Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[siliconhype]

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.

"Obviously, this is absurd."

Absurd only in the mind of the victim or potential victim. It has always been so even among humans.

Otherwise i agree with most of your opinions, The majority of Earth's population does, in fact, not eat meat in the majority of their diet; the majority (around 90%) eat grains.

- V

 

[lightbeing]

caloric restriction

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]

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 (acquired 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]

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.

What's the average life expectancy of a buddhist monk in asia compared to the average american? I doubt it compares favorablly.

 

[digiflux]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (acquired 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]

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]

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]

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

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 want to 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!

 

[lightbeing]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.. and when the animals screamed, it was just their 'mechanics' that told them to do so...

 

[cogito]

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]

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]

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 let's 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]

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.

Scientists are the ones arguing that animals are the same stuff as us! (Theory of evolution...)

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Anti-Vegetarianism

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]

And I believe that the theory of evolution will cause more good to other animals in length, than it has caused us bad things.

 

[chroot]

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? 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]

Yeah! Go chroot!

 

[chroot]

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]

Some things about the adaptation of humans to a meat diet

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]

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]

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]

Alkatran:
Have you read Margaret Atwood's "Oryx and Crane"?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

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]

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. 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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

But most of them come from meat.

XMLT

 

[physicsisphirst]

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]

But most of them come from meat.

Not if you don't eat meat. Then they all come from plants.

- Warren

 

[siliconhype]

"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]

Not if you don't eat meat. Then they all come from plants.

- Warren

Then you have to eat a lot of plants. You're going to be very busy.

 

[allanpatrick]

No he isn't.

 

[chroot]

Then you have to eat a lot of plants. You're going to be very busy.

That's very stupid. Do you actually know anyone who is vegan? Can you ask him or her about his/her diet?

- Warren

 

[XMLT]

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]

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]

Warren,

It's fine.

XMLT