral vegetarian is an oxymoron. Ok, its possible I misunderstood your earlier post: when you say all morality is arbitary, you're arguing against the very concept of morality? My take is that your argument is a good argument against arbitary morality, but not absolute morality or morality itself.

Arbitrary means without reason: morality based on what works has a reason and is therefore not arbitary. it brings us back to dooga's question again (and again and again and again):

Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat? (post #901)

i do think that it must require considerable flexibility and plyability (or straight-forward avoidance) to try to reconcile this issue. it seems there are 2 main approaches:

1) avoid the reality (don't look at links, don't find out what happens to the animals, deny that anything the otherside presents is true)
2) argue the argument (try to find or insist there are flaws in the otherside's reasoning even if it means fabricating the otherside's reasoning LOL) Ever wonder how execution isn't considered cruel and unusual punishment and method of execution makes a difference? This question isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. Its quite simple, as a matter of fact: death and suffering are two different things (indeed, some people choose to die to avoid suffering). Which brings us to this: Ok, cut it off right here, because before you got into Hitler, you were getting at something. What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming? Yes!! This is why so many vegitarian arguments are straw-men (even unintentional) - they utterly fail to grasp/address this point.

Monique

Jan12-05, 10:16 AM

The waste and gross disrespect is stifling.
Oh yes it is. I recently became a vegetarian and the food has never tasted so good before. I find the food culture with giant sized portions of fast food meat a wastefull disrespect to the source of the meal.

To say that animal suffering does not occur is being naive. Not all cows and chicken and pigs grow up on an outdoor farm where they have the pleasure of grazing their own food and having some water from the pond. Instead they grow up in factories and have to endure long trips in trucks and what not. If they do I'd like to know which agency watches over the animal wellfare and that guarantees that the meat lying in the store comes from life-stock slaughted next to the pasture they grazed on.

Monique

Jan12-05, 10:19 AM

You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. So, loseyourname, if you have not given up eating meat.. what are you doing to alleviate animal suffering and ecosystem destruction?

selfAdjoint

Jan12-05, 10:35 AM

So, loseyourname, if you have not given up eating meat.. what are you doing to alleviate animal suffering and ecosystem destruction?

This is not about loseyourname, it's about the general principle of not eating meat. Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems; vegan hikers and picnikers and new home buyers are as much at fault for ecosystem destruction as meat eaters who do those same things). None of this depends on any particular action by loseyourname.

learningphysics

Jan12-05, 11:47 AM

learningphysics

Jan12-05, 11:49 AM

This is not about loseyourname, it's about the general principle of not eating meat. Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems; vegan hikers and picnikers and new home buyers are as much at fault for ecosystem destruction as meat eaters who do those same things). None of this depends on any particular action by loseyourname.

Yes, and eating of humans can be done without causing suffering to the humans.

Alkatran

Jan12-05, 12:01 PM

I don't understand this. There are other species that eat their own, and they haven't become extinct. Humans could easily eat some of their own, and continue to reproduce keeping the species alive...

I never said lions were allowed to hunt deer. However, the analogy fails to hold anyway... Humans can live without eating meat, lions can't.

Ah but that's where you're wrong. Human society would fall apart if no one trusted anyone (which, guess what, is going to happen if we start to eat each other.)

If we started to eat each other we'd end up travelling back down the technological chain. Lions eating themselves isn't so much a problem because they're already that low on the chain.

The thing is: Do you really think humans are 'above' eating meat? Under what conditions would it be moral? (You and a puppy are stuck at the bottom of the well. If you eat the puppy you are rescued, if you don't you both die.)

Monique

Jan12-05, 12:19 PM

Loseyourname asserts that eating meat CAN be done without causing suffering to the animals (sedate them before killing them), and without causing ecosystem destruction (careful management can keep the abbatoirs away from the ecosystems Ok, so tell me: how do YOU ensure that the meat you eat if from an animal that has not suffered? How would you know?

And it's not all about the way of dying, it is also about the quality of life the animal has had. As a meat eater, what can you do to ensure the meat you eat has had a good quality of life?

Alkatran

Jan12-05, 02:19 PM

Ok, so tell me: how do YOU ensure that the meat you eat if from an animal that has not suffered? How would you know?

And it's not all about the way of dying, it is also about the quality of life the animal has had. As a meat eater, what can you do to ensure the meat you eat has had a good quality of life?

Define "quality life". By your definition it seems to be better to kill the cows while their young, before they go through this hell. (veil!)

Monique

Jan12-05, 02:59 PM

Veil have already gone through hell in order to have tender meat, traditionally they were kept in a very small space so their meat would not become tough. If you want to eat veil: you may in my opinion, just don't lock them up so that they can't move a muscle.

Francis M

Jan12-05, 03:33 PM

As is usual in this kind of thread it seems that 1000 posts later (not even) we've degenerated into an argument of who is morally superior vegitarians, vegans, people who only eat white meat (psudo vegitarians) or meat eaters. Can I ask people that pose this question to stop doing it as nothing more than a set up for trying to prove who's morally superior.

Fact?- our digestive system design shows we're omnivors, we can eat both vegetable and animal matter?

Fact- most people do eat both.

Fact- some choose to not eat red meat, go further and not eat meat or go vegan and not consume animal products (i.e. including eggs, and milk).

The argument of what's less or more cruel is judgmental and predjudiced based on a persons view point and can never be solved.

But just to add fuel to the fire let this omnivor (me) get cynical here a moment and see if I can add a reality check into this argument.

The next time anyone starts this "I'm better than you because I'm ______ or do _____" garbage.

1. Ask yourself how many small animals that live in the fields are killed each time the harvesting machine goes by.

2. How less/more cruel is it to kill a fish or bird rather than a cow or pig.

3. How many pests (insects, rodents, ect..) are killed to protect those crops and the land they grow on.

4. How much pollution does farming create, and damage the ecosystem I keep hearing brought up in this thread.

The next time before anyone steps up on their morally superior soap box and starts coming at anyone else with their cause of the day and getting smug I suggest they take the blinders off and get a good look at themselves, and start looking at how they can support their position by somthing more than the presumption that their better in hteir own minds. My god the unmitigated gall of some of the people in this thread is sickening. :yuck:

Monique

Jan12-05, 03:51 PM

But don't you think animal welfare should be good?

Francis M 2

Jan12-05, 05:43 PM

Sorry about the rant. I didn't mean to go off like that but I'm just sick of people trying to argue morality based on wether or not they do or don't do such and such. It's a very ambiguous and unsupportable thing to just argue morality from a specific viewpoint. Some of these arguments boil down to I'm rigt because I say so. I should've first asked what the point of te question was. Are we talking about all killing is cruel to begin with? Are we talking about how animals are kept (general well being) before their killed? Are we comparing farming against hunting as far as envirornmental impact?

But don't you think animal welfare should be good?

I don't mean to sound flipant about this Monique but were do we draw the line on what animals well being we consider and which ones we don't. Or for that matter other organisms. This is exactly why the question first posted degenerates into the threads we see here.

BTW It's the same Francis M from before I just had to register from my home e-mail instead of work Sorry for any confusion.

Monique

Jan12-05, 05:58 PM

I don't mean to sound flipant about this Monique but were do we draw the line on what animals well being we consider and which ones we don't. Or for that matter other organisms. This is exactly why the question first posted degenerates into the threads we see here. One can go into many details, about bugs and microbes, but what I think that should be done is opening the book on livestock treatment. How are animals treated from being born to being slaughtered. I think the discussion should be opened and that farmers have to abide to welfare laws. I'm not an expert on the issue of animal culturing, it is a black box to me. What are the laws on livestock treatment, which agency inspects whether the laws are abided by and where do I find the information on how livestock is treated overall.

Dissident Dan

Jan12-05, 07:50 PM

That said, you can set up any experiment in science to get any result you want - so I suppose if you want you could call instability, famine, and poverty your criteria and a system that "works" is one that causes these things. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems self-evident that not starving to death is, de facto, a good thing. Suffering is a bad thing (at least, I'd prefer not to suffer...). Similarly, it'd be pretty easy for me to successfully develop a model that doesn't accurately predict the orbits of the planets. But what would the point of that be?

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.

Well, ethics is all about values, but you are assuming the values from the get-go, thereby having a "conclusion" that is just your premises.

To explain this further, you choose to consider human suffering, but not non-human suffering. This is a value choice, which is a goal of ethics, but it is presumed from the beginning in your argument.

Also, you define your ethical criterion in respect to whole societies, rather than individuals...what makes the society, as a whole thrive. I'm not saying that this is wrong or right, but that it is assumed in your argument from the beginning, thereby skipping a vast portion of ethical reasoning.

learningphysics

Jan12-05, 07:56 PM

Ah but that's where you're wrong. Human society would fall apart if no one trusted anyone (which, guess what, is going to happen if we start to eat each other.)

This could be set up so that the vast majority of humans are unaffected, and only a select few from a restricted group can possibly end up as food. Most people would be unaffected, and needn't fear becoming food. Society would continue the same for the most part.

If we started to eat each other we'd end up travelling back down the technological chain. Lions eating themselves isn't so much a problem because they're already that low on the chain.

I really don't understand what you mean here...

The thing is: Do you really think humans are 'above' eating meat? Under what conditions would it be moral? (You and a puppy are stuck at the bottom of the well. If you eat the puppy you are rescued, if you don't you both die.)

I'll assume for the sake of this discussion that the life being eaten, experience 0 pain and suffering. I personally wouldn't eat the puppy... But I'd have to say in this situation it is morally acceptable to eat the puppy... But replace the puppy with a human, and it's morally acceptable to eat the human (as both would die anyway).

sheepdog

Jan12-05, 08:35 PM

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems trivially self-evident to me.

And I missed this before: OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say. Are you an anarchist? (but hey, at least it means you can't argue eating meat is immoral!)

In any case, the ethical theory tells you why an action is good. Otherwise, its just "I said so!" and anarchy is the result (and this discussion is pointless). An ethical code tells you what actions are good and unless you choose it arbitrarily (The Ten Commadments), why? is an important consideration.That's right russ_watters, you're missing something.

Eating vegetarian is morality. There is no separate morality used to judge something else. No, anarchy does not result. Nature is the result. Yes, this discussion is pointless, that you got right. An ethical code is itself the essential arbitrary. Ethics are arbitrary. Morality is arbitrary. None of these can possibility reveal what is good and what is not.

sheepdog

Jan12-05, 09:45 PM

Pain and suffering for whom? I didn't specify in my explanation, but morality was created by humans, for humans and as such serves humans, first and foremost. Even if you extened it evenly to the animal kingdom, you'd still have problems: like lions (brought up before, but never adequately dealt with). Like I said before, you have your work cut out for you, developing an entirely new moral theory/code that somehow allows lions to kill deer, but doesn't allow humans to.Reading this in isolation it makes complete sense to me. How you can defend morality a few sentences later is baffling. Morality is the word who'se definition is "a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct." When you take what is "useful" or "sensible" to make equations describing the motion of a cannon-ball, you get "physics." Similarly, when you take what is "useful" or "sensible" in the ideas of right and wrong conduct, you get "morals." Its simply the definition of the word.Another good point. Every system is equally arbitrary But people don't always agree: what if I don't agree? How do we remedy that? ... They are not arbitrary (which does not imply they can't be debated). ... Its historically inaccurate: Hitler's rule was chaotic from start to finish. It did not work and was not correct in any way, shape, or form. But even worse, Hitler's morality was not universal! It didn't apply to all humans, only his chosen few.You are correct that we do agree upon much. But not on the point, the essence, of the matter.

My reading of the rise of the Nazis would indicate that, from a German's perspective they brought considerable relief from a much more chaotic situation.

But it isn't necessary to even consider the historical facts. All you need recognize is that Hitler was popular with Germans, i.e., they considered his activities "moral". What do you think they would have said, "He's an immoral butcher but I like him!" No, they said, "Here's someone finally living up to my moral standards."

Even moreso, you claim to be concerned with a universal, absolute, morality and at the same time you have decided that "universal" means all people, and does not include animals or other life forms. Websters defines "absolute" as "actual, real". Is that what you mean by absolute morality? The actual, real morality that was also invented and defined by humans for human benefit? What you call universal and absolute is no more absolute than a game of Dungeons and Dragons. Just be people invented and defined Dungeons and Dragons doesn't mean there actually are any real Dungeon or Dragons. What we invent and define is the opposite, the exact antithesis, of absolute.
Arbitrary means without reason: morality based on what works has a reason and is therefore not arbitary. Websters, again, defines arbitrary as Exercised according to one's own will or caprice, and therefore conveying a notion of a tendency to abuse the possession of power. Reasons do not make it any less arbitrary. Hitler had his reasons.

sheepdog

Jan12-05, 10:04 PM

This thread has considered the questions, "Should we eat meat?" and, "When is it wrong to kill?" These questions resulted in an explosion of mental systems called "ethics" and "morality" and such.

Then the question, "What should we take from Nature?" was asked. It is the same question as the previous ones framed more generally. It has the same answer, yet no answer came. Why not? Perhaps they were not prepared with a system with which to respond. Oh, well. I'm sure it's only a matter of time ...

Now I would pose yet one more question that generalizes upon the others again.

"Where is there Goodness?"

The vegetarian has considered this question and seen clearly that the overwhelming abundance of Goodness she finds outside of her head trivializes everything within it. The blinding all encompassing Goodness with which she is surrounded utterly and totally dwarfs the tiny noises in her head. It is then when the paradigm shifted, then when all mental systems disappeared, and vegetarianism inevitably followed.

physicsisphirst

Jan13-05, 12:30 AM

OMG, I'm flabberghasted -- why do we need morality? I don't know what to say.
such helplessness, russ!
all i said was that we didn't need an ethical theory to deal with what was a rather simple situation. anyway, i elaborate a bit in the next post.

I think you just answered your own question with that logical contradiction. :wink:

Nazi Germany in particular was exceedingly unstable, and that was a direct result of Hitler's morality.
the 'logical contradiction' escaped me - what was it? the phrase "temporary stability"?

so are you now saying that a moral society is one that is essentially non-violent and exhibits longterm stability? i'm just curious (and am not necessarily in disagreement though i was under the impression that violent societies mentioned earlier were quite stable for considerable lengths of time).

Yes!! This is why so many vegitarian arguments are straw-men (even unintentional) - they utterly fail to grasp/address this point.
really russ! all loseyourname has provided are some alternate ways of killing. the issue of suffering hasn't even been touched, even though i have pointed out that the suffering happens over a period of time far, far greater than it takes to do the killing. as monique points out in post #1151 it's not all about the way of dying, it is also about the quality of life the animal has had

but you guys won't even look at the links such as the ones derek1 presented:

http://www.hfa.org/campaigns/tribarticle.html
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/
http://www.EggCruelty.com
http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp
http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

don't you think that it makes sense to argue from a base of existing knowledge rather than producing theoretical constructs from the imagination and then getting all flabberghasted because some of us who do know what happens out there disagree with you?

physicsisphirst

Jan13-05, 01:28 AM

Yes! God yes! How can you have moral actions without a system of morality? Telling me "suffice it to say" tells me nothing. Why is it of benefit to us not to kill?
i think there are many answers to this depending on your system of values, but you yourself said that you will not kill unless you have a good reason (eg you are endangered or you think it is nourishment). so my point still remains that you don't need any fancy ethical theories here - just a simple understanding that you will not kill unless you have a need to. the benefit to you presumably is that you consider killing without sufficient reason to be cruel or immoral or something like that and by not killing unnecessarily you benefit yourself by not being cruel or immoral or something like that. are we in agreement with this?

If you don't think we need an ethical system to deal with whether or not killing is good, well fine for you! Without a system, how exactly is it that you determine what is good and what is bad? Again, if it is just intuition, what do you do when your intuition doesn't agree with mine?
if you want to consider what i have just written an ethical system, go ahead. if you don't, it doesn't matter to me, because i think you have stated your criteria fairly clearly - you will not kill unless you have a sufficient reason to (like those bugs destroying your garden or those people attacking you etc). once again, is this sufficient for us to agree on, without insisting on some formal and complex ethical system?

If all you are going to say is "not killing can be a benefit to the one who doesn't kill," you aren't going to get far. I don't base my concept of what is right by what is of benefit to me.
i think to some extent you do. you are willing to kill bugs that destroy your garden. i think you are killing those bugs not so much for the benefit of your garden (and its "right to life"), but because you want to keep your garden.

What won't happen? You never said what it is that you are trying to avoid. Is it animal suffering? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. Is it ecosystem destruction? That can be alleviated while still eating meat. The only possible issue with eating meat that can only be alleviated by not eating meat is the killing of the animals themselves. Do you see where I'm going yet again? This is only a problem if you grant animal rights or if you say that all killing of any kind is wrong. You continually say that you are not claiming either. So what is it that you are claiming?
yes we know that you have these ingenious ways of killing humanely and you hopefully want to do away with factory farming to remove both the suffering and the ecodamage. but if we didn't eat meat we wouldn't have these problems caused by the industries in the first place, right?

It is inconsistent to say that you simply want to alleviate ecosystem destruction or animal suffering and then not accept a solution that does these things while leaving the practice of eating meat intact.
well i don't really see why you think i'm not accepting these alternate solutions. if you want to eat meat, do as suggested by that guy in my earlier post. wait till the animal dies, then eat. make sure that there are only a few animals on small farms and you'll do the ecosystem a favor too.

When you do not accept solutions unless they include not eating meat, it becomes clear that neither the alleviation of ecosystem destruction nor of animal suffering is your real aim. Your aim is simply to end the eating of meat, but you've run out of reasons to do so.
do you arrive at this conclusion through a process of elimination or wishful thinking?

Granted, it is still one way to bring about the results that you say you want to bring about. That's fine. But what reason is there to prefer this solution over other solutions? If someone else solves the problem a different way, what reason do you have to say that what they are doing is wrong?
well you haven't exactly solved the problem, you have only suggested some solutions along the lines of the killing (you really haven't dealt with the eco-issue, at least not in these recent exchanges). i have also offered a solution by which both the eco-problem and the suffering will be terminated. are your arguments against my solution essentially:
1) there are other solutions
2) there is a secret agenda to stop all killing

I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. I don't doubt that it exists in some places, but I'll repeat what I said before.
i don't think you understand that we are not talking about charlotte's web here. we are talking about factory farms. if you would actually research some of this rather than spin 'logical arguments', you would see that your not having 'seen any mistreatment' is hardly something to base an opinion on.

the problem we have here is that you won't look, therefore you can avoid the reality.

I would rather promote and enforce existing laws and, should I find out that one particular company is guilty of infractions, then I will no longer buy from them. I'm certainly not going to boycott an entire industry. Decent farmers do not deserve to lose business because of the immoral actions of their competitors.
then the very least you can do is see

http://www.themeatrix.com/

it is produced by some of your "decent farmers" who have been driven out of business by factory farms. if you investigate, perhaps you'll at least be enthusiastic about where you get your meat from and who you support.

I've said that I will recognize their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly. I will not grant them the right to not be killed.
yes, yes that's fine. however, this at least answers the question i was asking - you at least grant them the "their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly". now, exactly on what basis do you feel that animals have a "right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly".

If I have a reason to kill, I'll do it. I'm not opposed to the act itself.
yes we've established that several times now. however, the question remains, why do you think animals have a right to be treated humanely?

physicsisphirst

Jan13-05, 02:09 AM

The vegetarian has considered this question and seen clearly that the overwhelming abundance of Goodness she finds outside of her head trivializes everything within it. The blinding all encompassing Goodness with which she is surrounded utterly and totally dwarfs the tiny noises in her head. It is then when the paradigm shifted, then when all mental systems disappeared, and vegetarianism inevitably followed.
i think there is this wonderful convenience in staying within mental systems - one can live in this fantasy world and ignore reality (and links LOL).

however, i find it curious that even within these mental systems

1) russ seems to think that the violent societies i named in post #1134 were not stable (even though they were so temporarily). i am unclear as to what he considers to be a society that is stable. if violent societies are not stable, then is it possible that non-violent ones are?

2) loseyourname has revealed in post #1141 that recognition will be granted to animals for "their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly" which is interesting because in post #1012 he plainly says:

A person is an entity with rights. Animals do not have rights.

well, i'm not complaining of course - i see this not so much as contradiction, but rather as evolution.

in any case, i am very interested in learning what russ thinks is a stable society and knowing why loseyourname thinks that animals have the right to be treated humanely and have asked both these questions (but have not yet heard back from them, because at the time of this writing neither has seen my questions LOL).

physicsisphirst

Jan13-05, 02:34 AM

What are the laws on livestock treatment, which agency inspects whether the laws are abided by and where do I find the information on how livestock is treated overall.
monique, the laws protecting livestock are very weak compared to dogs and cats generally. it is this way because people can make more money if they are allowed to get away taking shortcuts (eg you cannot castrate a dog without anaesthetic, but you can do this to cattle, sheep or pigs).

the laws are changing though as people become more aware of what actually happens "down on the farm". for instance, austria recently legislated very tough AW laws (an article from May of last year below on some of this).

progress may be slow, but it does seem to occur eventually when enough people learn what actually goes on.

in friendship,
prad

http://www.factoryfarming.com/issues_austria.htm
Austria enacts one of Europe's toughest animal rights laws

WILLIAM J. KOLE
Associated Press Writer
May 28, 2004

Hens will be free to run around barnyards, lions and tigers will vanish from circus acts, and Dobermans will sport what nature intended -- floppy ears and longer tails -- under a tough animal rights law adopted Thursday in Austria.

The anticruelty law, one of Europe's harshest, will ban pet owners from cropping their dogs' ears or tails, force farmers to uncage their chickens, and ensure that puppies and kittens no longer swelter in pet shop windows.

Violators will be subject to fines of $2,420, and in cases of extreme cruelty could be fined up to $18,160 and have their animals seized by the authorities.

Lawmakers, some holding stuffed toy animals, voted unanimously to enact the law, which takes effect in January and will be phased in over several years. Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said Austria was sending a stern message to the rest of Europe and the world about respecting animals.

"Austria is taking the role of pioneer," Schuessel told parliament, vowing to press for similar legislation across the European Union. "This new law will give both producers and consumers a good feeling, and it lifts animal protection to the highest level internationally."

It's the latest example of how the animals rights issue is gaining attention across Europe:

* The European Commission has proposed a sweeping overhaul of EU regulations on transporting livestock across the continent to give more protection to the hundreds of thousands of animals that are shipped daily and to prevent deaths and abuse.

* In March, Hungary's parliament banned cockfighting and the breeding or sale of animals for fighting, and it made animal torture -- previously a misdemeanor -- a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.

* Last summer, the region of Catalonia, which passed Spain's first animal cruelty law in 1988, banned the killing of abandoned cats and dogs in animal shelters and raised fines for cruelty to as much as $24,200.

* Italy is considering a law that forbids sending horses to the slaughterhouse after their competitive careers are over, and Germany plans to phase out mass farming of caged chickens by the end of 2006.

Austrians' love for animals dates to imperial times, with the famed Lipizzaner stallions pampered as a source of national pride.

Aimed primarily at poultry and other livestock, Austria's new law also outlaws the use of lions and other wild animals in circuses and makes it illegal to restrain dogs with chains, choke collars or "invisible fences" that administer mild electric shocks to confine animals.

The measure enjoyed the support of all four main parties in the National Assembly, where Minister of Social Affairs Herbert Haupt drew laughter by holding up a stuffed toy dog while addressing lawmakers Thursday.

Haupt, a veterinarian, had pushed for the law since the 1980s. It still needs the president's signature, a formality given its unanimous passage.

"Animals and consumers are the clear winners with this law," said Ulrike Sima, a lawmaker specializing in animal protection issues for the opposition Socialist Party.

A key provision bans the widespread practice of confining chickens to small cages on farms and makes it a crime to bind cattle tightly with ropes.

Pet owners and breeders no longer will be allowed to crop puppies' ears or tails, a common practice with certain breeds such as Doberman pinschers. Sweden has banned the practice since 1989.

Invisible fences are out, too, though they're nowhere near as ubiquitous here as they are in U.S. suburbs.

"This is a first step in the right direction," said Andreas Sax of the Austrian animal rights organization Four Paws.

Sax said the law won't do enough to improve conditions for cattle and pigs, who often are injured in cramped pens with slatted floors, and he criticized some sections he said were too vague.

The Austrian Farm Federation opposed the law, arguing that it will increase costs for farmers and could lead to more imports of poultry from countries with looser restrictions.

Chicken farmers will be allowed several years to phase in the new rules. Those who recently invested in new cages will have until 2020 to turn their birds loose to run free inside fences.

The law calls for creating an animal rights ombudsman to oversee the treatment of animals on farms and in zoos, circuses and pet shops. Austria has an estimated 140,000 enterprises that breed or sell animals.

Monique

Jan13-05, 09:27 AM

the laws are changing though as people become more aware of what actually happens "down on the farm". I think we should have a topic on "what happens down on the farm".. everyone would be able to form their own opinion whether what happens there is acceptable or not.

Basing an opinion on the fact that shooting an animal through the head is a minimum pain death, does not say anything about the way an animal approaches that death in reality on farms.

russ_watters

Jan13-05, 12:22 PM

I think we should have a topic on "what happens down on the farm".. everyone would be able to form their own opinion whether what happens there is acceptable or not.

Basing an opinion on the fact that shooting an animal through the head is a minimum pain death, does not say anything about the way an animal approaches that death in reality on farms. I agree - addressing the actual conditions on the farm is a separate (though, admittedly, related) question from whether or not eating meat is OK.

Zlex

Jan13-05, 02:34 PM

You know what Homer says; "If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of delicious meat."

**** 'em; I say, kill them and eat 'em. Sooner the better. Unenlightened lions and tigers say **** the cosmos every day.

You stick to murdering the young, green alfalfa sprouts, yearning to seek out the warm Sun, fine, it just means more assorted grilled meats for me.

Just remember that the next time you water your houseplants, and talk to them. To them, you're just another naked ape with a bottle of A1 sauce in his paws, only this time its 'Newmans' Best', and your only after the houseplants little cousins.

Hey, I have pet Goldfish, and I talk to them, too. Sometimes, they woefully watch me hog down a nice piece of grilled swordfish steak, and if they stare too long, I glare at them and say, "What are YOU lookin at? You guys are one sliced lemon away from me taking away your borrowed stardust, so watch yourself."

So, now you know what your houseplants feel like when you are cosmically munching down on that hygroscopically grown organic sprout sandwich.

Francis M

Jan13-05, 03:47 PM

O.K. folks. Lets put the light on the right part of the subject here. It was hit upon earlier. It seems to me in these posts that we're getting to the heart of the vegitarian argument. Not so much that killing an animal for food is wrong or right but how we treat them up to that point. IS this the crux of the argument? If so then wether eating meat is right or wrong shouldn't be the question but should be is eating meat of animals treated badly right or wrong. OR are we still talking about wether killing period is right or wrong. We've fallen into a trap of projecting our reasoning, onto animals that don't reason the way we do (if you believe animals other than us are self aware and or reason. I think some are or very close, but that's another argument). But lets face it folks lions don't sit down with gazelles and work out some kind of contract on who or how many of the herd will get hunted and killed. They don't go just after the old. THey pick off the young of a herd also. Now where is the morality or ethics in that? There isnt any, it's the law of nature. Whaterver food is easiest to get, whatever you can get that gives you the most sustenance with the least expenditure of energy to get it. Enviornmental and evolutionary pressure regulate prey size and therefore regulate preditor size (population wise) not reasoning, not ethics, not morals. SO can we please stop projecting our emotions, our morals and our ethics onto other animals in this argument? It just doesn't support the argument for wether eating meat is good/bad, right/wrong.

yes we know that you have these ingenious ways of killing humanely and you hopefully want to do away with factory farming to remove both the suffering and the ecodamage. but if we didn't eat meat we wouldn't have these problems caused by the industries in the first place, right?
I hate to burst your bubble but WRONG.

Can we stop using "Factory Farming" just in reference to these huge slaughter houses. It needs to apply to the huge crops of wheat and corn I see also. These are aslo "Factory Farms" and can cause ecodamage as well. Eating meat and industry pollution are slightly connected issues in the fact that the industries connected with meat processing and raising meat pollute. But the garment industry pollutes. SO does the auto industry and the list can go on. That connection doesn't support your argument.

Be Happy!

Jan13-05, 09:07 PM

I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. I don't doubt that it exists in some places, but I'll repeat what I said before. That is the case with any industry... Decent farmers do not deserve to lose business because of the immoral actions of their competitors.

I am glad to hear that you have not witnessed animal cruelty on farms. I am sad to say that small farms are quickly becoming a thing of the past and these days factory farms are replacing the mom and pop farms. According to USDA figures, almost 11 Billion animals are raised for food in the US...and over 95%of those animals are on factory farms. To get a real vision of how animals are raised and slaughtered visit www.MeetYourMeat.com (but somehow i have a feeling that you are going to say that the video only shows a few instances and that on a mass scale that doesn't really happen-- i hope that you are not so naive!)

The horrific truth is that there is no time to raise and kill animals "humanely" so you do what is fastest...you maybe interested in an article about this on www.CNN.com : http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/11/chicken.cruelty.ap/index.html

of particular relevancy to you would be this:
The fired workers told Hardy County prosecutor Lucas See in August that they were expected to hang 28 to 33 live birds per minute and it was faster to toss some of them aside than to wring their necks the proper way.

BTW, I was most interested to read about derek1's accounts of going to a factory farm to investigate the treatment of animals and what he found was shocking! (see post #995)

If you have watched the video, read the article and done some more research on this, and still choose to live in a bubble and think that the animals you eat have not suffered tremendously, then I have no choice but to think that your arguments are selfishly motivated. I hope this is not the case, and hope that we can have a productive conversation about this very important issue.

Sincerely,
Sangeeta

Be Happy!

Jan13-05, 09:33 PM

One can go into many details, about bugs and microbes, but what I think that should be done is opening the book on livestock treatment. How are animals treated from being born to being slaughtered. I think the discussion should be opened and that farmers have to abide to welfare laws. I'm not an expert on the issue of animal culturing, it is a black box to me. What are the laws on livestock treatment, which agency inspects whether the laws are abided by and where do I find the information on how livestock is treated overall.

Hi Monique!

It's nice to see you in our discussion! :smile:

The Animal Welfare Act does exist in the US, but it's a joke and doesn't do much to protect animals...it was basically designed for animals in laboratories, but it doesn't even require that the animals be given pain killers (!!!) not to mention that it neglects to include rats, mice and birds under it's meager protection.

The Humane Slaughter Act exists, but again, it's is rarely enforced and it doesn't give any guidelines on how animals should be raised: http://www.peta.org/feat/usda/ Suffice it to say, food animals have extremely minimal to no protection under US laws. Interestingly enough, if you do the types of things which are done to animals raised for food to dogs and cats you could go to jail!

But there is hope! In over 30 US states, animal cruelty is a felony, slowly but surely people are getting prosecuted for mistreating animals other than those designated to be "pets."...Foie Gras is banned in CA and pig gestation crates were banned a few years ago in Florida!

For a more extensive look at the law and how it pertains to animals, please check out this link: http://www.cok.net/abol/16/04.php it is an interview with David Wolfson, Esq., who is the author of Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals Raised for Food or Food Production, co-author of the chapter “Foxes in the Hen House; Animals, Agribusiness and the Law, A Modern American Fable” in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, and Lecturer in Animal Law at Harvard Law School…of particular interest to people on this forum is this part of the interview:
Q. Can you give a brief overview of the ways in which abusive treatment of animals within agribusiness have been exempted from legal protection?

A. Sure. I like to think of a farmed animal’s life in three stages: on the farm, during transport and slaughter. There is no federal law governing the welfare of farmed animals on the farm, and the federal laws relating to transport and slaughter are very problematic; for example, the federal transport law has been determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) not to apply to trucks and the humane slaughter law does not apply to chickens (as a result of the USDA defining “livestock” to exclude chickens) and is very poorly enforced.

Given that the vast majority of an animal’s life is on the farm, the fact that there is no federal law governing this period is very troubling. It means that any protection must come from the states and here is where the real problem lies. State anti-cruelty laws fall into two categories: First, anti-cruelty laws that ostensibly apply to farmed animals but as a practical matter are not used to regulate common farming practices (such as the veal crate, battery cage and gestation crate) and which are highly problematic anyway (weak penalties, enforced by district attorneys who have no interest, limited access to animal production facilities, and so on), and second, anti-cruelty statutes that specifically exempt common farming practices. The majority of states fall into the second category—they have amended their anti-cruelty statutes to exempt common farming practices. This means that farmed animals in such states are literally beyond the law and any common practice, no matter how horrifying, is legal.

In Europe though, much of the practices that are employed in the US factory farming industry are banned...as physicsisphirst has posted, Europe is way ahead of the game!

Sincerely,
Sangeeta

sheepdog

Jan13-05, 10:00 PM

SO can we please stop projecting our emotions, our morals and our ethics onto other animals in this argument? It just doesn't support the argument for wether eating meat is good/bad, right/wrong.

Can we stop using "Factory Farming" just in reference to these huge slaughter houses. It needs to apply to the huge crops of wheat and corn I see also. These are aslo "Factory Farms" and can cause ecodamage as well. Eating meat and industry pollution are slightly connected issues in the fact that the industries connected with meat processing and raising meat pollute. But the garment industry pollutes. SO does the auto industry and the list can go on. That connection doesn't support your argument.Life is filled with magical conincidences. A friend just today sent to me this fragment of a poem by Robinson Jeffers, without having read any of this thread:[Nature] knows the people are a tide
That swells and in time will ebb, and all
Their works dissolve... As for us:
We must uncenter our minds from ourselves;
We must unhumanize our views a little, and become confident
As the rock and ocean that we were made from.You must see something of your words in these, FrancisM. I certainly see all of my heart within them. Do they "support the argument" or do they reveal the argument to be completely irrelevant and a painful distraction?

May you find the support you seek.

Francis M

Jan14-05, 11:26 AM

I see arguments against eating meat based on the idea that animals raised for food are treated poorly and the slaughter is painful.
I see arguments against eating meat based on the idea that slaughter houses pollute the enviornment.
I even see the typical consentration on red meat and poultry with no regard to fishing.

The original question was "should we eat meat. Yes or No". Question to the question, A) what kind of meat and B) yes or no based on what criteria?

Because it seems to me that if we could solve the problems in the first part of my post there would be no reason not to eat meat as well as veggies.

It seems that this question wether posed to intentionally or not as brought up the meatless = guiltless argument which never was nor ever will be true. WE, all of us, have to get away from that emotionally charged assosiation otherwise this post goes round and round and round and does nothing except create animosity (which I'd really like to see avoided).

Dissident Dan

Jan14-05, 07:20 PM

Francis,

I think that if you look at some of the previous posts made by myself, physicsisphirst, and Be Happy!, you'll see that most, if not all, of your points have already been addressed.

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

I see that people are wanting to separate the questions of eating meat and the treatment of farmed animals. If you want to boil the question down to the ethical characteristics of putting a certain classification of material into one's digestive system, regardless of the related conditions, you can, but what is the point? I don't think that anyone will ethically object to you eating road kill (although you might get "Gross!" as a reaction).

To make the question useful, it has to be grounded in reality. And to ground it in reality, you have to make the connection between eating the meat and what had to happen in order for you to eat it. That means the intense suffering of factory farming, transportation, and slaughter.

physicsisphirst

Jan14-05, 09:51 PM

I see arguments against eating meat based on the idea that animals raised for food are treated poorly and the slaughter is painful.
quite so.

I see arguments against eating meat based on the idea that slaughter houses pollute the enviornment.
no, slaughterhouses themselves don't really pollute the environment too much. the pollution occurs well before the animals are shipped there from factory farms.

I even see the typical consentration on red meat and poultry with no regard to fishing.
we can talk about fishing too, but let's finish up the meat stuff first since we are well into it.

Because it seems to me that if we could solve the problems in the first part of my post there would be no reason not to eat meat as well as veggies.
are you trying to argue that absolutely everything living has one of those right to life contracts and therefore nothing should kill it? this is similar to what russ presented way back in post #932:

if it is wrong for me to kill a cow, then it is wrong for a lion to kill a cow. Either the cow has a right to life or it doesn't.

(loseyourname tried 'defending' russ on this in post #962.)

are you applying their reasoning to vegetables?

It seems that this question wether posed to intentionally or not as brought up the meatless = guiltless argument which never was nor ever will be true.
why can it not be true that meatless = guiltless (at least with respect to the animals that are eaten)?
if you know that your eating meat is causing the suffering of animals (and destroying the environment, not to mention putting a terrible strain on healthcare), are you not somewhat guilty to continue? of course, if you don't know all this then the situation may be different, but the very least you could do is investigate the matter properly especially since some people in this thread have been very helpful in providing a starting point with links such as these:

http://www.hfa.org/campaigns/tribarticle.html
http://www.goveg.com/feat/agriprocessors/
http://www.EggCruelty.com
http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp
http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

WE, all of us, have to get away from that emotionally charged assosiation otherwise this post goes round and round and round and does nothing except create animosity (which I'd really like to see avoided).
francis, the only person who has gotten all emotional within the past 25 posts is this Francis M individual, but then this Francis M 2 individual showed up and apologized for the former's ranting so it's all cool again, i guess. everyone else seems to be doing just fine and i don't think there is any animosity. rather there have been some really excellent posts along the way including part of your post #1170 where you make the rather good observation:

If so then wether eating meat is right or wrong shouldn't be the question but should be is eating meat of animals treated badly right or wrong.

(mind you your continuation about "factory farming" really doesn't make much sense, but we can discuss the ramifications of a pig or chicken factory farm vs a wheat or a corn factory farm later if you wish to.)

also, please understand that while some people are simply arguing on a forum for the sake of trying to construct clever responses, there are others who, because they work investigatively in the field, are aware of the atrocities that animals routinely endure. to them, it is a matter of great moral importance (as sheepdog has eloquently expressed in several posts) and not merely a trivial argument conjured up in pixelspace.

a belated welcome to the thread, btw!

physicsisphirst

Jan14-05, 10:05 PM

sheepdog

Jan15-05, 12:58 AM

To make the question useful, it has to be grounded in reality. And to ground it in reality, you have to make the connection between eating the meat and what had to happen in order for you to eat it. That means the intense suffering of factory farming, transportation, and slaughter.Yes, that's true. Reality is the reference, all of it, as you say. And I understand the focus on the horrendous, outrageous conditions in factory farming which must be stopped.

But I would like to raise another warning: be careful what you wish for. Yes, the Europeans are doing better than we in ending factory farming. But this may also have the unfortunate side effect of making meat eating even more acceptable.

Suppose that instead of the current factory farms and "free-range" farms, they were replaced with plants in which the animals at the moment of birth were decerebrated and then raised on life support systems without neurological function above the brainstem. This isn't entirely preposterous. It could be very economical to produce meat in this way. Certainly there would no longer be any suffering because there would be no brain function to suffer. Suppose also that the production is perfectly clean, without pollution. Would this meat be acceptable to eat since there was no suffering?

And further suppose that these practices became so widespread that they replaced all other food animal practices. And suppose that all animals were systematically eliminated, in a humane way, from the planet, because they were deemed "unnecessary" and a source of contention with animal rights people. Would this be acceptable since there was now no suffering, since no animals?

My point is that it isn't enough to say that we must reduce suffering, although it is true that we must do that. But if we reduce suffering by eliminating all that may suffer then we have made a mistake as severe as is indifference to the suffering. Clearly we must act against suffering and at the same time we must preserve the potential to suffer. You see?

One insidious method of eliminating suffering is by changing the nature of the animal so that it no longer experiences life in its original way. Its ability to suffer as it did is removed from its character. Animals are bred and domesticated to tolerate confinement and utilitarianism. Even if kept in conditions in which they do not suffer when so bred the meat they provide comes at too high a price in another vital sense.

If you only argue that suffering must be decreased it is easy for the stupid to think that if the sufferer is eliminated then you will be satisfied. Do not allow them that impression. It should be clearly understood that addressing suffering is necessary but far from sufficient by itself. This is true for environmental considerations as well. And for health considerations, and so on. For each criteria the potential is unlimited for humans to devise clever artificial fixes for each one individually. Every clever artificial solution continues on the path that has lead to factory farms and can only lead to more of the same. We do not fix mistakes by repeating them.

Vegetarianism is a manifest rejection of all such clever artificial solutions. It is a determined end to otherwise endless repetition of our prior mistakes. This is why we will always frustrate those who seek the "what if we do this ..." solutions. They would have us continue the status quo with minor adjustments. The vegetarian seeks the end of the status quo. It is a revolution.

JonahHex

Jan15-05, 11:34 AM

Yup, an evangelical revolution. To summarize: "I'm right. You're wrong. I'm going to enforce my righteousness upon you by making you suffer financially (fines) and and physically (imprisonment). If you resist my righteousness, I will send people with guns. You will soon see the light and understand that it is wrong for anyone, or anything, except you, to suffer."

sheepdog

Jan15-05, 12:17 PM

JonahHex

Jan15-05, 02:24 PM

LMFAO :rofl:

Yep, you're right, I'm wrong.

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean you're not out to get me. :smile:

"Should we eat meat?" Who's "we?" Do you have a rat in your pocket?

Should I eat meat? Yes. Should you eat meat? Who cares? Eat whatever you want. In the meantime, keep your rat in your pocket along with your revolution.

Dissident Dan

Jan15-05, 03:33 PM

Jonah,

I wonder what you hope to accomplish by posting in this thread. You do not seem interested in honest debate about the subject. It appears that you just came to satisfy the egotistic urge to to dismiss the thread without even reading through it, guided by your prejudices.

Loren Booda

Jan15-05, 03:49 PM

sheepdog

Jan15-05, 04:21 PM

What if we were able to synthesize exactly dead animals from vegetable protein, lipids and minerals, just as we would have the ability to create animal life from scratch? Is taking of life the sin, or is it disrespecting the dead?Even better, what if we were able to synthesis dead people from vegetable protein, lipids and minerals? Is it meat for the eating?

Yes, we have the potential for creating a future as bizarre as can be imagined, leaving Nature as we know it, and certainly as ourforebearers knew it, a distant memory never to be seen again. But is it the future in which you would want to live?

Vegetarianism is not just about not eating meat. It is about respecting Nature in every way.

Monique

Jan15-05, 06:06 PM

"Should we eat meat?" Who's "we?" Do you have a rat in your pocket?

Should I eat meat? Yes. Should you eat meat? Who cares? Eat whatever you want. In the meantime, keep your rat in your pocket along with your revolution. How would you answer the question "Should we recycle plastic bottles" It's a question that relates to everybody and ultimately comes back to you.

Dissident Dan

Jan15-05, 08:27 PM

Vegetarianism is not just about not eating meat. It is about respecting Nature in every way.

Well, I would disagree with you on that.

What if we were able to synthesize exactly dead animals from vegetable protein, lipids and minerals, just as we would have the ability to create animal life from scratch? Is taking of life the sin, or is it disrespecting the dead?

Well, one could still consider the healthiness of consuming the "animals" an ethical issue, as well as the probable resource inefficiency, but other than that, I wouldn't care.

My whole ethical outlook revolves around maximizing pleasure and minimizing displeasure, for all those who can experience. There would never be any conscious creature in the first place in the given scenario, so it wouldn't even be an issue. As I already stated, feel free to have some roadkill (as long as the desire to eat him/her didn't lead to his/her death!).

I didn't realize that many people actually thought that this might be an issue of contention.

BoulderHead

Jan15-05, 09:59 PM

I didn't realize that many people actually thought that this might be an issue of contention.
Me neither, I mean all you have to do is cut away the bruised part and road kill is just as tasty as anything from the slaughterhouse.

sheepdog

Jan15-05, 10:32 PM

My whole ethical outlook revolves around maximizing pleasure and minimizing displeasure, for all those who can experience.Where did this come from? How did you arrive at this point? I'm new to the thread so maybe I missed some posts where you described your journey from a person without a position to one with this position?

I ask, DD, because it just looks like something you decided was right. And we have seen that anybody can decide anything they like is right or wrong. I admit that I have espoused a similar position in the past. Though it has merits it simply isn't complete by itself.

The principle difficulty I have with this position is that it assumes that we know what suffering is. And so, from this position, it is possible to hold that it is not right to destroy or injure something that you know experiences and therefore can suffer, but it is alright to injure or destroy something that you do not know can experience and therefore suffer. So it divides everything into 2 separate camps that can be treated very differently.

But there are no camps. I cannot injure or destroy anything, whether sentient or not, without effecting something else, sooner or later. Further I cannot have perfect knowledge of what suffers and what does not. So I see that any injury or destruction, even if only to non-sentients, is transmitted widely and must ultimately negatively impact sentients.

Hence the only complete policy is to respect all of Nature. Though I will admit it may be debatable, eating synthetic human flesh does not pass muster in my book because it is an injury to us, destructive of our place in the world, just as eating synthetic animals or synthetic anything is, to one extent or another.

Let's consider another scenario. Suppose that neurosciences progressed so that scientists learned that through genetic engineering they could breed sheep that had their pain/pleasure centers reversed. Conditions that previously caused sheep to suffer would now cause them exquisite pleasure. There is no theoretical obstacle to such a re-engineering of the nervous system of sheep. Would you now also reverse your position and insist that lambs be raised in factory farms? Would this be an acceptable solution to you?

We have the power to created as twisted a caricature of Nature as we please to satisfy any arbitrary position we may choose. That is exactly the danger we face by taking such arbitrary positions in my view.

physicsisphirst

Jan16-05, 01:39 PM

Suppose that instead of the current factory farms and "free-range" farms, they were replaced with plants in which the animals at the moment of birth were decerebrated and then raised on life support systems without neurological function above the brainstem.
...
Let's consider another scenario. Suppose that neurosciences progressed so that scientists learned that through genetic engineering they could breed sheep that had their pain/pleasure centers reversed.
these are indeed fascinating ideas you present. (strangely enough there are some people who will actually like to argue that the animals want to be tortured and slaughtered, but that's just another of those exceptional bizarrities.) your thoughts here go to the heart of bioethics - what does manipulation of our environment do to us as humans?

Vegetarianism is a manifest rejection of all such clever artificial solutions. It is a determined end to otherwise endless repetition of our prior mistakes. This is why we will always frustrate those who seek the "what if we do this ..." solutions. They would have us continue the status quo with minor adjustments. The vegetarian seeks the end of the status quo. It is a revolution.
this is beautifully put! what is sought isn't a 'fix' (even though that may be of benefit initially) - but 'right' action (oh oh - i can hear the endless burblings in the background to the tune of "what is right?" LOL). one can 'fix' the problem of child labour, by making it legal - but it may not be the best way for us to develop as a species.

Clearly we must act against suffering and at the same time we must preserve the potential to suffer. You see?
absolutely!! it is the existence of potential for suffering and the refusal to participate in the infliction of that suffering which is that wonderful paradigm shift you keep speaking of. it is that benefit that we are always at liberty to do for ourselves and our species.

as the buddha said,

O men! you can take life easily but, remember, none of you can give life! So, have mercy, have compassion! And, never forget, that compassion makes the world noble and beautiful.

karuna ...

sheepdog

Jan16-05, 01:48 PM

this is beautifully put! what is sought isn't a 'fix' (even though that may be of benefit initially) - but 'right' action Thank you very much for understanding so clearly exactly what I was trying to say.

susanest

Jan16-05, 01:54 PM

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on earth stopped eating meat.

How do you imagine that disruption of the food chain would be a bad thing? Isn't the "food chain" just a way of describing what we see as our current situation?

Personally, I think there is much room for improvement... and eating meat appears to be a terribly bad habit in so many ways. I recommend you read The Food Revolution by John Robbins.

John Robbins, who was an heir to the Baskins-Robbins fortune but rejected all that, points out that our "knowledge" of such matters is primarily what the meat and dairy industries have been promoting through their multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns and their close personal relationship with our "government".

The eating of animal products is associated with heart disease, cancers and other deadly health problems. Also it's an extremely inefficient way of feeding the population. We are feeding cows, for example, with resources that could be helping to alleviate malnutrition suffered by millions of humans on this planet.

learningphysics

Jan16-05, 08:24 PM

Where did this come from? How did you arrive at this point? I'm new to the thread so maybe I missed some posts where you described your journey from a person without a position to one with this position?

I ask, DD, because it just looks like something you decided was right. And we have seen that anybody can decide anything they like is right or wrong. I admit that I have espoused a similar position in the past. Though it has merits it simply isn't complete by itself.

The principle difficulty I have with this position is that it assumes that we know what suffering is. And so, from this position, it is possible to hold that it is not right to destroy or injure something that you know experiences and therefore can suffer, but it is alright to injure or destroy something that you do not know can experience and therefore suffer. So it divides everything into 2 separate camps that can be treated very differently.

But there are no camps. I cannot injure or destroy anything, whether sentient or not, without effecting something else, sooner or later. Further I cannot have perfect knowledge of what suffers and what does not. So I see that any injury or destruction, even if only to non-sentients, is transmitted widely and must ultimately negatively impact sentients.

Hence the only complete policy is to respect all of Nature. Though I will admit it may be debatable, eating synthetic human flesh does not pass muster in my book because it is an injury to us, destructive of our place in the world, just as eating synthetic animals or synthetic anything is, to one extent or another.

How exactly is it destructive to eat synthetic dead beings?

Let's consider another scenario. Suppose that neurosciences progressed so that scientists learned that through genetic engineering they could breed sheep that had their pain/pleasure centers reversed. Conditions that previously caused sheep to suffer would now cause them exquisite pleasure. There is no theoretical obstacle to such a re-engineering of the nervous system of sheep. Would you now also reverse your position and insist that lambs be raised in factory farms? Would this be an acceptable solution to you?

We have the power to created as twisted a caricature of Nature as we please to satisfy any arbitrary position we may choose. That is exactly the danger we face by taking such arbitrary positions in my view.

How is it an arbitrary position? The goodness of pleasure, and the badness of pain seems to me the most basic intuition.

I might be misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you saying that the way things are done in nature (among non-humans), is the best way, and the way that minimizes pain and maximizes pleasure?

loseyourname

Jan17-05, 07:32 AM

so my point still remains that you don't need any fancy ethical theories here - just a simple understanding that you will not kill unless you have a need to.

I need a system if I'm to claim that what I'm doing is the right thing to do.

the benefit to you presumably is that you consider killing without sufficient reason to be cruel or immoral or something like that and by not killing unnecessarily you benefit yourself by not being cruel or immoral or something like that. are we in agreement with this?

No, we are not. I don't not kill because it is of benefit for me not to kill. I simply don't do anything, at all, unless there is a good reason to do it. Okay, maybe I'll make weird facial jestures or break into song, but that's about it. This isn't about being cruel or immoral, which I thought I specified by saying that I don't even kill non-sentient beings unless I have a good reason to do so.

However, I'd like to state that you are pretty obviously trying to make this about me and what I do. That is not what is being argued here. The question is "Should we eat meat?" Not "Does Adam eat meat?" Why don't we put aside the posters personal actions and stick to what should be done and why it should be done.

if you want to consider what i have just written an ethical system, go ahead. if you don't, it doesn't matter to me, because i think you have stated your criteria fairly clearly - you will not kill unless you have a sufficient reason to (like those bugs destroying your garden or those people attacking you etc). once again, is this sufficient for us to agree on, without insisting on some formal and complex ethical system?

No, it isn't. This is sufficient for explaining my personal actions in most cases, but that's about it. It has nothing to do with the morality of the actions. I pretty explicitly stated my criteria for when I will consider killing to be wrong and when I will consider it to not be wrong in an earlier post.

i think to some extent you do. you are willing to kill bugs that destroy your garden. i think you are killing those bugs not so much for the benefit of your garden (and its "right to life"), but because you want to keep your garden.

Again, you are confusing my personal actions with what should be done. A lot of times my actions are in accordance with my personal system of ethics. Sometimes they aren't. But this is what you get when you make this a personal issue of how I do or don't behave, which is not what this should be about.

Ridding my garden of pests is not an ethical matter to me; it's a pragmatic matter. The action is amoral - it has no moral worth of any kind, either good or bad.

yes we know that you have these ingenious ways of killing humanely and you hopefully want to do away with factory farming to remove both the suffering and the ecodamage. but if we didn't eat meat we wouldn't have these problems caused by the industries in the first place, right?

Have I ever disputed this? You've presented one solution to a limited problem. You have not presented the only solution, nor have you presented your reasons this should be done, ethically speaking. Perhaps you think you have presented the best solution. Why is that?

well i don't really see why you think i'm not accepting these alternate solutions. if you want to eat meat, do as suggested by that guy in my earlier post. wait till the animal dies, then eat. make sure that there are only a few animals on small farms and you'll do the ecosystem a favor too.

At what point do you suggest we stop the ecosystem destruction? How much must we give up? Building a city disrupts an ecosystem more than any farm. Should we abandon our cities as well?

I don't ask this in jest, either. I think this is a serious question that is not being addressed by anyone in here. It seems to be implicit that vegetarianism is necessary because of the ecological benefits, but if things are necessary simply because they are of ecological benefit, should we not then do all things that fit this criterion? This would include not only giving up meat, but also giving up telecommunication, mass transit, synthetic fibers. Furthermore, it really says nothing about the eating of meat. It only speaks to factory farming that is harmful to the environment. Humans ate meat for thousands of years without doing any harm to the environment. Do you think this was the wrong thing to do? If so, then harm to the environment must not be your reason.

There is a tradeoff between conservation and human industry, necessarily. At what point is ecological integrity preserved? If I eat only one steak per week? Per month? If I eat only fish? If I investigate the operational habits of every seller that I buy from to be certain that they are doing all they can to conserve?

do you arrive at this conclusion through a process of elimination or wishful thinking?

I pretty explicitly stated the process by which I arrived at my conclusion. I do this with all of my conclusions as a matter of courtesy in posts to the philosophy forums. That is how a proper philosophical discussion is carried out.

well you haven't exactly solved the problem, you have only suggested some solutions along the lines of the killing (you really haven't dealt with the eco-issue, at least not in these recent exchanges). i have also offered a solution by which both the eco-problem and the suffering will be terminated. are your arguments against my solution essentially:
1) there are other solutions
2) there is a secret agenda to stop all killing

Did I ever say I solved the problem? Again, this is not about me and what I have or have not done. This is about what is the right thing to do and why it is the right thing to do. Perhaps in context in which I live, giving up all or at least most meat would be the right thing for me to do. But is this what you are arguing? Or are you arguing that the eating of any meat is always wrong in any context? You seem to waver back and forth from one position to the other.

i don't think you understand that we are not talking about charlotte's web here. we are talking about factory farms. if you would actually research some of this rather than spin 'logical arguments', you would see that your not having 'seen any mistreatment' is hardly something to base an opinion on.

the problem we have here is that you won't look, therefore you can avoid the reality.

I think you don't understand that this doesn't matter to this discussion. All of these links might provide perfectly fine reasons why I shouldn't be eating meat from these sources. It isn't a reason to say that eating meat itself is wrong, or even that eating meat that has been killed by humans is wrong. For all you know, I still live on a farm and only eat meat that my own family raised.

yes, yes that's fine. however, this at least answers the question i was asking - you at least grant them the "their right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly". now, exactly on what basis do you feel that animals have a "right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly".

Pretty much the same basis as Dan. When I suffer, it feels awfully bad to me and so I extrapolate to the conclusion that suffering in general is a bad thing and is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary (for instance, in military training or childbirth). On that basis, I will grant the right of all sentient beings to not suffer unless absolutely necessary. Of course, there is some question as to which organisms are sentient and which are not. The minimum qualifications are probably at least the structural portions of the brain identified with pain perception in humans. This qualification is met by all mammals and birds and most reptiles.

russ_watters

Jan17-05, 02:41 PM

(strangely enough there are some people who will actually like to argue that the animals want to be tortured and slaughtered, but that's just another of those exceptional bizarrities.) I must admit to not having read every post in this thread, but I can't recall ever hearing anyone say any such thing. It seems rather absurd, in fact. Do you know offhand of a post you can cite? what is sought isn't a 'fix' (even though that may be of benefit initially) - but 'right' action (oh oh - i can hear the endless burblings in the background to the tune of "what is right?" LOL). Well, it is quite strange to hear someone who has argued against the very concept of morality argue that something can be "right." Vegetarianism is not just about not eating meat. It is about respecting Nature in every way. This is something I've long suspected, but now I know (yes, DD, I realize not every veggie shares this position). I can feel the hairs rising up on the back of my neck.How is it an arbitrary position? The goodness of pleasure, and the badness of pain seems to me the most basic intuition. Sure, but is it as simple as that? Ie, more pain is automatically bad, more pleasure automatically good? A strict mathematical relationship? Certainly, you can see the potential complications that things like love and drugs can add to the question of pleasure vs pain, right? Heck, a large fraction of all art is based on the difficulty in reconciling the two.

Not to rehash this piece of the discussion unless necessary, but it is my opinion (DD mentioned his) that humans' (relatively) uniqe ability to understand the conflict between pleasure and pain is one of the main reasons we have the right to life and other species don't.

sheepdog

Jan17-05, 09:38 PM

How exactly is it destructive to eat synthetic dead beings?An excellent question! Without meaning to be flippant at all, my answer is, "It is destructive in the same way anything that is destructive is destructive." That is, there is only one kind of destructive. It isn't that this is destructive this way and that is destructive that way.

It's much easier to answer this question if one focuses on the contrary, "What can I be absolutely certain is not destructive?" If you answer that question then what is destructive becomes obvious.How is it an arbitrary position? The goodness of pleasure, and the badness of pain seems to me the most basic intuition. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying. Are you saying that the way things are done in nature (among non-humans), is the best way, and the way that minimizes pain and maximizes pleasure?I hear ya' and I'm very sympathetic to what you are saying. But I would ask you again, if scientists reversed the pain/pleasure centers of sheep, would you be then as vehement about putting lambs into factory farms as you are now about getting them out? I think if you consider seriously how you would feel about that situation you will see my point, which is that there isn't a single quality or character that can be used to define all problems and all solutions. The problems are problems of the whole and must be considered in their complete contexts.

You ask if I think the way things are done in Nature are the best way? But we are as much a part of Nature as are non-humans. So I cannot say we should do as the non-humans. We are humans. What we do we must do as humans.

But what should humans do? Do we just choose whatever we want? With reasons or without, it doesn't matter. If you choose to do something without reason, you choose -- it is your choice. If you choose to do something with reason, you choose the reason -- it is still your choice. Acting this way one may do anything. Is doing anything what humans should do? Whatever you please, with or without reason, without limit, anything goes, have at it?

That is one alternative. That we may have anything we want -- anything. But there is another alternative. That alternative takes into account that there is an order to the world and seeks to respond to that order. In this alternative you may not choose. The choices are made for you.

learningphysics

Jan17-05, 10:48 PM

But I would ask you again, if scientists reversed the pain/pleasure centers of sheep, would you be then as vehement about putting lambs into factory farms as you are now about getting them out? I think if you consider seriously how you would feel about that situation you will see my point, which is that there isn't a single quality or character that can be used to define all problems and all solutions. The problems are problems of the whole and must be considered in their complete contexts.

If they did reverse pain pleasure centers (and let's say generally, happiness suffering centers) then I'd have no problem with factory farms. However, if scientists were able to perform such a feat, then I believe the ethical thing might be to eliminate pain centers altogether.

Yes, I agree problems of the whole need to be considered... but exactly is a problem? When is something a problem? It seems to me only when something/someone is hurt (in some way... long term short term...)

I believe pain/pleasure, happiness/suffering and perhaps life/death (not sure about these two), are the only things of inherent value or disvalue.

Can you describe this order you mentioned that humans can respond to?

A more basic question. When is something good, and when is something bad?

Seafang

Jan18-05, 12:49 PM

Well this thread has strayed well from the original "should we eat meat?".
Some see it as a moral issue which it isn't. Others see it as a question of anatomical structure, which it isn't.
Some see it as a health issue; that evil meat rots in your digestive system. Just what do you suppose the digestive process is, if it isn't to cause the degeneration of the material into its basic compounds from which the required energy and nutrition can be absorbed.

If YOUR gut is filled with dangerous organisms that will make you sick, that is a separate problem in itself. Mine isn't, so I don't have to worry about my food poisoning me. There's a whole industry built around the silly notion that our insides are filthy. They aren't; they are a thriving community of symbiotic organisms that all co-operate in the total system of our survival and their own.

Eating meat (of herbivores) gives us access to the energy and materials of plants which we can't digest and they can. But we typically don't eat predators except for the fishy kind.

For me eating beans is a no-no because it gives me gas; mostly methane, so I already know it is an inefficient food for me because that is a waste of chemical energy.

Non-survival is about as immoral as it can get; particularly when the means of survival exist all around us to be used. If some of it is meat so be it.

If we stopped eating meat, it would not be good for the animals. Most of the large animals on earth would become extinct; because they only exist because we eat them and raise them for food.

I grew up in a country that has 20 domestic farm animals for every single man woman and child in the country; the most of any place on earth, and it is also one of the healthiest countries on earth; people don't die from rotting flesh in their gut.

Dooga Blackrazor

Jan18-05, 03:08 PM

I saw something on being pro-choice. You can be pro-choice and still justifiably vegetarian. A fetus hasn't been integrated into society and is not in a position to contribute to society; what is not part of society has no value to society. Furthermore, pro-choice isn't necessarily the support of abortion, since some people are pro-choice out of respect for the women's rights over those of an unborn child.

Dissident Dan

Jan18-05, 05:45 PM

Well this thread has strayed well from the original "should we eat meat?".
Some see it as a moral issue which it isn't. Others see it as a question of anatomical structure, which it isn't.
Some see it as a health issue; that evil meat rots in your digestive system. Just what do you suppose the digestive process is, if it isn't to cause the degeneration of the material into its basic compounds from which the required energy and nutrition can be absorbed.

There are plenty of studies which show a correlation between meat consumption and colorectal cancer. Study after study has shown vegetarians to have better circulatory systems and less cancer.

Eating meat (of herbivores) gives us access to the energy and materials of plants which we can't digest and they can. But we typically don't eat predators except for the fishy kind.

For me eating beans is a no-no because it gives me gas; mostly methane, so I already know it is an inefficient food for me because that is a waste of chemical energy.

Non-survival is about as immoral as it can get; particularly when the means of survival exist all around us to be used. If some of it is meat so be it.

Non-survival? From a societal survival point-of-view (as well as from a personal survival point-of-view), eating meat is ridiculous because it is ridiculously inefficient. You speak of the animals giving access to energy and materials we can't digest. The fact is that we grow plants to feed to animals. This is terribly inefficient. We could just use all those resources to grow plants to directly feed ourselves.

If we stopped eating meat, it would not be good for the animals. Most of the large animals on earth would become extinct; because they only exist because we eat them and raise them for food.

I doubt that they would become extinct, as some people would still keep a few of them. Even if they do, why would that be a bad thing? Why would they need to be kept around? To suffer?

loseyourname

Jan18-05, 08:23 PM

There are plenty of studies which show a correlation between meat consumption and colorectal cancer. Study after study has shown vegetarians to have better circulatory systems and less cancer.

There are reasons for that have nothing to do with meat itself. The correlation with colon cancer has a lot to do with the quality of the meat, such as hormones that have been added to it and such. The negative correlation with the vegetarian diet has a lot to do with antioxidants in the vegetables being eaten, as well as with dietary supplementation. Vegetarians in general are more careful about their diet because, if they aren't, there can be serious consequences from eating a strictly vegetarian diet. This same positive effect can simply be achieved by eating more vegetables and better supplements while still eating meat.

Non-survival? From a societal survival point-of-view (as well as from a personal survival point-of-view), eating meat is ridiculous because it is ridiculously inefficient. You speak of the animals giving access to energy and materials we can't digest. The fact is that we grow plants to feed to animals. This is terribly inefficient. We could just use all those resources to grow plants to directly feed ourselves.

Eating meat isn't necessarily an inefficient use of energy. Many of the forms of meat farming used are, but the act of eating meat itself needn't be. For instance, eating beef that is corn-fed, although it is generally of higher quality, is wasteful because of more corn needs to be grown to support the cattle than would be needed to feed the people eating the cattle. However, if we just eat cattle that grazes on natural pastures, there is no real inefficiency as the cattle are in effect a natural resource themselves, plus not a lot of effort is needed to maintain a pasture. The same thing goes with eating fish. If the fish are farm-raised, we have an inefficiency. If, however, we simply eat fish that have been caught at sea (and don't overdo it), we really aren't harming anything.

Still, this is the one argument for vegetarianism I am actually sympathetic to. I do make an effort to eat mostly seafood that is caught at sea for this very reason. That and the evidence for experiential capacity in most fishes is scant.

physicsisphirst

Jan18-05, 10:36 PM

However, I'd like to state that you are pretty obviously trying to make this about me and what I do.
not really. i only asked questions along those lines because you made some statements about what you yourself do and don't do (eg not kill bugs). presumably, your reasons for the way you act have something to do with whatever ethical theories you subscribe to. that was all i was interested in.

Why don't we put aside the posters personal actions and stick to what should be done and why it should be done.
let's be clear on this concern of yours - i am not interested in your personal actions, only the reasons for them.

No, it isn't. This is sufficient for explaining my personal actions in most cases, but that's about it. It has nothing to do with the morality of the actions.
ok now i don't understand. you are executing personal actions, but are saying these actions have nothing to do with the morality of the actions. does this mean that you execute actions regardless of whether you consider (by whatever ethical system) them to be moral? i would think that generally people try to act morally - or at least, try to provide a really good reason if they feel they are not acting morally.

I pretty explicitly stated my criteria for when I will consider killing to be wrong and when I will consider it to not be wrong in an earlier post.
i believe you said that you wouldn't kill unless there was a good reason to eg you were threatened or you wanted to eat a living creature. is this not correct?

Again, you are confusing my personal actions with what should be done. A lot of times my actions are in accordance with my personal system of ethics. Sometimes they aren't. But this is what you get when you make this a personal issue of how I do or don't behave, which is not what this should be about.
again, all i'm interested in knowing is whether you provide a moral basis for your actions (i am not really interested in what those actions are). however, i don't think this is a trivial point. generally, i think that people do act 'morally' according to some standard they set - even if they change their conception of what is moral for a particular situation.

Have I ever disputed this? You've presented one solution to a limited problem. You have not presented the only solution, nor have you presented your reasons this should be done, ethically speaking. Perhaps you think you have presented the best solution. Why is that?
i suppose you haven't directly disputed that elimination of meat consumption would also eliminate animal suffering and ecodestruction caused by meat eating because it can't be done since the former (meat consumption) causes the latter (animal suffering and ecodestruction caused by meat eating). however, you don't seem too keen on the idea:

1) regarding the animal suffering, you don't seem to think that the animals suffer in the first place because you feel that because you have lived on farms and haven't seen mistreatment, it is really a bit of a non-issue: I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. post #1141

2) regarding the ecodestruction, you seemed to think the ecodamage through meat farming is on par with vegetable farming as though if you stopped the first, the second would be just as problematic:
There is nothing intrinsic in the act of farming meat products that demands that it be more harmful to the environment than vegetable farming. post #992

At what point do you suggest we stop the ecosystem destruction? How much must we give up? Building a city disrupts an ecosystem more than any farm. Should we abandon our cities as well?
don't you think some form of population control is a good idea? besides, doesn't it make sense to eliminate what we know causes harm to whatever extent is reasonable? your justification for continuing on the way it is seems to be based on:

1) animals don't really suffer because of the meat industry
2) the vegetable industry will do just as much damage as the meat industry
3) since i can't stop building cities, there's no point in stopping ecodestruction due to the meat industry

Furthermore, it really says nothing about the eating of meat. It only speaks to factory farming that is harmful to the environment. Humans ate meat for thousands of years without doing any harm to the environment.
this is very true. now if you could get us back to eating meat the way our ancestors used to, then we wouldn't need to discuss the ecofactor anymore would we? however, since you are not taking any steps to do this (in fact, you have said that you cannot even find out whether the meat you buy is from an 'ethical' source because you can't track everything down), and no doubt feel that the effort is futile anyway, it is reasonable to assume that we will not go back to eating meat the way you say our ancestors used to. hence, we do have a very legimate issue to deal with regarding the ecodamage caused by meat consumption.

There is a tradeoff between conservation and human industry, necessarily. At what point is ecological integrity preserved? ... If I investigate the operational habits of every seller that I buy from to be certain that they are doing all they can to conserve?
well don't you think this is a good idea? if people said we will not buy from you unless you get your goods in an ethical and ecofriendly fashion, don't you think this will help the situation? i think people have been doing this for over 3 decades.

Did I ever say I solved the problem?
you most certainly haven't, but neither have you given much credence to the solution presented.

Perhaps in context in which I live, giving up all or at least most meat would be the right thing for me to do. But is this what you are arguing? Or are you arguing that the eating of any meat is always wrong in any context? You seem to waver back and forth from one position to the other.
i don't know why you are saying this. i have already suggested that
amelioration of animal suffering is certainly foremost in the minds of some vegetarians (usually the 'ethicals'). some (such as the leader of the hare krishna movement) even suggested that meaters let the animals die a natural death and then eat them. however, you can see why this (and your scavenging solution) really wouldn't do for nutritional and environmental veggies. post #1129

however, if we stopped eating meat you wouldn't have to be worried about the immense animal suffering that is a direct result of the meat industry.

I think you don't understand that this doesn't matter to this discussion. All of these links might provide perfectly fine reasons why I shouldn't be eating meat from these sources. It isn't a reason to say that eating meat itself is wrong, or even that eating meat that has been killed by humans is wrong. For all you know, I still live on a farm and only eat meat that my own family raised.
yes, but loseyourname, this isn't about you (as you are quick to point out). it is about what does happen out there - away from your farm. if you want to argue that the act of eating meat isn't morally wrong, this thread doesn't really need to exist. however, the reality is that because people eat meat the way they do it causes horrific animal suffering. to simply deny or trivialize this matter is missing the ethical issue completely.

Pretty much the same basis as Dan. When I suffer, it feels awfully bad to me and so I extrapolate to the conclusion that suffering in general is a bad thing and is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary (for instance, in military training or childbirth). On that basis, I will grant the right of all sentient beings to not suffer unless absolutely necessary. Of course, there is some question as to which organisms are sentient and which are not. The minimum qualifications are probably at least the structural portions of the brain identified with pain perception in humans. This qualification is met by all mammals and birds and most reptiles.
ok now we finally have something we can agree on, i hope. by virtue of our ability to extrapolate (some would call it empathize), we can conclude that suffering is a bad thing and that all sentient beings have, in your own words from post #1141, the

right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly

this, of course, overwrites your statement in post #1012 which ran to the tune of Animals do not have rights.

now i am in agreement with you on your statement that animals have the right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly and since you made the statement and have even provided a rationale for it (the extrapolation bit), can we conclude that this is a good idea or possibly even an ethical idea?

sheepdog

Jan18-05, 10:52 PM

If they did reverse pain pleasure centers (and let's say generally, happiness suffering centers) then I'd have no problem with factory farms. However, if scientists were able to perform such a feat, then I believe the ethical thing might be to eliminate pain centers altogether.Well, OK, if we need to go down this road. Suppose sheep were bred with pain/pleasure reversed. Obviously the pain centers could not be eliminated because pleasure is only experienced in contrast to pain. They necessarily go together. So now we have sheep that are only happy when raised in painful factory farms. So you switch positions and advocate that they be kept in these factory farms and taken off of the open pastures. Furthermore, I assume you would begin to eat lamb, and perhaps a lot of lamb, because obviously, if there isn't a market for these animals then they won't get raised in factory farms and that would limit the quantity of pleasure. So you would begin eating lamb and advocating the consumption of lamb in order to increase the overall amount of pleasure. And since there would not be another food of this kind, a food that produced more pleasure the more it was eaten, you would therefore advocate that people eat nothing except lamb or as close as a healthy diet would allow, in order to further maximize pleasure.

OK, fine. Now we are eating lambs, lots and lots of lambs. But progress continues and pretty soon the scientists have noticed that there is a big bush meat trade in Africa, much of it going to Europe. The problem is it's hard to hunt wild apes and they don't provide much meat. So they use genetic engineering to create a man-chimpanzee chimera. It's more managable than a chimpanzee, easily bred and produces as much or more meat. But you get wind and start complaining that this is cruel, so they do the same thing they did to the sheep. Now the man-chimps only get pleasure from their cruel treatment. I assume you would now become as whole-heartedly enthusiastic about eating this meat?

I don't think we need to follow this story any farther, do you? What you are telling us is that the scientists can cause you to eat whatever they like by giving you what you want. What you want is to maximize pleasure. Well, no problem, the scientists are more than happy to accommodate. Just be sure to eat it up.Yes, I agree problems of the whole need to be considered... but exactly is a problem? When is something a problem? It seems to me only when something/someone is hurt (in some way... long term short term...) I believe pain/pleasure, happiness/suffering and perhaps life/death (not sure about these two), are the only things of inherent value or disvalue. I agree with what I think you are saying here. But I'm not seeing anything that leads me to believe that you can think beyond what the scientists feed you, so to speak. So far so long as the scientists fix all the pain/pleasure factors to your satisfaction your good.Can you describe this order you mentioned that humans can respond to?Say what is any moment of your life. The sun rises and sets, the tides ebb and flow. The only disorder there is is imagined. A more basic question. When is something good, and when is something bad?No, the question is, "What are you absolutely certain, without any shadow of a doubt, unshakably positive, that it is NOT in any sense destructive (not bad)?" Then everything else IS destructive (bad). It's not a when, it's a what. What thing is absolutely NOT destructive. Name one thing, just one, that you know for sure. Come on. It's not that hard.

physicsisphirst

Jan19-05, 12:32 AM

I must admit to not having read every post in this thread, but I can't recall ever hearing anyone say any such thing. It seems rather absurd, in fact. Do you know offhand of a post you can cite?
it is absurd and i certainly haven't seen anything that bizarre here, but i have come across it more than once in the past. one such instance during the 90s (i think) was in a book called "Living as if the God in All Life Mattered" by a meater gone veg gone meater. she said things like the animals gladly sacrifice themselves for the sake of humans. i got the book because the title intrigued me, but most of the content proved to be rather strange stuff!

Well, it is quite strange to hear someone who has argued against the very concept of morality argue that something can be "right."
what on earth are you talking about, russ?

and just what is this all about:

Quote:
Originally Posted by phisicsisphirst
How is it an arbitrary position? The goodness of pleasure, and the badness of pain seems to me the most basic intuition.

there is no phisicsisphirst and physicsisphirst certainly didn't say this. so what is going on here? well, i'll tell you!! you quoted learningphysics in post #1192 and then for some inexplicable reason chose to misssssspelllllll not only his name but also mine :mad:

despite this, i am very interested in your other idea regarding violent societies where you seem to think that the violent societies i named in post #1134 were not stable (even though they were so temporarily). i would like to know what you consider to be a society that is stable and if you think that violent societies are not stable, then is it possible that you think that non-violent ones are stable?

physicsisphirst

Jan19-05, 01:48 AM

Well this thread has strayed well from the original "should we eat meat?".
Some see it as a moral issue which it isn't. Others see it as a question of anatomical structure, which it isn't.
actually it is all three of these and more!
but we should probably stick to the moral issue here since this thread is in value theory. however, if you want to explore some of the other ideas you have posted and are interested in the 'otherside', please just ask.

Non-survival is about as immoral as it can get; particularly when the means of survival exist all around us to be used. If some of it is meat so be it.
no one needs to eat meat to survive. vegetarians have been around for an extremely long time.

If we stopped eating meat, it would not be good for the animals. Most of the large animals on earth would become extinct; because they only exist because we eat them and raise them for food.
not really. we could still keep a few of them around as pets if you wish. what would be good for the animals you are referring to is that they wouldn't be produced by forced artificial insemination, castrated without anaesthetic, kept in filthy factory-farms and killed quite brutally and painfully.

people don't die from rotting flesh in their gut.
well not right away, but why would anyone want to have it rotting away there in the first place?

physicsisphirst

Jan19-05, 02:17 AM

There are reasons for that have nothing to do with meat itself. The correlation with colon cancer has a lot to do with the quality of the meat, such as hormones that have been added to it and such. The negative correlation with the vegetarian diet has a lot to do with antioxidants in the vegetables being eaten, as well as with dietary supplementation. Vegetarians in general are more careful about their diet because, if they aren't, there can be serious consequences from eating a strictly vegetarian diet.

there are no consequences that are a result of eating a strictly vegetarian diet - but if one is really worried you can always use all the supplements that have been around since the 50s for meaters.

also, the hormones aren't really the only problem with colon cancer.
for instance, some of it seems to have to do with high-levels of fat (such as found in meat LOL):

Even though some individuals are at higher risk because of genetic predisposition, the occurrence of this cancer appears to involve multiple genetic factors and multiple environmental factors, such as exposure to carcinogens or high levels of dietary fat.
http://www.klsdesign.com/anti-ox/healthy-mind-colorectal.html#colorectal

much of it seems to center around the production of N-Nitroso compounds (from a study presented in Lyon at the European Conference on Nutrition and Cancer in 2001):

The more red meat eaten, the higher the concentration of N-Nitroso
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSDNT000/333/8015/326282.html

here is some more fun stuff that likes to put the blame on red meat:

It's not exactly news. Many studies suggest that people who eat the most meat get the most cancer. Now a huge, 20-year study from the American Cancer Society confirms these findings.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144062,00.html

and another one:

Eating a lot of red meat and processed meats such as salami and pastrami over a long period of time can increase your risk of colon cancer, researchers report.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41398

and again:

People who eat a lot of red meat or processed meats may be raising their risk for colon cancer. Although this link has been shown before, a new study by American Cancer Society researchers helps explain the relationship ... Colon cancer is the third most common cause of cancer cases and deaths in both men and women in the US, striking more than 145,000 people and killing more than 56,000 each year.

well this stuff is all from non-veg sources. so let's see what a vegetarian site has to say:

It has been suggested that secondary bile acids are carcinogens which may play an important role in colon cancer. These are derived by bacterial metabolism from primary bile acids made in the liver and secreted into the intestine. Vegetarians have lower levels of secondary bile acids than non-vegetarians (Turjiman, 1984). The differences in bacterial populations between the intestines of vegetarians and non-vegetarians may also be important. Bacterial flora in vegetarians has been shown to possess reduced ability to transform bile acids into potential carcinogens (Johansson, 1990).

The role of dietary fibre in prevention of colon cancer may also be important. This was first noted in 1971 when it was suggested the high incidence of colon cancer in Western countries was linked to low fibre diets. Other dietary components associated with high fibre foods, such as folate, have also been implicated as having protective effects.
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/health3.html

this seems to correlate consistently with all the stuff about fiber and butyrate in the first article.

now this is an interesting thing from Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine:

JAMA Study on Meat and Cancer Demands Action
4. The meat industry should be held financially responsible for a measure of the colon cancer incidence in the meat-eating population, as the tobacco industry has been for its contribution to lung cancer.
http://www.pcrm.org/cgi-bin/lists/mail.cgi?flavor=archive&id=20050111103016&list=news

it seems that this nutritional stuff may involve some ethics after all ....

loseyourname

Jan19-05, 02:33 AM

All that's true. If your diet contains too much red meat, it can be harmful. Any good diet should consist of moderation.

Don't even try to tell me there are no potential problems with a vegetarian diet, though. Just last semester one of my classmates nearly died of shock shortly after going veggie because he wasn't properly supplementing his diet. Our professor was quick to warn all of us that certain dietary needs that are filled by meat need to be supplemented when going veggie, and I'm going to trust a professional medical researcher who had worked for several decades at Harvard and USC before I'll trust you. In fact, my girlfriend's mother was specifically instructed by her doctor to start eating fish (she had previously been a vegetarian) because of her cancer. That isn't to say that a vegetarian diet is inherently unhealthy. You can get all of the nutrients you need from non-animal sources, but you have to be careful and should at the very least consult with a dietary specialist before making the switch, in particular if you have special dietary needs. The rigor with which a vegetarian diet must be maintained is a large part of the reason that vegetarians are more likely to be healthy (provided they are careful and do it right) than non-vegetarians, who will often eat anything essentially because they can get away with it with little short-term consequences. It isn't that non-animal foods are intrinsically more healthy than animal foods.

physicsisphirst

Jan19-05, 02:49 AM

Don't even try to tell me there are no potential problems with a vegetarian diet, though. Just last semester one of my classmates nearly died of shock shortly after going veggie because he wasn't properly supplementing his diet. ... I'm going to trust a professional medical researcher who had worked for several decades at Harvard and USC before I'll trust you.
i'm not asking you to 'trust' me, loseyourname. however, it is completely incorrect to say that a veg diet needs supplementation as though it is somehow deficient in comparison to the meaters diet. if you want to find out about veg diets, you should ask people who are involved with veg diets such as pcrm.org or vegsource.org

You can get all of the nutrients you need from non-animal sources, but you have to be careful and should at the very least consult with a dietary specialist.
you make it sound like such a major transition! it really isn't. you just eat a varied diet without the animal proteins.

The rigor with which a vegetarian diet must be maintained is a large part of the reason that vegetarians are more likely to be healthy (provided they are careful and do it right) than non-vegetarians, who will often eat anything essentially because they can get away with it with little short-term consequences.
veg people get sick too if they try to live on tofu and pasta. veg diets do not need any careful monitoring or food combining or great amounts of consternation.

It isn't that non-animal foods are intrinsically more healthy than animal foods.
non-animal foods are intrinsically more healthy than animal foods because the human body doesn't handle animal proteins very well because it doesn't have the equipment to do so see post #900. that is why people who consume animal proteins suffer from heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence, arthritis, excema, asthma etc etc etc etc.

and don't trust me on any of this ... go do your own research and decide whatever you want to. it is the only way you'll be convinced.

plusaf

Jan19-05, 03:06 AM

welcome to the thread plusaf!
i am taking the liberty to post some info below regarding meat putrification in the intestines (just in case anyone is interested and to serve as a break from the moral discussions which really are more appropriate here).

in friendship,
prad

Because it can take up to five days for meat to be digested, putrification is common and is the prime source of growth of undesirable bacteria, which are the forerunners to disease. A plant-based diet is eliminated from the body within a 24-hour period, thereby preventing any potential accumulation.
http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/diet/vmeat.htm

(snipped...)

thank you, prad... it has been quite enlightening to be here, and i'll try to let go and get back into the morality side, though i'm pretty sure i will be of the opinion that there's no moral foundation for arguing, but that' just mnsho :smile:

but as for your first reference, check http://www.innvista.com/about.htm.... after reviewing their "credentials," i lost respect for their "opinions masquerading as science" pretty quickly.

riddle me this: how long is the human intestinal tract (large and small intestines, in series, total and together)?

how fast would food be traveling down that "gastronomic highway" to make it from your teeth to your tush in 24 hours.... do the math. i think there would be skid marks throughout your body if those guys were anywhere near correct!

:rofl:

peace, hugs and good science...
+af

loseyourname

Jan19-05, 03:20 AM

i believe you said that you wouldn't kill unless there was a good reason to eg you were threatened or you wanted to eat a living creature. is this not correct?

Presumably you missed this, so I'll repost it:

First, I'll give some examples. Then I will give the abstraction - simply because I cannot give you an exhaustive list of wrong instances, but I can give you the set of circumstances under which the action is wrong.

Examples:
The little girl buying ice cream that gets caught in gangwar crossfire.
Death-row inmates.
Laci Peterson.
Dave in Mystic River.

Now the set of circumstances under which I will consider killing to be morally wrong:
First off, the organism killed must have the right to not be killed. Whether or not I want to call this right "innate" isn't too important of a distinction to me. It seems difficult to say that any right is "innate." We have rights because we are given rights. I do think that we should give these rights; that is, it is the right thing to do. Still, I will shy from calling them "innate" or "self-evident" or anything like that.
This right must not have been forfeited. Circumstance of forfeiture include: posing a direct threat to the life of an innocent person, being engaged in military conflict, etc.
The killing must be intentional.

Everything now seems to hinge on what qualifies an organism to be given this right not to be killed. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain. Being a human that is not brain-dead obviously qualifies you. What would it take to qualify a non-human animal for this right? Consciousness, the ability to conceive of a self separate from its environment, the ability to recognize and fear death (not simply flee because of evolutionary programming), as well as other considerations. This is obviously anthropomorphic, it's the best I can do. I can't think of any better set of qualifications.

again, all i'm interested in knowing is whether you provide a moral basis for your actions (i am not really interested in what those actions are). however, i don't think this is a trivial point. generally, i think that people do act 'morally' according to some standard they set - even if they change their conception of what is moral for a particular situation.

It depends on the action. An insect is not sentient and so I don't consider the killing of an insect to have any moral worth, either good or bad. Morality only comes into the picture when my actions effect either myself or another sentient being. The killing of insect serves a purely industrial function - to rid my house of pests. You might say I have a moral obligation to provide my family with a home free from pests, but that's about it. Beyond that, there isn't much morality to discuss in this particular situation.

When presented with a moral choice, I will consider morality. But not all choices are moral choices (should I choose the tortilla or potato soup tonight?) and, in these cases, I will not be making any moral considerations.

1) regarding the animal suffering, you don't seem to think that the animals suffer in the first place because you feel that because you have lived on farms and haven't seen mistreatment, it is really a bit of a non-issue: I'm sorry, but none of this is necessary. To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment. post #1141

Wrong. I know darn well that animals suffer. I also know that there are likely to be some humans suffering in sweatshops due to certain products I buy from international companies. If I find out that is the case, I will gladly boycott that company. What I will not do is boycott an entire industry simply because some of the suppliers of goods in that industry are violating my ethical standards. You seem to think that because some farms mistreat their animals, we should boycott all providers of farm-bred meat. I contend that doing so is not fair to the providers that do not mistreat their animals. I will gladly do what I can to find out which providers are the good ones and which are the bad ones, but I'm not going to boycott the entire industry.

2) regarding the ecodestruction, you seemed to think the ecodamage through meat farming is on par with vegetable farming as though if you stopped the first, the second would be just as problematic:
There is nothing intrinsic in the act of farming meat products that demands that it be more harmful to the environment than vegetable farming. post #992

My statement is correct. There is nothing intrinsic in the act of raising farm animals for consumption that makes it more harmful to the environment than any other form of farming. If we're talking about cattle raised in Brazil on cleared rainforest, then you have a case. If you're talking about the hog farmers in North Carolina that allow feces to seep into estuaries and breed dangerous microorganisms, then you have a case. But this is again a reason to boycott these providers and enact laws that will keep them from doing this if possible. It is not a reason to boycott the entire industry.

The same thing goes with certain vegetable farmers. The fertilizers used here in California on some of the citrus groves and vineyards seep into groundwater, rivers, and lakes, eutrophicating them and often choking off the animal life in these bodies of water. The Salton Sea is in particular danger and, by extension, the 160 species of birds whose only feeding ground for thousands of miles is the Salton Sea at this point could easily die off if the problem isn't fixed. Does this mean that I should stop eating all oranges and grapes? Or does it mean that I should do what I have already done, and lobby local politicans to enact stricter land usage laws and educate my peers about this problem?

1) animals don't really suffer because of the meat industry

Nope. Never said that.

2) the vegetable industry will do just as much damage as the meat industry

Nope. Never said that.

3) since i can't stop building cities, there's no point in stopping ecodestruction due to the meat industry

Nope. Never said that.

My case hinges on the method we employ to solve a given problem. The complete boycotting of certain industries is not a viable option to me. Cleaning those industries up, enacting and enforcing stricter laws, and boycotting individual providers that do harm is. By the same token, I can't do much about the building of cities. What I can do is fight to ensure that certain parcels of land remain protected and I can educate people to the damage of urban sprawl, in particular down here in southern California, something I have been doing for years. I can make the case to stop the expansion and I can move away myself, something that I am actually doing next week. Again, I don't want to make this about me, but all of these actions are options. You speak as if you have the only solution and you don't.

however, since you are not taking any steps to do this (in fact, you have said that you cannot even find out whether the meat you buy is from an 'ethical' source because you can't track everything down).

First off, I am taking steps to do this. I don't want to go completely back to the hunter/gatherer days, even if that would be healthiest ecologically, but I have done plenty, probably more than you, to clean things up. I'm not going to list my personal accomplishments, because they have nothing to do with this. This is supposed to be a discussion of what can and cannot be done and what the right thing to do is - not a discussion of what any one person actually does. I could very well be a vegetarian for all you know and still make the case that eating meat is a perfectly ethical option if you do it right.

i don't know why you are saying this. i have already suggested that amelioration of animal suffering is certainly foremost in the minds of some vegetarians (usually the 'ethicals'). some (such as the leader of the hare krishna movement) even suggested that meaters let the animals die a natural death and then eat them. however, you can see why this (and your scavenging solution) really wouldn't do for nutritional and environmental veggies. post #1129

You still haven't answered the question. What are you making the case for? That

1) In the context in which we live, given the condition in which farm animals exist and the ecological damage done by the industry, it is best not to eat meat.

or

2) It is always wrong to eat meat, no matter the context.

Answer simply with a "1" or a "2" please. It will do wonders toward helping me understand exactly what it is you are advocating.

however, if we stopped eating meat you wouldn't have to be worried about the immense animal suffering that is a direct result of the meat industry.

And if we stopped wearing shoes, we needn't worry about the conditions of factory workers in China. If we stopped building houses, we needn't worry about the destruction of natural resources in suburban sprawl. If we stopped driving cars, we needn't worry about all of the pollution they cause and the civil unrest in many parts of the world due to oil. If we stopped using water to irrigate vegetable farms in arid regions, we needn't worry about the water shortages that tear my part of the Pacific states apart. Am I to believe that you will now stop wearing shoes, move out of the city, stop driving and stop eating vegetables? Or do you think there are other ways to address these problems?

ok now we finally have something we can agree on, i hope. by virtue of our ability to extrapolate (some would call it empathize), we can conclude that suffering is a bad thing and that all sentient beings have, in your own words from post #1141, the

right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly

this, of course, overwrites your statement in post #1012 which ran to the tune of Animals do not have rights.

Are you honestly still miscontruing these statements? I admit that they look awfully contradictory when you take them out of context like that, but allow me to put them back in. Animals do not have rights generally speaking. Rights are a legal construct that are granted arbitrarily by bodies (such as governments) that have the ability to do so. Our government has decided to grant the right not to suffer needlessly to certain animals, such as pets and such. I think this is a good thing and that the protection should be extended to all animals that are clearly sentient - the ones I listed above. What I meant by my original statement (which I explained earlier, but I guess you aren't so quick to quote that) was that animals do not have the same rights as humans - they do not have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nor do they have property rights or the right to assemble peacefully or any of those other ones.

now i am in agreement with you on your statement that animals have the right to be treated humanely and not be made to suffer needlessly and since you made the statement and have even provided a rationale for it (the extrapolation bit), can we conclude that this is a good idea or possibly even an ethical idea?

Considering that I have already said many times that I think this is a good, ethical idea, yes, I will remain consistent and continue to believe that this is a good, ethical idea.

Francis M

Jan19-05, 11:19 AM

physicsisphirst

Jan19-05, 12:28 PM

Presumably you missed this, so I'll repost it:
ya i didn't see it because you had posted it to sheepdog in post #1111.

Everything now seems to hinge on what qualifies an organism to be given this right not to be killed. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain.
well at least that's a start. but everything doesn't hinge on whether the organism is given this right not to be killed. some of it seems to hinge on our certainty as well.

This is obviously anthropomorphic, it's the best I can do. I can't think of any better set of qualifications.
well it can be called anthropomorphic, but that doesn't necessarily disqualify it. the anthropomorphism of today, may well become the rule of tomorrow. besides, i think what you wrote regarding 'qualifications' is quite sufficient for our present purposes.

Wrong. I know darn well that animals suffer. I also know that there are likely to be some humans suffering in sweatshops due to certain products I buy from international companies. If I find out that is the case, I will gladly boycott that company.
well that's a start. so what was so terribly wrong about finding out whether the meat comes from an 'ethical' source?

You seem to think that because some farms mistreat their animals, we should boycott all providers of farm-bred meat. I contend that doing so is not fair to the providers that do not mistreat their animals. I will gladly do what I can to find out which providers are the good ones and which are the bad ones
well that's great. but i don't understand why you kicked up such a fuss about it in post #1106: It is difficult to research the operating habits of every company that one buys from ... the amount of research necessary to make sure no product I buy was ever produced or refined or shipped by a company that has either advertently or inadvertently promoted the suffering of a sentient being would be so daunting and time-consuming that conducting this research would keep me from ever buying anything.
the reason this point is important is because it is not just some farms that mistreat the animals - it is the overwhelming majority. therefore, the very least any carnivore can do, provided they feel that animal suffering is wrong, is to investigate where their meat comes from.

My statement is correct. There is nothing intrinsic in the act of raising farm animals for consumption that makes it more harmful to the environment than any other form of farming.
the statement may be correct, but it is also rather useless considering we are talking about present day meat production.

If we're talking about cattle raised in Brazil on cleared rainforest, then you have a case. If you're talking about the hog farmers in North Carolina that allow feces to seep into estuaries and breed dangerous microorganisms, then you have a case. But this is again a reason to boycott these providers and enact laws that will keep them from doing this if possible. It is not a reason to boycott the entire industry.
no of course not! there is always roadkill, carrion, euthanized pets - there is plenty for everyone to eat. i'm glad that you accept that we at least have a case for brazil and north carolina.

The fertilizers used here in California on some of the citrus groves and vineyards seep into groundwater, rivers, and lakes, eutrophicating them and often choking off the animal life in these bodies of water. ... Does this mean that I should stop eating all oranges and grapes? Or does it mean that I should do what I have already done, and lobby local politicans to enact stricter land usage laws and educate my peers about this problem?
i live near vineyards and i see that they are ecologically responsible, therefore should i conclude that only some vineyards abuse the environment? should i decide that the amount of research necessary to make sure no product I buy was ever produced or refined or shipped by a company that has either advertently or inadvertently promoted the destruction of the environment would be so daunting and time-consuming that conducting this research would keep me from ever buying anything? well this isn't about me or about you - but it seems to be about what we post.

Nope. Never said that.
Nope. Never said that.
Nope. Never said that.

in each of the cases, you have said the following
1) To begin with, I've lived on farms and I've never seen any mistreatment.
2) There is nothing intrinsic in the act of farming meat products that demands that it be more harmful to the environment than vegetable farming.
3) Building a city disrupts an ecosystem more than any farm. Should we abandon our cities as well?

1) suggests that because you haven't seen mistreatment and because you think only some farms are cruel, this really isn't a big issue.
2) is that 'correct' statement of yours, but it does attempt to trivialize a rather enormous problem.
3) uses deflected justification ie because i can't do anything about other problems in the world, we should be consistent and do nothing about the particular problem we are talking about.

My case hinges on the method we employ to solve a given problem.
perhaps, but your method has amounted to saying that because we can't solve everything, we shouldn't solve the problem we are talking about. however, there seems to be more interest in this particular post in dealing with these matters.

The complete boycotting of certain industries is not a viable option to me. Cleaning those industries up, enacting and enforcing stricter laws, and boycotting individual providers that do harm is.
great!

What I can do is fight to ensure that certain parcels of land remain protected and I can educate people to the damage of urban sprawl, in particular down here in southern California, something I have been doing for years.
wonderful!

I can make the case to stop the expansion and I can move away myself, something that I am actually doing next week.
i don't see what the point of moving away really is.

Again, I don't want to make this about me, but all of these actions are options.
i don't mind if you make this all about yourself. i can become interested in learning about those people i communicate with in forums, but only if they really want to talk about themselves.

You speak as if you have the only solution and you don't.
Nope. Never said that. (only mild plagarism intended LOL)
however, i did present a pretty good solution. ending meat consumption will end the animal suffering and ecodamage that results from meat consumption.

First off, I am taking steps to do this ... but I have done plenty, probably more than you, to clean things up.
well i can see how you would come to that conclusion. it would be reasonable to conclude that due to the length of our exchanges, i wouldn't have time to be involved in too much ecoaction LOL.

I could very well be a vegetarian for all you know and still make the case that eating meat is a perfectly ethical option if you do it right.
alternatively, if you really look into the ethics, you might still become a vegetarian. (it's too late for me though)

You still haven't answered the question. What are you making the case for? That

1) In the context in which we live, given the condition in which farm animals exist and the ecological damage done by the industry, it is best not to eat meat.

or

2) It is always wrong to eat meat, no matter the context.

Answer simply with a "1" or a "2" please. It will do wonders toward helping me understand exactly what it is you are advocating.
1
(2 is a bit silly isn't it given the carrion option? i also don't really know exactly what you mean by "best", but it probably doesn't matter in the context of our discussion so far)

And if we stopped wearing shoes, we needn't worry about the conditions of factory workers in China. If we stopped building houses, we needn't worry about the destruction of natural resources in suburban sprawl. If we stopped driving cars, we needn't worry about all of the pollution they cause and the civil unrest in many parts of the world due to oil. If we stopped using water to irrigate vegetable farms in arid regions, we needn't worry about the water shortages that tear my part of the Pacific states apart.
and if we stopped justification by deflection, we wouldn't need to be arguing post after post, would we?

Am I to believe that you will now stop wearing shoes, move out of the city, stop driving and stop eating vegetables? Or do you think there are other ways to address these problems?
well i get my shoes at the salvation army, i do live in the country, i rarely drive and almost always via some sort of carpooling, i only eat organic veggies usually from local sources. however, what does this have to do with it? are you still saying that because you don't solve problem B by boycott, it means you can't solve problem A by boycott? why do we insist on this all or nothing scenario? what's wrong with starting with some boycotts and working towards others?

Are you honestly still miscontruing these statements? I admit that they look awfully contradictory when you take them out of context like that, but allow me to put them back in.
well let's at least put them back in the way you wrote it:

A person is an entity with rights. Animals do not have rights. post #1012

what was i to conclude from that (as well as your answer to my questions in your post #1147)? however, your present post does clarify your present position.

yes, I will remain consistent and continue to believe that this is a good, ethical idea.
excellent! we are at least agreed that animals have the right to be free from needless suffering.

i think we can move on to the issue of animal rights soon. i too thought that rights were something granted, however, i'm not so sure anymore. i will elaborate in another post in the next little while.

physicsisphirst

Jan19-05, 01:27 PM

thank you, prad... it has been quite enlightening to be here, and i'll try to let go and get back into the morality side, though i'm pretty sure i will be of the opinion that there's no moral foundation for arguing, but that' just mnsho :smile:
that's no problem! it will give us something to talk about!
this is a good thread with nice people generally who usually make an effort to respond with sincere effort regardless of the position they hold. i hope you will enjoy your stay here.

riddle me this: how long is the human intestinal tract (large and small intestines, in series, total and together)?

The small intestine measures approximately 23 feet in length and contains the duodenum, jejunum and the ileum. The large intestine measures approximately 5 feet in length and contains the cecum, colon, rectum and the anal canal.
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:ZoQMzbyKga8J:www.michaelshealth.com/pdf/intestinal.pdf+%22The+small+intestine+measures+app roximately+23+feet+in+length%22&hl=en

The small intestine is about 6 meters (20 feet) long. It is coiled in the center of the abdominal cavity ...
The large intestine has a larger width but is only 1.5 meters (5 feet) long. The large intestine is divided into 6 parts: cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum.

http://www.mamashealth.com/organs/intestine.asp

Whatever you eat has to be properly digested and then move its way through a long, approximately 35 feet in length, intestinal lining to finally exit the rectum. So don?t you think the most important area to keep clean in your body would be that 35 feet of food storage wasteland?
http://www.colon-cleanse-constipation.com/constipation-bowel-movement.html

humans' are 10 to 11 times the length of their bodies (our small intestine averages 22 to 30 feet in length. Human body size is measured from the top of the head to the base of the spine and averages 2 to 3 feet in length).
http://groups.msn.com/CrazyVegan/humanherbivore.msnw

how fast would food be traveling down that "gastronomic highway" to make it from your teeth to your tush in 24 hours.... do the math. i think there would be skid marks throughout your body if those guys were anywhere near correct!
so given that the above sources are correct and the combined length is at least 30 feet, veg food would move on average 1.25 feet/hr (of course, it spends more time in certain places than others). i don't really see this as a problem, but perhaps i am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. do you think that moving through the gastronomic highway (great phrase btw!!) at 1.25 feet/hr is too fast?

physicsisphirst

Jan19-05, 01:33 PM

SOrry for any confusion between the Francis M and Francis M2. THey're both me. M2 is from my home account because I couldn't find a way to access my one account to this forum from home as well as work so I went through the register process from my home computer.
i understand completely and appreciate your clarification.

Absolutly not to any of the above. If I sounded that way I didn't mean to and thank you for the welcome.
and you are welcome for your thank you!
i'm relieved that you were not trying to apply that particular "right to life" argument to vegetables.

What I'm saying/asking, is that if we eventually get rid of the factory farms (which I agree are inefficiant and should be gotten rid of) and treat these animals great before they're as painlessly as possible killed(euthanization?)then one of the moral legs of the issue (i.e these animals are treated badly from birth and are killed painfully) is gone? and we're left with simply is it immoral to kill these animals to begin with to feed ourselves?
this is a good question and i'm not sure there will be widespread agreement here. for instance, those who espouse the utilitarian viewpoint of "minimizing suffering" may say that it is quite acceptable because nothing suffers (i think dissident dan and learningphysics indicated that). those who hold a more deontological outlook might say that it is wrong to eat the animal before it dies naturally, so they would not accept euthanasia as a viable alternative.

what i found really interesting was sheepdog's arguments regarding Vegetarianism is not just about not eating meat. It is about respecting Nature in every way. take a look at his posts #1178 and #1188, really fascinating ideas there (as well as in the subsequent exchanges between him and learningphysics).

Also do we apply this selectivly or accross the board to all animals?
i do not quite understand what you are asking here.

We're also left with the health issues directly related to eating meat (which I agree there are). I can see that there is a health issue related to eating large amounts of red meat, high fat content meats, and processed meats in general. But there the argument (from most doctors and nutritionists) is to temper our meat intake.
ya there has been a lot of research over the decades that do say that meat ain't good for you. vegetarians have been a growing breed. it is interesting that the ratio of poll shows a 1:2 ratio for veg vs non-veg (exactly 124:248 as i look right now). when i became veg for nutritional reasons in 1972, i'd be lucky to find 1 veg amongst 100.

I'm also sorry if I got or came across emotionally, and believe me I'm not in any way knocking the people that have done research on this and are trying to change the way things are done now.
it is most decent and courteous of you to say these things and a pleasure to have you on this thread.
hope you enjoy it here and i greatly look forward to talking with you!

selfAdjoint

Jan19-05, 04:03 PM

physicsisphirst

Jan19-05, 04:42 PM

Every time someone points out that the carcinogenic effects of meat are only shown for massive meat diets, the vegans reply "Yeah, we always knew meat was bad for you". Try to carry on a discussion, please, not a spin.
i think the reason some veg (not so much the ethical or the enviro veggies) say "Yeah, we always knew meat was bad for you", is because they read about the links meat-eating seems to have to Heart Disease, Hypertension, Diabetes, Osteoporosis, Cancer etc.

these links are demonstrated often through extensive studies with fair cross-sections of people and not soley massive meat-eaters.

there does seem to be a fairly direct correlation between the quantity of meat intake and how badly you get zapped for it. for example, in the earlier link to the news release on the 20 yr American Cancer Society findings the conclusion drawn was:

[i]"The bottom line is that the people who were eating the most red meat had higher colon cancer risk than those eating the least," McCullough tells WebMD [McCullogh is the senior epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta and was presumably involved in the research in some way.]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144062,00.html

learningphysics

Jan19-05, 05:37 PM

Well, OK, if we need to go down this road. Suppose sheep were bred with pain/pleasure reversed. Obviously the pain centers could not be eliminated because pleasure is only experienced in contrast to pain. They necessarily go together.

If this is a part of biology, then I'll believe you. But as a philosophical point, I strongly disagree with the idea that pain can only be experienced in contrast to pleasure.

Also, I'm not advocating reversing pain centers. My answer was meant to be that, IF somehow the pain centers were reversed, then I'd have no problem with the factory farms.

But I'd be strongly against reversing pain centers in the first place, as that puts the sheep in a situation where there happiness depends on human beings... I'd rather they have a more secure source of happiness. What if humans changed their mind, and stopped their cruel treatment of sheep leaving them unhappy?

So they use genetic engineering to create a man-chimpanzee chimera. It's more managable than a chimpanzee, easily bred and produces as much or more meat. But you get wind and start complaining that this is cruel, so they do the same thing they did to the sheep. Now the man-chimps only get pleasure from their cruel treatment. I assume you would now become as whole-heartedly enthusiastic about eating this meat?

Again, this puts humans in a position of responsibility that they probably cannot handle... If humanity changes its mind about the man-chimps, they'll be left miserable.

It's not that hard.

I don't know what you are referring to. One thing that isn't destructive? Everything seems destructive in some sense...

sheepdog

Jan19-05, 11:51 PM

If this is a part of biology, then I'll believe you. But as a philosophical point, I strongly disagree with the idea that pain can only be experienced in contrast to pleasure.Well, perhaps this particular argument belongs in another thread. Also, I'm not advocating reversing pain centers. My answer was meant to be that, IF somehow the pain centers were reversed, then I'd have no problem with the factory farms.

But I'd be strongly against reversing pain centers in the first place, as that puts the sheep in a situation where there happiness depends on human beings... I'd rather they have a more secure source of happiness. What if humans changed their mind, and stopped their cruel treatment of sheep leaving them unhappy? Excellent! This is the first inkling I've seen that you give weight to something other than mere pleasure/pain. Unfortunately you have also contradicted yourself, it seems. Because in the first paragraph you state that you would have no problem with factory farms given a pain/pleasure reversal, and in the second you would have a problem with factory farms ("their cruel treatment") given a pain/pleasure reversal. Which is it? And what the heck is "a more secure source of happiness"? Again, this puts humans in a position of responsibility that they probably cannot handle... If humanity changes its mind about the man-chimps, they'll be left miserable.I'm, again, in agreement with you here, but you seem to be vasilating. "... probably cannot handle ..." What does this mean? Do you mean that there are situations in which the happiness of another species depends upon us and we CAN handle the responsibility and then there are situations of that sort when we CANNOT handle the responsibility? I'm completely mystified by this judgement of our ability to handle some strange happiness responsibility. I don't know what you are referring to. One thing that isn't destructive? Everything seems destructive in some sense...I must say I find this response to be profoundly sad. There you are sitting in front of your computer, the final culmination of a trillion, trillion years of the universe working to bring you into existence and yet you cannot, in all that time, in all those generations of ancestors who died that you should be sitting where you are, you cannot find one small moment of certain goodness, of certain non-destructiveness. I cannot understand someone who could look into his mother's eyes, or his father's eyes, and say, "I don't know anything you ever did for me that I am certain was not destructive." I am overwhelmed by the abject misery this represents and can feel only the greatest pity.

JonahHex

Jan20-05, 05:12 AM

How would you answer the question "Should we recycle plastic bottles" It's a question that relates to everybody and ultimately comes back to you. I answer it the same way. I make the choice; you make the choice.

Earlier I was asked why I'm posting negatively about the thread instead of reading it and joining the discussion. I have, in fact, read most of the 80+ pages of the thread and most of it is self-righteous vegetarians bleeding hypocricy and meat eaters responding defensively for reasons I fail to understand.

In nature there is nothing precious about life. The vegetarians have no problems distinguishing between life forms that are precious to them and those that, conveniently for them, are not...they have to eat after all. However, all of the rationalization in the world doesn't alter the fact that they kill to survive, nor that they don't have a problem with a grasshopper being blasted with a weapon of mass destruction (nerve poison) in order to preserve the lettuce they intend to eat for lunch.

Fundementally this thread boils down to 80 pages of mental masterbation: veggies being pious and carnies defensively rebutting allegations.

I have as much respect for life as God, who has arranged for every living thing to die, with very, very few pleasant modes for accomplishing it. Plants get eaten alive and so do most animals. The suffering that humans impose upon their food is basically trivial compared to that imposed by other animal eating species. 1 in a 1000 baby sea turtles makes it from their egg on the shore to the sea; there are a myriad of other examples.

The argument that we're "better than that" is straight out of the middle ages when man was considered to be separate from nature.

"Absolute morality." Uh huh. That translates to "I'm right. You're wrong." What does morality have to do with eating meat? Why is shooting a cow in the head immoral, but poisoning millions of grasshoppers moral?

This thread should have been 2 posts long:
1. "Should we eat meat?"
2. "You should eat whatever you want. What I eat is none of your business."

physicsisphirst

Jan20-05, 12:25 PM

I answer it the same way. I make the choice; you make the choice.
so i don't get what you are complaining about then.
if a veg makes a choice to protest against others eating meat, what's wrong with that? that veg has made a choice and since you apparently don't want to infringe on another's choice (for whatever reason), just what are you complaining about?

I have, in fact, read most of the 80+ pages of the thread and most of it is self-righteous vegetarians bleeding hypocricy and meat eaters responding defensively for reasons I fail to understand.
that hardly seems to be an accurate representation of the content of the thread. if anyone has just bled hypocrisy, it is you for saying that we are free to choose and then getting all upset because some veggies choose to critique the eating habits of some others and some meaters choose to respond defensively about those eating habits.

The argument that we're "better than that" is straight out of the middle ages when man was considered to be separate from nature.
well are you saying that we are not better than that?
does being 'not separate from nature' mean we must resort to barbaric behaviours?

"Absolute morality." Uh huh. That translates to "I'm right. You're wrong."
now why are you upset with this? it was a bold concept put forth by russ_watters (one of your fellow meaters actually) in post #1114:

is morality absolute or relative? I believe it is absolue and I believe there are serious flaws in relativism

it is an excellent post, imho, and proceeds to argue the shortcomings of relativism. then it continues by suggesting a parallel between morality and physics:

It is my view that morality, like physics, can be arrived at empierically. Science is largely predicated on the assumption that there are absolute laws that govern how the universe works and if we are smart enough we might find them (paraphrase, Hawking) ... So what about morality? Why can't we start with the same assumption (in my view, a reasonable assumption, but even if you don't buy it, try it anyway and see how it works) and attempt to find moral laws emperically?

what a fascinating idea!
why are you so upset about it?

This thread should have been 2 posts long: ...

well no one forced you to read the other 1217 posts.

however, since you claim that you have read them, for the most part, and seem to be hanging around a bit, can you clarify what your thesis actually is? does it boil down to complaining about this "I'm right. You're wrong." thing? or is it your intention to endorse and enforce it by insisting that you are right and the rest of the thread is wrong?

learningphysics

Jan20-05, 12:58 PM

Well, perhaps this particular argument belongs in another thread. Excellent! This is the first inkling I've seen that you give weight to something other than mere pleasure/pain. Unfortunately you have also contradicted yourself, it seems. Because in the first paragraph you state that you would have no problem with factory farms given a pain/pleasure reversal, and in the second you would have a problem with factory farms ("their cruel treatment") given a pain/pleasure reversal.

No, what I'm saying is that if the pain reversals were already done, and lets say irreversible... in this position, I'd have no problem with factory farms. I'm considering that somehow it was already done, without my knowledge, and without my consent. In this position, the pain centers are already reversed. So I'd have no problem with the factory farms.

Doing the pain reversal in the first place... I'm against that. If I was to decide whether or not pain reversals were to be done, I'd say no.

Do you mean that there are situations in which the happiness of another species depends upon us and we CAN handle the responsibility and then there are situations of that sort when we CANNOT handle the responsibility?

The situation described was one where we CREATED the responsibility ourselves. For example we can engineer a species that produces some kind of vaccine humans find beneficial. Unfortunately the species is constantly in pain. So humans need to constantly inject a drug, so that the animal can be free of pain. Is it a good idea to create such a species? I'd say no, because humans would be in charge of injecting the drug, and they may mess up, make mistakes etc.

We shouldn't create NEW situations where we make others utterly dependent on us, when we don't have the resources and skills to take care of them.

If animals are already dependent on us (and we can't make them independent), then we should do our best to fulfill our responsibility even though we may make mistakes. But we shouldn't create NEW dependencies...

There you are sitting in front of your computer, the final culmination of a trillion, trillion years of the universe working to bring you into existence and yet you cannot, in all that time, in all those generations of ancestors who died that you should be sitting where you are, you cannot find one small moment of certain goodness, of certain non-destructiveness. I cannot understand someone who could look into his mother's eyes, or his father's eyes, and say, "I don't know anything you ever did for me that I am certain was not destructive." I am overwhelmed by the abject misery this represents and can feel only the greatest pity.

Why are you being so dramatic? I'm curious what this completely non-destructive thing is.

JonahHex

Jan20-05, 07:56 PM

however, since you claim that you have read them, for the most part, and seem to be hanging around a bit, can you clarify what your thesis actually is? does it boil down to complaining about this "I'm right. You're wrong." thing? or is it your intention to endorse and enforce it by insisting that you are right and the rest of the thread is wrong?Actually, there is quite a bit of interesting stuff here that is worth reading. However, there is an old cliche that goes something like "When discussing religion or politics, everything that's going to be said will be said in the 1st ten minutes. After that, it's just an argument." This thread reached this point quite a while ago...at least in terms of the original topic.

And, yes, of course I'm right. Why would I say something that is wrong? :cool: In this regard I'm no different than anyone else here. :devil:

What is my point and purpose here? To object to the moral high-ground. To be disruptive. To be politically incorrect and say that humans are barbaric, especially while claiming not to be. Suffering is suffering, whether it is a cow or a sheep subjected to farm ranching, a grasshopper being poisoned by pesticides, or a human starving due to crops being destroyed because of a lack of pesticides or an unwillingness to use them. We pick and choose our evils. We value human life more than any other form because humans are "us" and "they" are not. Is this wrong? No. Ya gotta look out for numero uno. But to pretend that there is some morality in this is pure ego.

There are lots of reasons why man should not "conquer" the earth and exert dominion over it. Most of them have to do with the long term consequences of short-term solutions. Kill wolves to protect our herds only to find out that rabbits were the main diet of wolves and now the rabbits are overrunning our crops...that kind of thing. So now we have to kill the rabbits too. Between the wolves and the rabbits there is a lot more suffering than the cows we eat experience. Hello?

Ultimately, the real question is where do you draw the line? I hear PETA is now concerning themselves with the suffering of fish. PETA has been around for decades. How many millions of fish suffered before they "got around" to being concerned about them. They should be ashamed of themselves. Most fish are carnivores. Shouldn't PETA be concerned about the suffering of their prey? Maybe fish deserve to suffer because of the suffering they cause to others? Besides fish smell funny.

Where do you draw the line? ...and why there?

physicsisphirst

Jan20-05, 10:38 PM

Actually, there is quite a bit of interesting stuff here that is worth reading.
i agree! other than a few minor outbursts this is one of the best threads on this sort of topic i've seen for quite some time.

However, there is an old cliche that goes something like "When discussing religion or politics, everything that's going to be said will be said in the 1st ten minutes. After that, it's just an argument." This thread reached this point quite a while ago...at least in terms of the original topic.
i think that as different people come into the thread, they make different contributions. i think it is best to see a forum thread as a conversation at an openhouse party rather than a conference where people make presentations. in the latter case, once it is said it pretty well needn't be repeated. in the former, people just drop in for a while and talk to someone whose post they like (or don't like), then leave for a while.

And, yes, of course I'm right. Why would I say something that is wrong? :cool: In this regard I'm no different than anyone else here.
well, i hope not! it would be terrible if people started saying things when they really thought they were wrong! it is probably a good thing to start at the opposite corners of the room with conviction and see if understanding (or even transformation) takes place.

What is my point and purpose here? To object to the moral high-ground. To be disruptive. To be politically incorrect and say that humans are barbaric ...
just as long as we are totally clear on this :rofl:

We pick and choose our evils.
i'm sure this is correct in some context.

We value human life more than any other form because humans are "us" and "they" are not. Is this wrong?
it may not be wrong to value human life more than any other form, but your statement is wrong factually (assuming you mean humans in general by "We"), since all humans most certainly don't value human life more than any other lifeform. would you like some examples?

Ya gotta look out for numero uno. But to pretend that there is some morality in this is pure ego.
i think there are different ways to look out for numero uno and very often people and animals put numero uno aside and look out for some other being at the risk of their own direct or material benefit.

Where do you draw the line? ...and why there?
i think a more appropriate question might be "what is the criteria one uses to draw the line?" after all, different people draw the line in different places. here is one pretty good idea presented by loseyourname (another of your fellow meaters) from post #1193:

When I suffer, it feels awfully bad to me and so I extrapolate to the conclusion that suffering in general is a bad thing and is to be avoided unless absolutely necessary (for instance, in military training or childbirth). On that basis, I will grant the right of all sentient beings to not suffer unless absolutely necessary. Of course, there is some question as to which organisms are sentient and which are not. The minimum qualifications are probably at least the structural portions of the brain identified with pain perception in humans. This qualification is met by all mammals and birds and most reptiles.

so what do you think of this, jonahhex?

sheepdog

Jan21-05, 12:20 AM

No, what I'm saying is that if the pain reversals were already done, and lets say irreversible... in this position, I'd have no problem with factory farms. I'm considering that somehow it was already done, without my knowledge, and without my consent. In this position, the pain centers are already reversed. So I'd have no problem with the factory farms. Right. So the scientist says, "If we do pain/pleasure reversal will you stop complaining about our factory farms?" And you answer, "Only if you do it without my knowledge or consent." And they go ahead and do it without your knowledge or consent. Now what? The pain/pleasure reversal is done. It's done before you know it. Do you stop complaining about the factory farms and start eating lambs at every meal?The situation described was one where we CREATED the responsibility ourselves. For example we can engineer a species that produces some kind of vaccine humans find beneficial. Unfortunately the species is constantly in pain. So humans need to constantly inject a drug, so that the animal can be free of pain. Is it a good idea to create such a species? I'd say no, because humans would be in charge of injecting the drug, and they may mess up, make mistakes etc.

We shouldn't create NEW situations where we make others utterly dependent on us, when we don't have the resources and skills to take care of them.

If animals are already dependent on us (and we can't make them independent), then we should do our best to fulfill our responsibility even though we may make mistakes. But we shouldn't create NEW dependencies...So first you tell me your "ethic" is based upon maximizing pleasure. Now what are you telling me? I don't see how we have some "responsibility" to care for something we have made dependent relates to pain/pleasure maximizing. Why not just kill it? Painlessly of course. You seem to think the dependency is "bad". So why not just end the dependency and the bad pain that goes with it, once and for all?Why are you being so dramatic? I'm curious what this completely non-destructive thing is.Oh, man! I really am left without words to respond to these questions. You're going to have to find your own way from here. Sorry. I'm at a complete loss as where to begin if there is nothing at all, ever, that you are certain is/was not destructive. Your place is too far for my reach. And may God speed.

learningphysics

Jan21-05, 02:59 AM

Right. So the scientist says, "If we do pain/pleasure reversal will you stop complaining about our factory farms?" And you answer, "Only if you do it without my knowledge or consent." And they go ahead and do it without your knowledge or consent. Now what? The pain/pleasure reversal is done. It's done before you know it. Do you stop complaining about the factory farms and start eating lambs at every meal?

No no... I would not answer, "if you do it without my knowledge". I'd try to prevent it from happening.

Yes, once it is done and I can't reverse it, then I wouldn't complain about the factory farms.

We seem to have gone off on a tangent.

Basically I'm saying that if the only way sheep are going to be happy is if they are held in factory farms, then we should hold them in factory farms.

Maybe I can clarify here... Suppose sheep will be miserable unless we put them in factory farms, would you agree to put them there? Would you be against it?

So first you tell me your "ethic" is based upon maximizing pleasure. Now what are you telling me? I don't see how we have some "responsibility" to care for something we have made dependent relates to pain/pleasure maximizing. Why not just kill it? Painlessly of course.

My ethic is mainly negative utilitarianism. I see it as more urgent to prevent pain and suffering that to create pleasure. But yes, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is the idea. But maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for all beings! Not just myself... and not just humans.

Yes, killing it is one idea. But you've got to consider how it affects everyone, the rest of the species etc... and consider all the effects.

You seem to think the dependency is "bad". So why not just end the dependency and the bad pain that goes with it, once and for all?

Yes, it is possible this is a solution. Again, all the effects need to be considered. If we don't know all the effects, then we need to figure it out.

Oh, man! I really am left without words to respond to these questions. You're going to have to find your own way from here. Sorry. I'm at a complete loss as where to begin if there is nothing at all, ever, that you are certain is/was not destructive. Your place is too far for my reach. And may God speed.

:confused: Looks like I've really upset you.

As far as the completely non-destructive thing... Lots of people find that all of life is destructive... Buddha, Schopenhauer, many others. Even using physics, ever process increases the entropy in the universe. I don't know why you had such a reaction to my answer. Life being destructive is almost a cliche in a philosophy forum.

marley.wannabee

Jan21-05, 05:19 AM

Francis M

Jan21-05, 03:09 PM

Physicsphirst
i do not quite understand what you are asking here

Sorry I wasn't clear on that, what I meant was where do we draw the line on what animals to kill. As a thought/morality exercise if we treat every animal great and can kill it painlessly (therby not having them suffer and do it in a way as to not cause a bad enviornmental impact) it pretty much leaves it wide open as to what catagory we start putting animals in as far as food, pets etc.....WHich as I understand varies from culture to culture anyways. I suppose at that point (I don't mean to sound callus here) it would come down to pure economics, i.e. what's the most cost effective animal to raise for food.

Hat_Man

Jan21-05, 04:42 PM

Animals kill each other all the time for food and we all no that animals hold no moral code whatsoever. Cats will catch prey then let it go only to catch it again. Certanly this would be seen as immoral in human scociety but animals do it all the time. They do not murder, only kill for food. One should not shoot an animal for the fun of it, leaving the body to rot. For thousands of years men having been eating meat and it is a vital part of our body. Besides, compare a spinach salad to a roast beef. Health problems aside because the beef will not hurt you so long as it is not consumed on a regular basis. There is no moral reason not to eat meat and there is no helath reason not to eat meat, so long as it is done in moderation.

Dooga Blackrazor

Jan21-05, 09:50 PM

There is no moral reason not to eat meat and there is no helath reason not to eat meat, so long as it is done in moderation.

Not eating meat can still be healthier than eating it in moderation. Animals can still die as result of occasional meat consumption. Humans are generally incapable of self-limitations; people are not capable of moderating there diet properly - look at obesity. Should the government regulate meat eating then? That seems like a waste of money, effort, and time. What kind of uproar would be created when people found out their right to kill was being taken away?

sheepdog

Jan21-05, 10:15 PM

No no... I would not answer, "if you do it without my knowledge". I'd try to prevent it from happening.But this is how these things happen. You have an idea of what you want and complain when someone doesn't give it to you. They find a way to give it to you to stop the complaining. That's marketing. It doesn't really matter what you tell them. They can figure you out all by themselves. The pain/pleasure reversal would happen because you make it easier for the scientist s to live that way than without it.Yes, once it is done and I can't reverse it, then I wouldn't complain about the factory farms.And you would eat the factory farm lambs, right? That's how their pleasure would be maximized. If you did not you would then be denying them their pleasure. You sacrificed them to the factory farms in order to satisfy your pain/pleasure needs. You cannot now abandom them by not following through and eating them.We seem to have gone off on a tangent.Not at all. The scenario is a realistic consideration of the possible consequences of focusing on a single arbitrary idea as a basis for living. An arbitrary idea is easily used to obtain whatever ends are desired.Basically I'm saying that if the only way sheep are going to be happy is if they are held in factory farms, then we should hold them in factory farms.So this would apply to the man-chimps as well then, of course. They should be treated the same? And of course eating them would also be required to maximize their pleasure?Maybe I can clarify here... Suppose sheep will be miserable unless we put them in factory farms, would you agree to put them there? Would you be against it?I am absolutely against factory farms. It has nothing to do with pain/pleasure and whether they enjoyed it or not I would be equally as opposed.

You see, it isn't for me to decide where sheep belong, so I understand that my opinion doesn't matter. But of course that pertains to all of us, especially those who wrongly put them there. They must not decide either.My ethic is mainly negative utilitarianism. I see it as more urgent to prevent pain and suffering that to create pleasure. But yes, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is the idea. But maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for all beings! Not just myself... and not just humans.Nice words, but it doesn't work. Any system of ideas you hold as your "ethics" I can devise a realistic scenario that will defeat it. It's just a big game you cannot win. Everyone else knows how to play at least as well as you and they will use it to take you to the cleaners.As far as the completely non-destructive thing... Lots of people find that all of life is destructive... Buddha, Schopenhauer, many others. Even using physics, ever process increases the entropy in the universe. I don't know why you had such a reaction to my answer. Life being destructive is almost a cliche in a philosophy forum.That's just a load of hogwash. You must be channelling from Bizzaro World, because there is nothing in my world that is destructive. Everyone I know can find at least some small example of non-destructiveness they are willing to defend. There is no other possible basis for day-to-day existence.

Dissident Dan

Jan22-05, 04:38 PM

Well, i'm training to be a professional athlete...
how is it that i would get enough protein to keep my muscle in peak condition without some meat again?

soybeans and some vitamins to help me use the veg protein to the maxx?
yummy

I know a vegan guy who is probably the most muscular guy I know. The idea that you can't get the protein that you need without animal sources is bunk. All sorts of bean and legumes, as well as nuts, have a good amount of protein. Even grains provide useful levels of protein. You can get enough volume of proteins, and all the essential amino acids, without consuming flesh.

Of course, the easiest is stuff made without soy...I'm not just talking about whole soybeans, but any of the bazillion products out there that are made with soy. And then there are the other beans, legumes, nuts, and grains that I already mentioned.

If you were honestly asking, then I would have been glad to provide you with information. However, your sarcastic remarks are borne of prejudice. Please educate yourself before trying to make fun. You only make yourself look foolish.

learningphysics

Jan22-05, 04:50 PM

But this is how these things happen. You have an idea of what you want and complain when someone doesn't give it to you. They find a way to give it to you to stop the complaining. That's marketing. It doesn't really matter what you tell them. They can figure you out all by themselves. The pain/pleasure reversal would happen because you make it easier for the scientist s to live that way than without it.

All we need to do here is make the pain reversals illegal, and imprison the scientists that do it.

So this would apply to the man-chimps as well then, of course. They should be treated the same? And of course eating them would also be required to maximize their pleasure?

Yes. Once the pain reversal is done, and if it is irreversible it seems we have no choice. We have to do what it takes to keep the man-chimps happy. At the same time I'd make sure the scientists that did the pain reversal were punished, so that such pain-reversals don't happen in the future.

Any system of ideas you hold as your "ethics" I can devise a realistic scenario that will defeat it.

So you have no system of ethics? You have no basis for saying this is right, or this is wrong? If this is really your position, then it seems to me you're saying that nothing is right or wrong. If this is not your position please clarify.

How do you come to the conclusion that one particular action is good, and another is bad? Please don't say that it is by looking at the consequences of those actions, because then I'd just ask you why a particular consequence is good, and another is bad.

What is it that makes something good, and something else bad ultimately. Pain, pleasure are irrelevant?

sheepdog

Jan22-05, 05:48 PM

All we need to do here is make the pain reversals illegal, and imprison the scientists that do it.Right. There's always brute force. If something doesn't work then do it harder. If a rouge country does it then make war to stop them. I will kill or imprison those who don't do what I want. That worked so well for drug trafficing. Brilliant!Yes. Once the pain reversal is done, and if it is irreversible it seems we have no choice. We have to do what it takes to keep the man-chimps happy. At the same time I'd make sure the scientists that did the pain reversal were punished, so that such pain-reversals don't happen in the future.So your solution is to make sure that all the prisons are abundantly supplied with man-chimp meat. Good plan. Brilliant, again!So you have no system of ethics? You have no basis for saying this is right, or this is wrong? If this is really your position, then it seems to me you're saying that nothing is right or wrong. If this is not your position please clarify.

How do you come to the conclusion that one particular action is good, and another is bad? Please don't say that it is by looking at the consequences of those actions, because then I'd just ask you why a particular consequence is good, and another is bad.

What is it that makes something good, and something else bad ultimately. Pain, pleasure are irrelevant?This is really nonsense. It's a pointless distraction to worry about good/bad, evil/holy, right/wrong. But just to play along this is my answer.

What is good is good without my choosing. I know something is good when I am compelled to know it to be good by physical circumstances, in spite of any desire I may have to conclude otherwise no matter how strong. It is good if, no matter which way I turn and try wriggle out of it, there is no escaping the conclusion. I conclude an action is good if I must. All else is bad.

There you go. Happy now? No? What, you cannot figure out how to know you must conclude an action is good? Well, how do you know you must do anything? It's no different.

learningphysics

Jan22-05, 08:57 PM

What is good is good without my choosing. I know something is good when I am compelled to know it to be good by physical circumstances, in spite of any desire I may have to conclude otherwise no matter how strong. It is good if, no matter which way I turn and try wriggle out of it, there is no escaping the conclusion. I conclude an action is good if I must. All else is bad.

How does exactly does a situation compel you to know if an action is good? Can you give an example?

sheepdog

Jan22-05, 10:54 PM

How exactly does a situation compel you to know if an action is good? Can you give an example?I am compelled to know that breathing fresh, clean, healthy air is good for a person.

physicsisphirst

Jan22-05, 11:06 PM

Sorry I wasn't clear on that, what I meant was where do we draw the line on what animals to kill. As a thought/morality exercise if we treat every animal great and can kill it painlessly (therby not having them suffer and do it in a way as to not cause a bad enviornmental impact) it pretty much leaves it wide open as to what catagory we start putting animals in as far as food, pets etc.....WHich as I understand varies from culture to culture anyways.
thanks for clarifying this francis.
if you "treat every animal great and can kill it painlessly", you may not get any objections from the utilitarian faction provided their premise is to minimize suffering. (note: that since this doesn't really happen, it is as you say merely "an exercise"). however, from a deontologic perspective one may complain if you cut the animal's life short. of course, if you limit yourself to natural deaths or even roadkill, then it is possible that many ethical vegetarians would not object, but of course, we nutriveggies wouldn't possibly tolerate this sort of gastronomic crisis :rofl:

categorizing animals in terms of food, pets etc can be said to be a form of speciesism. for instance, why should you treat your cat like a king, yet treat pigs the way they are treated in factory farms? certainly, this decision is not based on intelligence or capacities to suffer or even a human need for nutrition. it is based on the fact that a cat is a cat, whereas a pig is a pig - hence, speciesism.

some people in the far east may accuse north americans of being speciesist because we make cows endure horrible lives, but treat our pet dogs better than how most people in the world have it - they perhaps think they are not being speciesist because they end up eating the dogs.

I suppose at that point (I don't mean to sound callus here) it would come down to pure economics, i.e. what's the most cost effective animal to raise for food.
except in certain hostile climates or certain "free-range" situations, the most cost effective solution to food production probably is not to raise any animals. the food that is fed to fatten up the animals can usually be directly consumed by humans.

physicsisphirst

Jan22-05, 11:12 PM

I know a vegan guy who is probably the most muscular guy I know. The idea that you can't get the protein that you need without animal sources is bunk. All sorts of bean and legumes, as well as nuts, have a good amount of protein. Even grains provide useful levels of protein. You can get enough volume of proteins, and all the essential amino acids, without consuming flesh.

"athletes need meat" is one of those silly ideas that still occasionally rears its ridiculous head .... well, i suppose since some athletes do use steroids and stuff, they will find a suitable source of those sorts of things in meat etc. :rofl:

some people are still under the weird impression that vegetarians are skinny weaklings. here is a list of veg professional athletes that might inspire some reconsideration (from an earlier post in this thread):

Hank Aaron (home run champion in major league baseball)
Andreas Cahling (body builder)
Chris Campbell (1980 world champion wrestler)
Sally Eastall (Marathon runner - UK No 2)
Sally Hibberd (British Women's Mountain Bike Champion)
Billie Jean King (tennis champion)
Martina Navratilova (tennis champion)
Silken Laumann (Olympic rower)
Killer Kowalski (wrestler)
Jack LaLanne (Fitness guru)
Donnie LaLonde (Former Light Heavyweight Champion of the World.)
Katherine Monbiot (world champion arm wrestler and nutritionist)
Edwin Moses (longtime world hurdling champion)
Carl Lewis (world record for 100m)
Bill Pearl (Bodybuilder, Mr America)
Anthony Peeler (NBA Grizzlies basketball player)
Jacques Vaughn (All American point guard, #1-ranked Univ of KS Jayhawks)
John Salley (only 4x NBA champ in history)

here is the excellent website for veg worldclass ironman triathlete brendan brazier who also was winner of the Canadian 50km Ultramarathon Championships in 2003:
http://www.brendanbrazier.com/

this post ends with an article by Monique N. Gilbert, B.Sc. (Certified Personal Trainer/Fitness Counselor, Health Advocate) which explains some of this as well as provides another list of veg aths (some repetition exists).

in friendship,
prad

http://vegweb.com/cgi/faq/smartfaq.cgi?answer=1004192561&id=1004838128

I'm a teen athlete - Do I "need" things from meat because of my age?

Question: I'm 16 and want to become a vegetarian but my grandparents don't agree with this choice. They said it was because I'm a athlete and there are certain things I need from meat. I know of many adult athletes that are vegetarians and it doesn't affect their performance. Do I "need" things from meat because of my age? Thank you, Frankie

Answer: No, I do not believe that you need meat to be an athlete at any age. While heavy physical activity may require you to increase your daily protein intake, it does not have to come from meat. There are hundreds of top athletes from all over the world that have shown their performance has not been hindered in any way by adopting a vegetarian diet. Many of these athletic champions have discovered that eating meat decreased their strength and stamina. In fact, in 1978 the Journal of the American Medical Association warned athletes (and non-athletes) against taking protein supplements, stating "Protein does not increase strength. Indeed, it often makes greater energy to digest and metabolize the excess protein." Meat protein is one the most difficult foods for the body to metabolize, taking sometimes up to 3 days to digest. Vegetable protein, on the other hand, usually only takes between 25 and 30 hours to pass through the body's gastrointestinal tract. Excess animal protein intake can break down in the colon into toxic substances, some of which are absorbed in the bloodstream. Meat is also high in saturated fats and cholesterol. Protein from vegetable sources like soy (tempeh, tofu, textured soy protein, etc.), seitan (wheat gluten), beans, legumes, seeds and nuts are virtually free of saturated fat and contain no cholesterol. The body will absorb and assimilate the nutrients from vegetable proteins more easily than with animal proteins. Additionally, soy's protein is complete, equal to that of meat but without the negative side effects. Diets high in animal protein can have a detrimental impact on the kidneys and pancreas; increase the risk for heart attack and stroke; lower resistance to cancer, and contribute to the development of osteoporosis, diabetes and kidney stones.

As more athletes become vegetarian, the myth of the need for meat is coming to light. If you are still unsure about how vegetarian diets can improve athletic performance, just look at this list of top athletes.

BASEBALL
Hank Aaron - All Time Baseball Home Run Champion
Jim Kaat - Baseball Player

FOOTBALL
Joe Namath - Pro Football player (NY Jets)
Lawrence Phillips - Pro Football player (49ers)
Desmond Howard - Football Player (Washington Redskins, Jacksonville Jaguars)

BASKETBALL
B. J. Armstrong - Basketball Star
Bill Walton - Basketball Player

OLYMPICS
Carl Lewis - Olympic Track Star (vegan)
Paavo Nurmi - 20 World Records and 9 Olympic Medals in distance running
Edwin Moses - Olympic champion
Leroy Burrell - Olympic champion
Murray Rose - Olympic swimmer

BODYBUILDING
Stan Price - World Record holder in the Bench Press
Andreas Cahling - Mr. International Body Building Champion
Roy Hilligan - Mr. America Body Building Champion
Bill Pearl - Bodybuilder, Mr. America and Mr. Universe
Bill Manetti - Power Lifting Champion
Pat Reeves - Power Lifter (vegan)
Jack LaLanne - Fitness Guru (vegan)

WRESTLING
Chris Campbell - 1980 World Champion Wrestler
Killer Kowalski - Wrestler

TRIATHLON AND MARATHON RUNNING
Dave Scott - 6-time winner of the Ironman Triathlon
Sixto Linares - World Record holder in the 24-hour Triathlon
Lucy Stephens - Triathlete (vegan)
Debbie Lawrence - 5k record holder
Ruth Heidrich - 3 time Ironman, marathoner and age-group record holder (vegan)
Sally Eastall - Marathon runner (vegan)

MARTIAL ARTS
Ridgely Abele - 8-Time National Champion in Karate

TENNIS
Bille Jean King - Tennis Champion
Martina Navratilova - Tennis Champion (vegan)
Peter Burwash - Tennis Champion (vegan)

SKATEBOARDING
Brad Staba - Pro Skateboarder
Andrew Reynolds - Pro Skateboarder
Brian Sumner - Pro Skateboarder
Brian Anderson - Pro Skateboarder
Sergei Trudnowski - Pro Skateboarder
Rick Mc Crank - Pro Skateboarder
Ed Templeton - Pro Skateboarder
Jamie Thomas - Pro Skateboarder
Geoff Rowley - Pro Skateboarder
Steve Berra - Pro Skateboarder
Laban Pheidas - Pro Skateboarder

SKATING
Sorya Bonali - Ice Skater
Joanna Conway - Ice Skater

So you are not alone in your desire to be a vegetarian athlete. To find out other famous vegetarians from all walks of life, go to http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm, and to find more vegetarian and vegan athletes, go to http://veggie.org/veggie/famous.veg.athletes.shtml.

Seafang

Jan25-05, 12:37 PM

There are reasons for that have nothing to do with meat itself. The correlation with colon cancer has a lot to do with the quality of the meat, such as hormones that have been added to it and such. The negative correlation with the vegetarian diet has a lot to do with antioxidants in the vegetables being eaten, as well as with dietary supplementation. Vegetarians in general are more careful about their diet because, if they aren't, there can be serious consequences from eating a strictly vegetarian diet. This same positive effect can simply be achieved by eating more vegetables and better supplements while still eating meat.

Eating meat isn't necessarily an inefficient use of energy. Many of the forms of meat farming used are, but the act of eating meat itself needn't be. For instance, eating beef that is corn-fed, although it is generally of higher quality, is wasteful because of more corn needs to be grown to support the cattle than would be needed to feed the people eating the cattle. However, if we just eat cattle that grazes on natural pastures, there is no real inefficiency as the cattle are in effect a natural resource themselves, plus not a lot of effort is needed to maintain a pasture. The same thing goes with eating fish. If the fish are farm-raised, we have an inefficiency. If, however, we simply eat fish that have been caught at sea (and don't overdo it), we really aren't harming anything.

Still, this is the one argument for vegetarianism I am actually sympathetic to. I do make an effort to eat mostly seafood that is caught at sea for this very reason. That and the evidence for experiential capacity in most fishes is scant.

A very rational viewpoint IMHO. It turns out that I am not unsympathetic to some of Dissident Dan's points. it is true that in the USA, eating meat is relatively inefficient, in that you could have simply eaten the corn you grew for the cows. And it takes 5000 gallons of water to grow one pound of beef.

Have you noticed that while humans are not allowed to eat genetically engineered corn; they are allowed to eat cows that have been fed almost entirely on genetically engineered corn.

Now the odd thing about Dan's objection, is that that specific country I mentioned which has 20 domestic livestock animals for every single man woman and child in the whole country, does not grow corn to feed that livestock. The animals feed on what grows naturally; grasses, and they have to go get it for themselves, so they don't grow tons of fat; they are all lean muscle. So that place which has the most efficient food production on earth in terms of energy input to food output, really is using plants which humans cannot digest and which grow on their own without human intervention. Unfortunatley, it doesn't have enough production capacity for everybody on earth.

But in America, even plant foods are not necessarily good for you. The whole reason for white flour, is that it is so lacking in nutritional value that even rats won't eat it, so it can be stored in warehouses without the varmints getting into it. But then it has to be 'fortified' to make it of any value for human food.

This is the only country on earth which has whole industries which make billions of dollars making non-foods which are disguised as food for persons who have so much food, and so little self control, that they just can't stop eating. I once worked for a major chemical company, and the lab next door to our lab, was a 'cooking/food' research lab, in which scientists developed non-foods out of ordinary chemicals, and then would whip up batches of cookies or other 'goodies' to bring to us to be the guinea pigs to see if they were either edible or tasty. they had zero food value, but they could certainly fill your belly and keep your hands and mouth busy.

Coca Cola Company, and others take ordinary water, and convert it into a liquid which is more expensive than gasoline, and which has no more food value than the water they started with; then they truck it by the millions of gallons around to places which all ready have plenty of water.

So I am not very sympathetic to arguments of morality, when it comes to food.

plusaf

Jan25-05, 02:36 PM

I'm not going to agree with Les that it will sit around for weeks or months, but a few days at internal body temperature is enough to make animal matter rot.

sorry for the delay, but i've been busy elsewhere (who cares... :smile: )

DD, please consider this: a few days at internal body temp is enough to make animal matter rot........ YES!

therefore, anyone who eats shrimp, for example, should die of food poisoning, since if you let the shrimp sit around even at ROOM temperature for six or 12 hours, it'll spoil....

y'see, inside the body, the world is different for food, compared to outside, so you can't just apply those kinds of rules or generalizations like that! it's an anaerobic world inside the body... there aren't any "inlets" from the outside, once the stuff has made it to the stomach and beyond. there are enough fairly ugly chemicals inside the body to kill off lots of bugs, except for some of the really strong, toxic ones, and they have to be introduced INTO the body WITH the food, such as botulism, before they'll kill you!

food "sitting around inside the body" is being digested actively by the body; it's not just milling around, spoiling.

ciao (pun...)
:rofl:

plusaf

Jan25-05, 07:28 PM

that's no problem! it will give us something to talk about!
this is a good thread with nice people generally who usually make an effort to respond with sincere effort regardless of the position they hold. i hope you will enjoy your stay here.

The small intestine measures approximately 23 feet in length and contains the duodenum, jejunum and the ileum. The large intestine measures approximately 5 feet in length and contains the cecum, colon, rectum and the anal canal.
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:ZoQMzbyKga8J:www.michaelshealth.com/pdf/intestinal.pdf+%22The+small+intestine+measures+app roximately+23+feet+in+length%22&hl=en
(snipped for space's sake...)

so given that the above sources are correct and the combined length is at least 30 feet, veg food would move on average 1.25 feet/hr (of course, it spends more time in certain places than others). i don't really see this as a problem, but perhaps i am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. do you think that moving through the gastronomic highway (great phrase btw!!) at 1.25 feet/hr is too fast?

thanks for the welcome, and yes, i'm really enjoying it here..... :approve:

and quoting from the first link (copied above)......

"The time required for digestion in the small intestine is influenced by many factors. It depends largely on the proportions of different foods included in a meal. For adults on a mixed diet, the passage of ingested foods through the tract is between twenty and thirty-six hours. For proper functioning of the intestinal tract, fiber is essential. Fibers clean the tract and keep it free of excess mucus and wastes."
and...
"Fiber is comprised of components of plant materials that are resistant to human digestive enzymes. Fiber functions in the digestive process from the very beginning of the process -- the mouth. Through chewing, the mouth stimulates saliva flow, which initiates the flow of digestive juices. Fiber enters the stomach, contributing bulk as water is absorbed. Pectins and gums increasethe thickness of stomach contents, which gives a feeling of fullness and slows down the emptying of the stomach. In this, fiber performs a unique service to the body by contributing to the maintenance of normal bowel movement. Through this process, the body removes toxins and bacteria."

nothing about meat putrefying or hanging around to kill you. balanced diet, fiber and meat (and other stuff, too...) healthy.

o:)

plusaf

Jan25-05, 07:44 PM

i think there are several important things in this post:

"....It is my view that morality, like physics, can be arrived at empierically (sic). Science is largely predicated on the assumption that there are absolute laws that govern how the universe works and if we are smart enough we might find them (paraphrase, Hawking) ... So what about morality? Why can't we start with the same assumption (in my view, a reasonable assumption, but even if you don't buy it, try it anyway and see how it works) and attempt to find moral laws emperically (sic)?...."

is a nice quote, but i believe it misses one of the key elements of science, at least imnsho.... the predictive element. all of the laws we seek are rules that can be applied to some input or driving force, from which an output (prediction) can be made. einstein was one of the best examples. some of his "laws" were predictions of how he thought the universe operated, and many of them have been proven to be accurate descriptors/predictors decades after his death; in some cases they had to wait until instrumentation was sufficiently accurate to measure the stuff he predicted...

so.... whether veggies have a right to oppose meaties... so what? that's called "free speech" in this country (USA)...

i haven't read ALL of the threads word for word (some are as excruciatingly long or longer than mine!)..... but i don't remember seeing anywhere that anyone has posited any kind of rule or prediction which has in any way said, "this kind of action is right (or wrong) for this reason, and some future action, as yet not experienced or having come into existence yet, can be judged as "good or bad" by these measures:......

in that sense, i had to laugh at the "mental masturbation" comment below, because the exact phrase had crossed my mind just a few minutes earlier!

show me the yardstick. (analogous to "show me the money").....

no predictive value; not = science.

ciao (pun intended...)
+af

plusaf

Jan25-05, 08:14 PM

<snip>
Have you noticed that while humans are not allowed to eat genetically engineered corn; they are allowed to eat cows that have been fed almost entirely on genetically engineered corn.
</snip>
<snip>
This is the only country on earth which has whole industries which make billions of dollars making non-foods which are disguised as food for persons who have so much food, and so little self control, that they just can't stop eating. I once worked for a major chemical company, and the lab next door to our lab, was a 'cooking/food' research lab, in which scientists developed non-foods out of ordinary chemicals, and then would whip up batches of cookies or other 'goodies' to bring to us to be the guinea pigs to see if they were either edible or tasty. they had zero food value, but they could certainly fill your belly and keep your hands and mouth busy.

Coca Cola Company, and others take ordinary water, and convert it into a liquid which is more expensive than gasoline, and which has no more food value than the water they started with; then they truck it by the millions of gallons around to places which all ready have plenty of water.

So I am not very sympathetic to arguments of morality, when it comes to food.</snip>

re: "Have you noticed that while humans are not allowed to eat genetically engineered corn; they are allowed to eat cows that have been fed almost entirely on genetically engineered corn..........."

ummm.... isn't it a bit more like "we're not allowed to BUY it"? it's there, but some groups have lobbied against it and used scare tactics to make its use illegal? i guess one of the theories is that if the GM food is run through a converter (cow), the bad parts of the GM of the food are not passed through. hmmmmmmm... but cows can pass prions through from their food to their meat to the folks that eat the meat.......

as for Coca-Cola and their ilk.... if the people who wanted something to drink prefered water to Coke, and someone could deliver water to them at a price which would displace Coke from all of those markets, don't you think it would have happened already????

maybe humans actually prefer Coke to un"enhanced" water? so, is it you or me who should help them see the errors of their ways and stop drinking Coke?

sorry, i abdicate that throne.

ps.
same for meat versus vegetables.
:)
+af

plusaf

Jan25-05, 08:29 PM

"should we eat meat?"

it's become a wonderful, intricate, complex, woven thread.

but i just wondered about something.....
in asking the original question, was that done as a lurker tossing a rock into a lake to sit back and see what ripples resulted and where they went?

i wonder.

to ask such a general, open-ended question begins to sound more and more to me like someone's psych 101 term paper project, ghostwritten by the rest of us, including regulars, part-timers, and folks that just stumbled across the link....

Should we eat meat?

based on what? what's your driving point? what moves you to make the decision? morals? ethics? religion? because your mommy told you to? because your god told you to? because you're better than all other species? because you're hungry and it tastes good? because you can? because you don't like the alternatives? because you don't mind it or care if someone else does the butchering and packaging and shipping, and maybe even cooking? because it's cheaper? because it takes less work?

why should we NOT eat meat?

based on what? your mommy told you not to? your god told you not to? because it hurts them when you kill them? because there are alternatives you consider acceptable? because you don't like the taste? because you don't want to kill any animals? because we're humans and we should be better than that? because we don't have to? because it's expensive? because it's worth the extra energy?

so, if the person (or cow, or whatever.... :rofl: ) who started this all would please drop back in and clarify that a little bit.....

(edit): the originator is Physicskid, and if you look at the posts he's made and in some cases, such at this thread, the number of replies and views that resulted, you may be astounded! i was.... http://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=873 alone may be a link to keep and browse, by itself... the topics are amazing! so many threads, so little time.....(/edit)

you've asked the starting question...... what kinds of answers would you consider to be good, bad, acceptable, unacceptable, etc..........?

:cool:

sheepdog

Jan25-05, 08:30 PM

is a nice quote, but i believe it misses one of the key elements of science, at least imnsho.... the predictive element. all of the laws we seek are rules that can be applied to some input or driving force, from which an output (prediction) can be made.If this were true, it seems to me, then the study of chaotic systems would not be scientific, since their behavior is known to be inherently unpredictable. I am assuming you aren't referring to deterministic behavior since otherwise even probabilistic quantum laws would not be categorized as scientific.

I think that for something to be studied scientifically it is only necessary to look into the nature of the thing with respect to its reality. Whether that results in predictable rules or not doesn't validate or invalidate the science. Science is only the deeper understanding of reality. Predicting the future may or may not be a side benefit.

selfAdjoint

Jan26-05, 10:25 AM

If this were true, it seems to me, then the study of chaotic systems would not be scientific, since their behavior is known to be inherently unpredictable.

This is a common misunderstanding. The future state of a chaotic system is unkown, but it has many other predictable properties, self-similarity or strange attractors for example. If there were no more to chaos theory than to throw up your hands and say "I don't know" then why would anybody ever study it?

sheepdog

Jan26-05, 08:25 PM

If there were no more to chaos theory than to throw up your hands and say "I don't know" then why would anybody ever study it?What makes chaotic systems interesting, though they are unpredictable, is that they produce complex behavior. One can predict that much, perhaps. That their product will be complex, often with an unpredictable and irreproducible but complex organization. But I don't think that's the kind of prediction plusaf was referring to when it wroteno predictive value; not = science.

marley.wannabee

Jan28-05, 04:38 AM

phisicsisphirst... thanks for that post!!! unfortunately to do it justice it will probably take me 3 weeks to work my way through all that info. I was not trying to imply, that i have to eat meat no if's and's or but's. I just thought, in my possoble ignorance, that it is better for me to be taking in easily useable proteins... since i do actually train very rigorously. I cant see myself not eating meat... but if i CAN find a better... more healthy diet i will use it... and if not eating meat is actually healthier and will let me keep every ounce of muscle i have and promote strong core strength growth and a possible +5-10 lbs of solid muscle mass... i'm in. I'll try it to see how i feel. But i'll gratefully check that reference before i do.

marley.wannabee

Jan28-05, 04:43 AM

ps, just ordered B.Brazier's "thrive" he seems to have done the study on himself that i was about to do on myself. Looks like a good book to get eh?

Kerrie

Jan28-05, 07:39 PM

Dissident Dan

Jan29-05, 12:12 PM

A person can easily gain weight on a veggie diet. Fat, the most calorie dense of our three main energy sources (fat, carbs, protein), is not animal-only.

Kerrie

Jan29-05, 08:16 PM

A person can easily gain weight on a veggie diet. Fat, the most calorie dense of our three main energy sources (fat, carbs, protein), is not animal-only.

Your key word here is "can", but extra care needs to go into making sure a woman's diet has enough protein and iron, which are easily found in fish and chicken. In my opinion, a woman's vegetarian diet needs to come second to the development and care of her baby.

physicsisphirst

Jan30-05, 03:25 PM

(been away for a week and putting in a very brief appearence for now.)

Your key word here is "can", but extra care needs to go into making sure a woman's diet has enough protein and iron, which are easily found in fish and chicken. In my opinion, a woman's vegetarian diet needs to come second to the development and care of her baby.
it is precisely for the health benefits to the mother and the baby that people adopt veg diets (just as my wife did!)

all this morality stuff aside, it is important to understand that

not only can one maintain weight on a veg diet
not only can one get enough protein on a veg diet
not only can one get enough iron on a veg diet

but that it is a good idea to do these things through a veg diet, because

one doesn't get the other not so nice 'goodies' that come from animal based eating - and neither does one's baby.

however, if one wants the technical reasons and guidance for eating veg, it is considered a good idea to go to a veg physician rather than a non-veg one, because the latter will probably not understand the point of going veg too well.

nothing about meat putrefying or hanging around to kill you. balanced diet, fiber and meat (and other stuff, too...) healthy.
a balanced diet has nothing to do with meat. if it did,

1) all us veg folks would become unhealthy or would need to supplement like crazy and then become unhealthy.
2) the meaters wouldn't be into supplements and wouldn't become unhealthy (eg heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, arthritis, excema etc etc)

the meat apparently hangs around for 5 days whereas as the veg stuff gets through in 1 day. the meat won't kill you in the time it hangs around. however, in the little time it does hang around, it is believed that it does do some pollutive damage, so perhaps it does kill you a little bit LOL.

anyway, exactly what was your concern about the veg stuff passing through in 1 day - you said it would leave skid marks. did i answer that matter sufficiently?

thanks for that post!!! ... but if i CAN find a better... more healthy diet i will use it... and if not eating meat is actually healthier and will let me keep every ounce of muscle i have and promote strong core strength growth and a possible +5-10 lbs of solid muscle mass... i'm in. I'll try it to see how i feel. But i'll gratefully check that reference before i do.
you are very welcome!

some may notice some mass loss initially - that is not uncommon, but it comes back. the best thing to do is talk to people who have done it and are doing it. as i suggested to kerrie previously in this post, there is little point in getting veg info from a person who does the non-veg thing because tradition takes a long time to die.

for instance, in body-building, mike mentzer (who wasn't veg, btw) says in his book that he received a lot of flak when he advocated a lower protein/higher carb because the battlecry was "meat for strength" in his time. however, when in 1978, he became the first mr. universe to win with a perfect 300 pt score, people had to reconsider to some extent.

i've heard very good things about B.Brazier. he seems to be a very together person and his website has excellent info with questions and answers too.

anyway, good luck with your training! what's your sport, btw?

Be Happy!

Jan30-05, 05:02 PM

i think the answer should be a "yes one should eat meat" in a situation such as a woman who becomes pregnant and has been a vegetarian for some time. i know of a pregnant woman who was criticized by her doctor for not gaining enough weight for her baby because of her vegetarian eating habits. he strongly advised her to consume some meat to help her baby develop properly. that certainly won't be a problem with me :biggrin: chicken and turkey is all i am craving these past few weeks since i am expecting. :cool:

Hi Kerrie!

Many doctors only have 4-8 hours of required nutrition training and aren't very good at giving nutrition advice despite what many of us think! More and more doctors are recommending a vegetarian diet these days...however, there still are many misled doctors who think that meat is healthy for a developing fetus.

If you are intersted in getting some good info about a healthy pregnancy, I'd recommend checking out the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (www.pcrm.org)...I think you'll find lots of useful info on this site, not only for your child, but also for you!

Here are some links of particular interest:
Healthy Pregnancy: http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/pregnancy.html

Raising Healthy Children: http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/veg_diets_for_children.html

I have known many women who've have very healthy vegetarian pregnancies...every woman, not just vegetarians, need to be careful of their nutrient intake as they are eating for two. On another note, many women have strange food desires during pregnancy,from sugar laden cakes and chocolates to even worse...these cravings are not neccessarily what a baby needs for development (which is what most women like to believe), many are just psychological cravings which have nothing to do with what the bodily needs...and aren't particulary "healthy foods."

It's also prudent to note that animal products are laden with antibiotics, growth hormones, and various other toxins which are extremely unhealthy for the baby. Did you know that women who eat alot of fish pass PCBs and mercury onto their child? :eek: I would be very wary of such foods...

I wish your baby and you the best of health, and I hope that the site that I've recommended is inspiring and educational. :smile:

Sincerely,
Sangeeta

Kerrie

Jan30-05, 08:58 PM

Hi Kerrie!

On another note, many women have strange food desires during pregnancy,from sugar laden cakes and chocolates to even worse...these cravings are not neccessarily what a baby needs for development (which is what most women like to believe), many are just psychological cravings which have nothing to do with what the bodily needs...and aren't particulary "healthy foods."

It's also prudent to note that animal products are laden with antibiotics, growth hormones, and various other toxins which are extremely unhealthy for the baby. Did you know that women who eat alot of fish pass PCBs and mercury onto their child? :eek: I would be very wary of such foods...

Oh yes, I do know of the strange food cravings. So far, the only things I have craved are mineral water and chicken. And not all animal products are filled with growth hormones...for example, we have a grocery store in my area that sells all organic and hormone-free meat. I was well aware of pregnant women eating too much fish cannot be a good thing, but i think a serving once a week is probably fine. Some women really need the extra iron, and in my case, I have always been low in iron. The easiest way to get this is to have a service of meat a few times a week. I am certainly not promoting eating it 3 times a day every day, but 4-5 times a week is adequate for a woman expecting. The other days, I tend to eat meatless dishes, as I do desire a lighter meal every so often.

Dissident Dan

Jan30-05, 11:31 PM

Your key word here is "can", but extra care needs to go into making sure a woman's diet has enough protein and iron, which are easily found in fish and chicken. In my opinion, a woman's vegetarian diet needs to come second to the development and care of her baby.

No extra care is needed for protein. I'll grant that a person who already has a problem with iron may face slight difficulties with a vegetarian diet, as animal sources of iron are generally more iron-dense and provide more absorbable iron, but it's not like acrobatics or brain surgery to obtain iron without meat, especially with fortified foods like Special K, Total, etc.

Kerrie

Jan31-05, 10:52 AM

No extra care is needed for protein. I'll grant that a person who already has a problem with iron may face slight difficulties with a vegetarian diet, as animal sources of iron are generally more iron-dense and provide more absorbable iron, but it's not like acrobatics or brain surgery to obtain iron without meat, especially with fortified foods like Special K, Total, etc.

Special K and Total are good for breakfast, not for a solid meal that an expectant woman needs. She needs to put aside her vanity and take care of the developing child within her by nourishing herself properly. This is my third pregnancy, and I can tell you that a bowl of wheat flakes is not going to give me the total nutrition I need for the day let alone fill me up.

It never ceases to amaze me too how the pro-choice are also pro-animals. :rolleyes: No offence Dan, but it just seems contridicting.

Dissident Dan

Jan31-05, 02:00 PM

Special K and Total are good for breakfast, not for a solid meal that an expectant woman needs. She needs to put aside her vanity and take care of the developing child within her by nourishing herself properly. This is my third pregnancy, and I can tell you that a bowl of wheat flakes is not going to give me the total nutrition I need for the day let alone fill me up.

I understand and appreciate your desire to provide optimum nutrition for your child. However, I think that you're making a vegetarian pregnancy out to be harder than it actually is.

Special K and Total were just two examples I mentioned off the top of my head. I did not suggest that you (or anyone) should solely eat those. The cereals that I mentioned do provide a lot of vitamins and minerals (as do other things that I have neglected to mention), but you should eat other things for other nutrients.

A statement from the American Dietetic Association:
Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.

http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/92_17084.cfm

BTW, I don't know why you consider breakfast not to be a solid meal.

It never ceases to amaze me too how the pro-choice are also pro-animals. :rolleyes: No offence Dan, but it just seems contridicting.

Who said that I was pro-choice?

Dooga Blackrazor

Jan31-05, 02:33 PM

The key-word is "seems" contradicting. There are many reasons why a person could be pro-choice and vegetarian. What about the fact that the unborn child has no connection to society. How can something unconnected to society be valuable to society. Furthermore, what about the fact that it will cause the mother pain to give birth? What if the baby will not live a happy life or has a horrible condition? What about population control? Female rights? I can elaborate if necessary.

Kerrie

Jan31-05, 05:01 PM

BTW, I don't know why you consider breakfast not to be a solid meal.

Who said that I was pro-choice?

I consider breakfast a solid meal when it involves eggs or a good bowl of oatmeal, not just a bowl of flakes.

I assumed you leaned towards pro-choice from your post in the abortion thread. My apologies if I assumed incorrectly.

Dooga, you should follow up your post in the ongoing abortion thread. I have known most vegetarians to be pro-choice, which seems contradictory to me. Of course, there are always reasons I have not considered that one may be pro-choice but still choose vegetarianism (such as for health reasons above the welfare of animals).

sheepdog

Jan31-05, 10:41 PM

I have known most vegetarians to be pro-choice, which seems contradictory to me. A thing is what it is. It is not what you imagine it to be. It is not what you imagine it will become. Your hopes and desires for a thing do not change the thing. Vegetarians have a clear understanding of this.

A fetus is a part of the mother's body, like her liver or pancreas. Perhaps it will become a person. But a person is an independent organism not an appendage of someone else. A fetus is not an independent organism until born. Pro-choice is the logical conclusion.

An animal is not a piece of meat. You can make it into a piece of meat but until you butcher it it is not meat. It is a living, independent thing, unlike a fetus. Your action is required to make it meat. Vegetarianism is the logical conclusion.

Vegetarians see the thing in its true nature, not as they might desire it to be. There is no contradiction.

Kerrie

Feb1-05, 07:13 AM

Sheepdog, I appreciate your perspective :smile: But it's just that, a perspective, as is mine.

Dissident Dan

Feb1-05, 08:37 AM

I consider breakfast a solid meal when it involves eggs or a good bowl of oatmeal, not just a bowl of flakes.

All right. I like dry cereal, and you don't. A bowl of Quaker Instant Oatmeal (2 packets) contains 40% of the RDI for iron. As I said, the cereals were just examples.

Also, a veggie burger and 2 slices of bread will contain ~20% RDI. One serving of Alexia Oven Fries (potatoes are a good source) contains 15%. Put that together, and you have ~35% RDI. Two servings of spaghetti and 1 cup of spaghetti sauce yields 20% + 12% = 32%. I have burritos that each have 15%.

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/iron.html#requ has a list of vegetarian sources of iron.

If you want a detailed explanation, this is a good link, but be prepared to read the whole thing: http://www.llu.edu/llu/vegetarian/iron.htm

Seafang

Feb1-05, 12:30 PM

re: "Have you noticed that while humans are not allowed to eat genetically engineered corn; they are allowed to eat cows that have been fed almost entirely on genetically engineered corn..........."

ummm.... isn't it a bit more like "we're not allowed to BUY it"? it's there, but some groups have lobbied against it and used scare tactics to make its use illegal? i guess one of the theories is that if the GM food is run through a converter (cow), the bad parts of the GM of the food are not passed through. hmmmmmmm... but cows can pass prions through from their food to their meat to the folks that eat the meat.......

as for Coca-Cola and their ilk.... if the people who wanted something to drink prefered water to Coke, and someone could deliver water to them at a price which would displace Coke from all of those markets, don't you think it would have happened already????

maybe humans actually prefer Coke to un"enhanced" water? so, is it you or me who should help them see the errors of their ways and stop drinking Coke?

sorry, i abdicate that throne.

ps.
same for meat versus vegetables.
:)
+af
Well if you want to play weasel words; it is not true that we are no allowed to BUY genetically engineered corn either. We are allowed to buy it but commercial food producers who may buy it, are not allowed to use it in products intended for human consumption. I suppose it is legal to make it into dog food, and then there are always those people who will and do eat dog food.

As to the preference for 'coke' or 'water' or 'bottled water' which may be different from 'water'; I don't care what people choose to put i their bodies, but they lose the high ground of morality; vis-a-vis eating meat or plants, if they choose to do something which is neither useful nor efficient; but I defend their right to do so, and I will then ignore their pleadings that eating meat is somehow immoral; it isn't, but nobody is being forced to do it.

plusaf

Feb1-05, 06:58 PM

(been away for a week and putting in a very brief appearence for now.)
the meat apparently hangs around for 5 days whereas as the veg stuff gets through in 1 day. the meat won't kill you in the time it hangs around. however, in the little time it does hang around, it is believed that it does do some pollutive damage, so perhaps it does kill you a little bit LOL.
anyway, exactly what was your concern about the veg stuff passing through in 1 day - you said it would leave skid marks. did i answer that matter sufficiently?

hi, Prad, and welcome back; hope your travels are safe and fun.

references, please, for five days versus one?

i recall several times in my youth (and single life) when i thought i wasn't getting enough iron, and would on occasion, wolf down a can of spinach in one setting. i knew that it'd done it, because about 2-3 days later, guess what would turn green....?) :devil:

never one day later... usually 2-3. hence, my conclusion that "my digestive tract is about 3 days long." empirical evidence.

now, your url's, please? why the heck (HOW the heck) could meat in the same food tube take a detour or a 3-4 day holiday in some backwater and not go through at the same rate.....?!?!?) :confused:

:cool:

sheepdog

Feb1-05, 09:53 PM

Sheepdog, I appreciate your perspective :smile: But it's just that, a perspective, as is mine.My only intention was to inform you of the logic that appeared to have escaped you. Perhaps you meant that you disagreed with it, not that you found it contradictory. If I had understood that was your meaning I wouldn't have bothered with my post, of course.

abitofnothingleft

Feb7-05, 01:15 AM

I will then ignore their pleadings that eating meat is somehow immoral; it isn't, but nobody is being forced to do it.

i've said this arguement a thousand times and im going to say it a thousand times more....

it is wrong to eat the meat of animals who have been tortured, and inhumanly killed.....animals are fed rotten and genetically altered foods, kept in chains and dark cages sitting in their own feces, prodded, injected and cut million times....

lets put you in a cage about the size of an elevator along with about 50 other people in it. lets put it in the dark, oh and to feed you, because its more "efficient" we'll use a metal probe which we'll stuff down your throat so the opening of the probe reaches the beginning of your stomach and then we'll pump your stomach full of food and chemicals to make you fatter....okay now because you're depressed and y'know wanting real food, wanting to kill yourself and fun stuff like that, to prevent you from doing that, we'll use pliers to break off the ends of their teeth (and for piglets who like to bite each others tails when they get stressed, they cut off their tails) —all with no anesthetics. wait wait...it gets better! so you've been living in your own feces all soaking wet and smelling like your excretory presents, and you're all grown now, your wrists and ankles can barely support your obese body (sometimes the legs of animals even break under them, which of course arent treated because how would that be effecient?) ....so we'll take you to the factory in an individual “gestation” crate, which is about 7 feet long and 2 feet wide—too small for you to even turn around. so we're transporting you to the factory where we'll attatch metal clasps to your wrists and ankles, now we'll turn you upside down and slit your throat, but not too deep, not enough to cut your head off or kill you(mostly because the more skin intact the easier it is to transport your dead body and the better you sell for sine they're going to use your skins for leather) ....first we'll pull out your vocal chords so your screams and screeches and cries dont reach your mouth to be heard....okay now, the machine dumps you into a pen where you run around for a bit confused, in emmense pain and sllllllooowwwwllllyyyy dying....okay now that you're all out of energy and y'know, dead, they take you to be cut up and sold for different parts....

not immoral? you think its moral to support this factory farming? no one is being forced to eat meat...but the animals are still being forced to be tortured and die....not immoral....gimme a break

ps.~ yes im vegan :blushing:

sheepdog

Feb8-05, 09:19 PM

it is wrong to eat the meat of animals who have been tortured, and inhumanly killedWhich part is wrong? Is it wrong to torture the animals? Or is it wrong to eat them after torturing them? Can we eat them if we raise them as pets and love them right up until they are slaughtered? In an ideal world how should we treat the animals so that we may rightly eat them? What treatment by us makes an animal deserving of being eaten?

Alkatran

Feb10-05, 08:52 AM

animals are fed rotten and genetically altered foods

What's wrong with genetically altered??
:confused:

loseyourname

Feb10-05, 10:52 AM

What's wrong with genetically altered??
:confused:

Every domesticated food source we have has been genetically altered for thousands of years.

Philocrat

Feb10-05, 03:43 PM

PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD CHAIN (PART I)

On page 73 of this thread I hinted that I was going expand upon the quantitative implications of the Food Chain as a prelude to answering the question as to whether we should eat meat or not. The first question is to determine the 'REASON WHY WE EAT MEAT' in the first place. So, why do we eat meat? The simplest answer that comes to one's mind is that we eat meat because it contains energy and we need energy to survive. And some of you would respond, as you have done so far in some of your postings above, that but there are many sources of energy - from plants, rocks, water, etc. But this is not the serious philosophical issue at stake here.

The serious philosophical questions are:

1) NEEDS

Why is every thing in the whole universe NEED-DRIVEN?

2) QUANTITY

Why is everything numerically driven or numerically preserved?

3) QUALITY

Why do things in the Universal from outset lack Perfect or self-sustaining qualities in their underlying structures and functions?

4) CONTINUITY

How are things really continuing, especially with regards to the spooky structure of the food chain?

5) PROGRESS

If things are truly continuing in whatever way that they do, are they also structurally and functionally progressing?

Now, let's look at the philosophical and quantitative implications involved here:

With regards to needs, when it comes to the ugly structure of the food chain, sometimes the animal creatures themselves are indistinguishable from their own needs. The ugly face of this structure unfolds when we suddenly realise that nature duplicate these animal creatures and uses them as their own needs. Nature reprodictively duplicates these animal creatures and savagedly feeds them to themselves. Animals that eat animals. And if you start intellectualising and reducing to the level of physics, you woud paradoxically be implying that:

MATTER IS EATING MATTER

Spooky, isn't it? Matter consuming matter is spooky because it is not clear why this is the case in the first place. The numerical differentiation here is fundamentally vague and unclear. Maybe the notion of animals eating animals is in some sense easier to numerically differentiate at the human level, but at the reductionist philosophical level things just get quantitativelly and logically fuzzier.

The next question is, with regards to quantity of animal creatures and the quantity of Needs, how do you reconcile both with regards to EFFICIENCY and SUFFICIENCY of both within a given food chain.? Well, this is the question for my next posting.

Philocrat

Feb10-05, 04:30 PM

PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD CHAIN (PART II)

If animals are being numerically duplicated not only as themselves but also as their own needs, how is the whole food chain being collectively preserved? I have asked this question for so many years now, goodness me gracious, you have no idea varied bags of answers that I always get. Some say it is an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER that is taking care of things. Some say Voodoo. Some say RANDOM CHAOS. And so on. But the puzzle remains fundamentally the same. As Ugly as the food chain outwardly appears, beneath that ugliness there is some clearly quantifiable level of intelligence in the whole process. There is a substantial level of intelligence in the process of preserving the food chain and keeping it going.

My own response to this is that the whole system is NUMERICALLY REGULATED AND PRESERVED by some sort of 'SAVED-BY-NUMBER PRINCIPLE'. This simply means:

1) The NUMBER OF ANIMALS (NA) must be numerically regulated against the NUMBER of NEEDS (NN) at any given time, if the whole food chain is to be successfully preserved. Tautologiously, this implies matter must be regulated against matter! Is it?

2) The RATE OF CUNSUMPTION (RC) must be numerically regulated against the the RATE OF DIGGESTION (RD)

3) The RC and RD must be numerically regulated against the RATE OF WASTE EXCRETION (RWE)

The far-reaching philosophical implication (and a quantitative one too) is this:

(a) If RC = RD = RWE, then we would have a gluttonous (endlessly hungry)monster in our hand, for whatever creature were to be blessed with this sort of capacity, not only would it consume every creature in every stock of animal and lick its tongue, but also it would move onto its own stock and consume every thing as well, and it would be a matter of time before it moves onto the human beings and consume everone, before self-consuming itself to self-destruct. So, it seems thereofore that the food chain is intelligibly preserved by the built-in regulatory delays in the natural quantitative interplay of RC, RD and RWS, for never at any given time should the brute force of nature speed things up in animal creatures such as to cause RC, RD and RWS to be equal.

b) The regulation of the numerical values of RC, RD and RWE has regulatory effects on NA and NN.

NOTE: Of course, if you want to get quantitativelly critical, other factors may equally be taken into account. What I have done here is set forth the spooky philosophical argument involved. If you want to mathematically spice things up and climb to any level of quantitative elegance, by all means you are free to do so. Note also, that I am not in any shape or form denying the fact that an Intelligent Designer may be resposible for this. Quite the contrary.

Philocrat

Feb10-05, 05:07 PM

PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD CHAIN (III)

On the issue of Progress, well this is a completely different matter. The standard Philosophical questions are these:

1) The food chain appears to be numerically preserved by repetitious recycling of its imperfect parts. That is, numerically preserved by destroying and replacing the animals in the food chain via the 'Life-and-death mechanism'.

2) If (1) is the case (things seemingly going around in circles), how do the animals in the food chain actually physically progress, perhaps towards being structurally and functionally perfected? Are these creatures structurally and functionally progressing or are they illusively and self-deceptively going around in circles?

3) If the food chain is non-progressive, can we lend nature a helping hand by scientifically intervening to structurally and functionally improve things in it? Is the food chain scientifically improvable, let alone perfectable?

These are the hard-headed philosophical questions that demand coherent and fully deduced answers. On the paradox of 'MATTER CONSUMING MATTER' at the level of physics, well that is the question for science to answer since it was science that defined matter originally. Who knows, maybe the definition of matter needs to be returned back to the drawing board. The job of philosophy is to identify oddness in things and let peoplle reflect on them a little bit more.

Dissident Dan

Feb17-05, 09:05 AM

Which part is wrong? Is it wrong to torture the animals? Or is it wrong to eat them after torturing them? Can we eat them if we raise them as pets and love them right up until they are slaughtered? In an ideal world how should we treat the animals so that we may rightly eat them? What treatment by us makes an animal deserving of being eaten?

We should not torture them, and by consuming them, we are providing the incentive for the torture, so we should not do that, either. Also, please understand that the slaughter process is very painful for many animals, especially birds, as they are exempted from the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (which isn't exactly enforced much, anyway).

No animal deserves to be eaten. As a subset of that, no human deserves to be eaten.

Francis M

Feb18-05, 12:20 PM

Posted by physicsphirst:
if you "treat every animal great and can kill it painlessly", you may not get any objections from the utilitarian faction provided their premise is to minimize suffering. (note: that since this doesn't really happen, it is as you say merely "an exercise"). however, from a deontologic perspective one may complain if you cut the animal's life short. of course, if you limit yourself to natural deaths or even roadkill, then it is possible that many ethical vegetarians would not object, but of course, we nutriveggies wouldn't possibly tolerate this sort of gastronomic crisis

categorizing animals in terms of food, pets etc can be said to be a form of speciesism

Thank you for putting a more in depth and better explanation on that physicsphirst, by defining the different types or reasons for vegitarianism/veganism (ain't a big vocabulary good :biggrin: ). BTW, welcome back. Nutriveggie :smile: That's a good one. I'm glad to see a sense of humor every once in a while on this thread.

I have to ask though (not sarcastically, honestly), if the exercise were to come true, or we could limit ourselves (not possible I think due to population) to animals that die a natural death, would that not just leave the the nutritional vegitarian or the speciest vegitarian argument? To be honest it seems to me to boil down to two camps on vegitarianism,

1)to hold all animal life in such high regard as to have it be impossible for one to even consider killing it, or

2) To not eat meat/animal products strictly on health reasons even though you may not hold animals in as high or higher regard.

Or maybe the third camp is a mixture of both?

selfAdjoint

Feb18-05, 01:51 PM

If we could eat only animals that died a natural death, could we eat humans that did? Isn't being carniverous but not a cannibal a form of speciesism?

GeD

Feb18-05, 04:27 PM

mewmew

Feb18-05, 08:22 PM

Ya, I have been semi following this thread for a very long time and I thought somewhere in it, or perhaps somewhere else, that it had a link to a study that said more animals(not including insects) are killed in the farming of vegetables than the animals we eat. Think of all the animals that die by getting run over by plows and stuff and think of how horrible a death that would be.
I am all for animal rights and think animals should have the right to a good quality of life while they are here and be killed in a quick manner, but we are animals also, animals that eat other animals just as other animals eat other animals and it is just natural. It is not natural for us to eat just vegetables. Just my $.02 though.

selfAdjoint

Feb18-05, 08:43 PM

GeD

Feb19-05, 06:05 AM

You could, even with a bit of the so-called phylumism, only count "animals that could suffer" as the animals that deserve to live, and I'm sure insects and rodents feel pain as well, and thus not exempt from this not-killing animals rule that many people seem to want to do. Thus, as another said, farming would be killing thousands of said animals.

Indeed if one looked truthfully, all animals are dependent on struggling with (and thus killing) other forms of life - whether that be "slaughtering" animals for food, "defeating" virus/bacteria for health, and "harvesting" plant life for food.

Unfortunately, being alive or having LIFE does not guarantee YOU or that LIFEFORM some sort of universal certificate to have the right to life (any such certificates are artificial and only of our own invention). That can be said for any human/animal or plant life. We just have to accept the fact that conflict and thus killing is a part of life (albeit, we try to avoid it if it will simply be a waste).

Kerrie

Feb19-05, 09:50 AM

Good point guys...anyone willing to do a search on how many animals (insects included) suffer due to agriculture in America?

By the way, for those of you who are dedicated American vegetarians, I think more needs to be done about our farming crisis here...soon your produce will come from another country because American farmers cannot afford to continue on. I think more support needs to be lended to them right now as much as animal cruelty.

Dissident Dan

Feb19-05, 11:47 AM

What about the insects and other small lifeforms that we kill because of the need to keep vegetables and crops clean? Don't each of those lives (who are killed are more numerously than the animals we slaughter for meat) mean the same as cows, pigs, deer and sheep?

GeD, that is an important question, and it's an issue that's already come up in this thread. This thread is so long, however, that I can understand if you've missed it. Yes, unfortunately, animals are killed in plant agriculture. However, the majority of plant agriculture is input to animal agriculture. Even more plant crops must be harvested for animal agriculture than when we just eat the plants directly. This situation is incredibly inefficient. Many more animals are still killed through animal agriculture.

The vast majority of the animals killed through plant agriculture are insects. Do insects experience? I don't know. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt when necessary, but it is not as obvious as with mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc., because they do not have the centralization that our nervous systems have.

That would be phylumism! And don't forget Kingdomism; save the bacteria!

I may be incorrect here, but it seems that you are taking a cheap stab at animal rights people. If you are going to post, please make it something constructive.

By the way, for those of you who are dedicated American vegetarians, I think more needs to be done about our farming crisis here...soon your produce will come from another country because American farmers cannot afford to continue on. I think more support needs to be lended to them right now as much as animal cruelty.

Please do not try to trivialize the issue or distract attention away because you do not agree with the viewpoints of the people bringing up the issue. There are far more many farmed animals who face fates that are incomprehensibly horrible. Ten billion land animals are are put through the confinement, drugging, painfully-fast growth, mutilation without anaesthetic, constant stench of excrement, and other sufferings of factory farming before going to the slaughter house where "They die piece by piece", according to one slaughterhouse worker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A60798-2001Apr9¬Found=true).

And you want to say that that is less important than farmers (of which there are thousands, perhaps, compared to billions per year) meeting hard economic times or having to find new jobs?

Kerrie

Feb19-05, 12:51 PM

Please do not try to trivialize the issue or distract attention away because you do not agree with the viewpoints of the people bringing up the issue. There are far more many farmed animals who face fates that are incomprehensibly horrible. Ten billion land animals are are put through the confinement, drugging, painfully-fast growth, mutilation without anaesthetic, constant stench of excrement, and other sufferings of factory farming before going to the slaughter house where "They die piece by piece", according to one slaughterhouse worker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A60798-2001Apr9¬Found=true).

And you want to say that that is less important than farmers (of which there are thousands, perhaps, compared to billions per year) meeting hard economic times or having to find new jobs?

And please read my post a little more carefully:

I think more support needs to be lended to them right now as much as animal cruelty.

When your produce comes from a third world country where even more animals are killed by agricultural farming because they do not have the standards like America does, then maybe you will see the crisis farmers truly are in. Stop distracting yourself from a huge problem that will affect you in the future more so then the average meat eater.

Dissident Dan

Feb19-05, 01:15 PM

And please read my post a little more carefully:
I think more support needs to be lended to them right now as much as animal cruelty.

When your produce comes from a third world country where even more animals are killed by agricultural farming because they do not have the standards like America does, then maybe you will see the crisis farmers truly are in. Stop distracting yourself from a huge problem that will affect you in the future more so then the average meat eater.

Kerrie, I apologize for reading your post too quickly. I thought that you said that the farmer situation is more important. Still, in light of the things that I said, the problems the global economy causes for farmers (which goes both ways, btw, as Mexican corn farmers were devasted by the introduction of US American corn following the implementation of NAFTA), just in respect to the problems it causes for farmers, is not nearly as large a problem as what faces farmed animals.

If your intent was to point out the problem this poses for animals, then I am sorry not understanding your intent. If your intent was to point out how the farmers need help for their own sake, that is a valid and serious issue, but bringing that up in this particular thread is a distraction from the issue at hand. Please let me know what your intention was.

To address the issue of how farmed animals are treated in other countries, it's actually not as one would guess. It's often the case that the richer the country, the poorer the conditions for animals, with the strongest example of that being the country you and I live in. We have the worst animal abuses in the world when it comes to food production...and in the greatest numbers. Poorer countries have not industrialized to the extent that we have, and their agriculture sectors are not as consolidated (when agriculture is consolidated in the hands of a few large companies, animals suffer because the decision makers are far removed from the animals and one thing is the sole concern: profit).

Also, as the article I linked to earlier pointed out, laws that we do have to protect farmed animals are rarely enforced, and the Humane Methods of Slaughter act exempts over 90% over farmed land animal (birds)! And, unless I am mistaken, there is no animal welfare law for animals in factory farms...the only law is the Humane Slaughter law that I just mentioned.

Kerrie

Feb19-05, 01:53 PM

I am sure you are correct in saying that industrialized nations harm more animals then less industrialized countries, however, as our produce becomes more and more outsourced, those countries supplying us with their food will become more industrialized because of supply and demand. My point is, because they do not hold the standards that America does (in general), more animals can potentially be harmed in the agricultural business that is outsourced and you will likely receive produce that has more pesticides and wonderful chemicals to preserve the long ride overseas. I work directly with farmers, and anytime I go into my grocery store, I choose carefully that my produce is farmed in the USA and am willing to pay more for the American produce then for another nation's produce. Hopefully you do the same.

My intention was to say, let's also protect the American farmer for our OWN sake as well as the farmer's economy as well as advocate more humane methods of animal farming. Basically, if you want to continue to have the choice of produce as a vegetarian that you are, then put the effort for those who are feeding you here at home.

I think it can safely be said that within at least our generation you will not have 100% of the population stop eating meat. This is reality, whether you feel it is wrong or right. It's a free choice we are given, and most Americans (vegans, vegetarians, or Atkin's dieters) take these choices for granted. We need to not only protect our choices, but make sure our choices are done so safely and in the best interest of all of life.

GeD

Feb19-05, 08:52 PM

GeD, that is an important question, and it's an issue that's already come up in this thread. This thread is so long, however, that I can understand if you've missed it. Yes, unfortunately, animals are killed in plant agriculture. However, the majority of plant agriculture is input to animal agriculture. Even more plant crops must be harvested for animal agriculture than when we just eat the plants directly. This situation is incredibly inefficient. Many more animals are still killed through animal agriculture.

We can agree that whether we are vegetarians or not, it will involve killing thousands of insect life and plant life, and even some animal life. Even though the debate about whether more lifeforms may be killed whether we are vegetarian or not is something yet to be researched, the major point is not efficiency. If it were, then research into the amount of kills based on a vegetarian or non-vegetarian diet would dictate whether we should be vegetarian or not (still hasn't been proven which kills less). But this is plain lunacy! The initial conditions of why we chose vegetarianism is not to kill ANIMAL life, and yet willing to kill PLANT life. Thus, the animal's right to life (and any other life) is null and void according to the vegetarian's argument, since life by itself gives no right to live. To the previously stated argument, a nervous system is required before they have a "right" to life.

Conflict, struggle and death are all inevitably a part of life. The quicker we realise this, the earlier we will stop deluding ourselves. We must work for our survival, our power - and hopefully without wasting and destroying everything around us (which would kill our future).

The vast majority of the animals killed through plant agriculture are insects. Do insects experience? I don't know. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt when necessary, but it is not as obvious as with mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc., because they do not have the centralization that our nervous systems have.

I may be incorrect here, but it seems that you are taking a cheap stab at animal rights people. If you are going to post, please make it something constructive.

This is exactly what he's talking about. There is phylumism at work here - mammals, etc who "OBVIOUSLY" seem to be superior to insects because of a nervous system, and yet they will reject humans who "EVEN MORE OBVIOUSLY" seem to be superior to normal animals because of the ability to deliberate, a superior intellect, etc.

The question of cruelty to animals is another case, which if it needs to be dealt with, must be done so directly - and not by taking away people's freedoms to eat what they want and force vegetarianism in "a couple generations' time".

Dissident Dan

Feb19-05, 10:33 PM

Even though the debate about whether more lifeforms may be killed whether we are vegetarian or not is something yet to be researched, the major point is not efficiency.

Efficiency is a major concern, when the efficiency is in terms of how much plant material must be produced, and you're talking about deaths are a result of plant agriculture. More efficiency->fewer plants produced->fewer deaths.

If it were, then research into the amount of kills based on a vegetarian or non-vegetarian diet would dictate whether we should be vegetarian or not (still hasn't been proven which kills less). But this is plain lunacy!

"This is plain lunacy!" is not a good argument. A little bit of research will tell you that a majority of grains produced in the USA, for example, goes into animal agriculture. This, combined with the fact that nothing is 100% efficicient (and thus more plant food goes in than animal food comes out) leads to the obvious conclusion that animal agriculture leads to more death just from the production of plant crops, let alone the torture and killing of the billions of farmed animals, themselves.

The initial conditions of why we chose vegetarianism is not to kill ANIMAL life, and yet willing to kill PLANT life. Thus, the animal's right to life (and any other life) is null and void according to the vegetarian's argument, since life by itself gives no right to live. To the previously stated argument, a nervous system is required before they have a "right" to life.

How is the animal's right to life null and void? I'm not following.

Conflict, struggle and death are all inevitably a part of life. The quicker we realise this, the earlier we will stop deluding ourselves. We must work for our survival, our power - and hopefully without wasting and destroying everything around us (which would kill our future).

That same argument could be used to justify the Nazi takeover of Europe, or, in fact, anything. It is a might makes right argument, which ultimately means that whatever happens is right. I reject this view.

I don't understand your reasoning regarding inevitability. Sure, having death and suffering (or struggle, to use your terms) is inevitable, but not all death and suffering is inevitable.

This is exactly what he's talking about. There is phylumism at work here - mammals, etc who "OBVIOUSLY" seem to be superior to insects because of a nervous system, and yet they will reject humans who "EVEN MORE OBVIOUSLY" seem to be superior to normal animals because of the ability to deliberate, a superior intellect, etc.

I am just applying the non-arbitrary, non-prejudiced criterion of ability to experience, which leads me to examine nervous systems without any preconceptions. I did not make any definite statement as to whether or not insects can feel.

The question of cruelty to animals is another case, which if it needs to be dealt with, must be done so directly - and not by taking away people's freedoms to eat what they want and force vegetarianism in "a couple generations' time".

I don't know how people can make this argument without seeing the obvious contradiction in it. By choosing to eat meat, you are choosing to not care about animals' freedom from harm. It has never been otherwise, and I cannot forsee it becoming otherwise. If someone stated, "Don't try to take away my freedom to beat my kids," or "Don't try to take away my freedom to eat human burgers," wouldn't you find that a little ridiculous?

learningphysics

Feb19-05, 11:03 PM

Give me my freedom to eat other humans, and all is well. I'll have no further argument with meat eaters.

GeD

Feb20-05, 06:07 AM

Give me my freedom to eat other humans, and all is well. I'll have no further argument with meat eaters.

Then prepare for the family's revenge

GeD

Feb20-05, 07:04 AM

Efficiency is a major concern, when the efficiency is in terms of how much plant material must be produced, and you're talking about deaths are a result of plant agriculture. More efficiency->fewer plants produced->fewer deaths.Fewer plants would be used to feed animals "for the slaughter" yes, but more plants (and thus plant fields) would be used to feed humans.

"This is plain lunacy!" is not a good argument. A little bit of research will tell you that a majority of grains produced in the USA, for example, goes into animal agriculture. This, combined with the fact that nothing is 100% efficicient (and thus more plant food goes in than animal food comes out) leads to the obvious conclusion that animal agriculture leads to more death just from the production of plant crops, let alone the torture and killing of the billions of farmed animals, themselves.The argument wasn't based on that statement - it clearly just an observation of what has been ascertained by vegetarians.

How is the animal's right to life null and void? I'm not following.If I must explain it again, you wish to save animal life, because you feel that their lives are worthy of saving. Yet, you do not feel the same way with plants - which are also alive. Thus, you claim that animals are superior with their nervous system and conclude that they must have the right to live, whereas plants do not.

That same argument could be used to justify the Nazi takeover of Europe, or, in fact, anything. It is a might makes right argument, which ultimately means that whatever happens is right. I reject this view.I have notstated that whatever happens is right. Only those who assume the existence of moral phenomena believe that things happen for right or wrong.
Moving on, it is useful to understand that the powerful have always controlled the way things are done. Unfortunately, that's just how life has been, and I believe continue to do so. The powerful have always exerted its physical dominance over the weaker - if not physical strength, then in numerical strength - as is the case in democracy. But it is always about power. Under these conditions, it is best for us - who value human life, since we have similar "superior animal" abilities - to keep worthless cruelty, wasteful conflicts, and unnecessary killings to the minimum (including those of animals). But it does not mean any of those actions should be deemed "right" - these are simply useful solutions to commonly felt problems of food resources, life preservation, conflict stabilization, etc.

I don't understand your reasoning regarding inevitability. Sure, having death and suffering (or struggle, to use your terms) is inevitable, but not all death and suffering is inevitable.Indeed not all should die and suffer at exactly the same time, but all life will reach death - it's inevitable. All beings who feel joy, will feel suffering - it is that simple. There is no escaping them.

I am just applying the non-arbitrary, non-prejudiced criterion of ability to experience, which leads me to examine nervous systems without any preconceptions. I did not make any definite statement as to whether or not insects can feel.The point isn't about whether you believe insects have nervous systems or not. The point is that you feel certain animal species are superior to others and have the right to live over the inferior insects, etc. Yet, you are not willing to declare that the even more superior animal - humans - do not have a right to life over normal animals.

I don't know how people can make this argument without seeing the obvious contradiction in it. By choosing to eat meat, you are choosing to not care about animals' freedom from harm. It has never been otherwise, and I cannot forsee it becoming otherwise. If someone stated, "Don't try to take away my freedom to beat my kids," or "Don't try to take away my freedom to eat human burgers," wouldn't you find that a little ridiculous?Why exactly should we keep certain animals free while not smaller ones like insects? Also, why should do we have a duty to animal freedom in the first place?
A person would only find such statements ridiculuous, if he valued not traumatizing children, and valued not killing people for food.
But self-chosen kid beaters and cannibals would agree with those "freedoms" and would not feel any guilt; they think it's what they ought or need to do.

Dissident Dan

Feb20-05, 09:00 AM

The point isn't about whether you believe insects have nervous systems or not. The point is that you feel certain animal species are superior to others and have the right to live over the inferior insects, etc. Yet, you are not willing to declare that the even more superior animal - humans - do not have a right to life over normal animals.

Humans and many other species all have the ability to experience. Neither humans nor one of these other species is superior in that regard.

Kerrie

Feb20-05, 09:56 AM

Humans and many other species all have the ability to experience. Neither humans nor one of these other species is superior in that regard.

this is a statement based more on opinion yet fact clearly shows humans have and most likely remain the most superior animal due to our biological makeup. dan, i think highly of you for advocating something you feel so strongly in, but is your goal to help educate others, or just to preach how wrong it is? i would hope to educate, and it might be helpful to show others facts about how healthy a more vegetarian diet can be over the inhumane treatment at first, and what we can personally benefit from...pictures of slaughter houses just doesn't seem to penetrate the hearts of people like it does to you. i think once you can get people to see the health benefits, it might be possible to go further and enlighten more people about the inhumane treatment animals receive in the butchering factories, thus securing their choice of eating vegetarian.

learningphysics

Feb20-05, 11:29 AM

A person would only find such statements ridiculuous, if he valued not traumatizing children, and valued not killing people for food.
But self-chosen kid beaters and cannibals would agree with those "freedoms" and would not feel any guilt; they think it's what they ought or need to do.

So are the kid beaters and cannibals morally right or wrong or neither?

Dissident Dan

Feb20-05, 07:02 PM

this is a statement based more on opinion yet fact clearly shows humans have and most likely remain the most superior animal due to our biological.

We are superior at certain tasks, and other species are superior at other tasks. There is no such thing as "superior", in general.

Kerrie

Feb20-05, 09:39 PM

We are superior at certain tasks, and other species are superior at other tasks. There is no such thing as "superior", in general.

you addressed only the first portion of my post, what is your response to the remainder?

Dissident Dan

Feb20-05, 10:03 PM

you addressed only the first portion of my post, what is your response to the remainder?

Fair Enough.

dan, i think highly of you for advocating something you feel so strongly in, but is your goal to help educate others, or just to preach how wrong it is?

I want to reduce the suffering in the world. Cutting out the animal consumption helps both oneself and reduces the suffering that farmed animals face--the farmed animal end being the more significant point. I want people to be healthy and happy, but my main motivation is to reduce the suffering of so many animals suffering in animal agriculture, because they suffer so intensely and in such great numbers.

i would hope to educate, and it might be helpful to show others facts about how healthy a more vegetarian diet can be over the inhumane treatment at first, and what we can personally benefit from...pictures of slaughter houses just doesn't seem to penetrate the hearts of people like it does to you. i think once you can get people to see the health benefits, it might be possible to go further and enlighten more people about the inhumane treatment animals receive in the butchering factories, thus securing their choice of eating vegetarian.

The healthiness of vegetarian diets can be a strong motivator for some people, but my analysis leads me to think that highlighting ethics aspects is more effective at causing lasting change in a person's behavior. This is a strategic point. Also, it would be insincere for me to posit that my main concern is with people's health, when it is not my primary concern (although I do care). I also think that I would get even more of a "You choose to be vegan. I choose to eat meat" responses with that approach.

It's good to mention the health arguments, as has already been done in this thread, but I would not put them forward as the primary arguments.

GeD

Feb20-05, 10:26 PM

Humans and many other species all have the ability to experience. Neither humans nor one of these other species is superior in that regard.Then the biggest issue is whether humans are superior or not. If humans are superior to normal animals, then vegetarians are in the same boat as meat eaters.

So are the kid beaters and cannibals morally right or wrong or neither?The existence of moral phenomena is still under dispute, but if you assume that they do exist, it still depends on which moral system is actually correct.

GeD

Feb21-05, 08:06 AM

I want to reduce the suffering in the world. Cutting out the animal consumption helps both oneself and reduces the suffering that farmed animals face--the farmed animal end being the more significant point. I want people to be healthy and happy, but my main motivation is to reduce the suffering of so many animals suffering in animal agriculture, because they suffer so intensely and in such great numbers.As noble as that may sound, it doesn't reflect what everyone else wants to follow, and also does not imply that every highly regarded moral system would want us to do that as well.

This means that even if you were successful in bringing about vegetarianism in western societies, it can only be called as such: enforcement - but neither a necessity nor nobility. Victory in this manner is only a testament of POWER, not of superior ideas.

Dissident Dan

Feb21-05, 10:09 AM

This means that even if you were successful in bringing about vegetarianism in western societies, it can only be called as such: enforcement - but neither a necessity nor nobility. Victory in this manner is only a testament of POWER, not of superior ideas.

Would you say the same thing of the Civil Rights Act, child labor laws, etc?

K.J.Healey

Feb21-05, 11:00 AM

learningphysics

Feb21-05, 12:28 PM

Then the biggest issue is whether humans are superior or not. If humans are superior to normal animals, then vegetarians are in the same boat as meat eaters.

The existence of moral phenomena is still under dispute, but if you assume that they do exist, it still depends on which moral system is actually correct.

Ok... if we take moral phenomena as non-existent, then everything's equally ok, or equally bad. Eating meat, rape, murder, eating humans,sitting quietly doing nothing etc...

If we assume moral phenomena do exist then how do we determine which system is correct?

Which is your position?

Dissident Dan

Feb21-05, 01:37 PM

Not to veer form the current discussion, and I'm not sure if this has already been discussed (87 pages to read is intimidating...) but..
Has there ever been any research on whether or not the human population could either:
A) Afford to feed themselves without using meat
What I mean is, could we financially do a conversion without the costs of non-meat products skyrocketing?

Actually, if more people ate the speciality products such as veggie "meats", the prices would come down, because the scale of production would go up and there would be more competition. As far as traditional plant foods, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, grains, etc., we would actually need to produce less plant food because we would not be feeding them to animals first (and you get a lot less food out of an animal than you put in). We would probably need to produce more of the types that we don't currently feed to farmed animals, but this would be more than made up for by the fact so many other plants no longer need to be produced.

B) Survive on a non-meat diet?
Currently meat is a primary source of food which provides high levels of protien and high caloric content by weight. Would overpopulated or starved countries, such as China, N Korea, and the like, be able to keep their population from malnutrition and still be able to produce enough food to meet their nutritional requirements? I cannot think of a non-meat diet that is both inexpensive, healthy (in terms of survival), and could be self-harvested. (People have their own animals to consume).

It is my understanding that most extremely poor people in 3rd-world countries eat hardly any meat, anyway. Instead of spending effort on the inputs that go into animal agriculture, we could spend that effort on producing food for direct human consumption. We could produce much more food given a certain amount of resources on animal-free diets, so feeding a hungry world is actually easier through vegetarianism.

Just wondering. I still am undecided on my stance. I eat meat, but only because everytime I try to go without it my red blood cell count drops drastically and I lose lots of energy.

I'm sorry to hear that. How do you know that your red blood cell count dropped? Did you get it tested in a lab?

If you eat a well-balanced diet, you will not have problems. I hope that you weren't eating just french fries and potato chips. Whether vegetarian or not, if you do not eat a variety of foods, you will have problems.

K.J.Healey

Feb21-05, 04:08 PM

Actually, if more people ate the speciality products such as veggie "meats", the prices would come down, because the scale of production would go up and there would be more competition. As far as traditional plant foods, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, grains, etc., we would actually need to produce less plant food because we would not be feeding them to animals first (and you get a lot less food out of an animal than you put in). We would probably need to produce more of the types that we don't currently feed to farmed animals, but this would be more than made up for by the fact so many other plants no longer need to be produced.

You cant really qualify the "food" we give to animals as "food" that we ourselves could consume. If our diet looked similar to that of a cow/chicken's we'd all be unleathy from the overeating of grains.
Also, the thing about grains is that in volume of consumable product per square meter of crop it is a lot higher than any fruit, and most other vegetables. Also grains are less prone to disease and parasites, where fruits and vegetables have to be constantly monitored, thus requiring higher operating costs. I wonder what the actual values are of area of land used for cows+grains compared to the equal amount of final human edible product with other produce.

It is my understanding that most extremely poor people in 3rd-world countries eat hardly any meat, anyway. Instead of spending effort on the inputs that go into animal agriculture, we could spend that effort on producing food for direct human consumption. We could produce much more food given a certain amount of resources on animal-free diets, so feeding a hungry world is actually easier through vegetarianism.

Actuallym extremely poor countries have to do just about anything for their meat because its one of their few sources of protiens and needed fats. Its also essential for early development of a high-caloric diet. I'm not arguing that its impossible to feed these people without meat, I'm just proposing that it might be tougher due to the amount of needed foodstuffs to be produced for them to replace their current (though lacking) nutritional intake.

I'm sorry to hear that. How do you know that your red blood cell count dropped? Did you get it tested in a lab?

If you eat a well-balanced diet, you will not have problems. I hope that you weren't eating just french fries and potato chips. Whether vegetarian or not, if you do not eat a variety of foods, you will have problems.

No, my girlfriend at the time was vegetarian since she was 3. So I started the same diet, lots of fuits, greens, nuts (basically mediterranian diet). Over the course of 4 to 5 months I noticed a difference in my energy and ability to focus. I get my blood tested quite frequently because diabetes type-2 runs rampant in my family and I'm attempting to avoid it. I just have them do a full analysis (free at the hospital on base here). It's been a few years, but if i remember correctly my red blood cell count was at like 9 or 10? does that sound right? I cant remember.

EDIT : I just checked, it was the Total Hemoglobin Concentration in g/dl.