Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[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

 

[arildno]

It's fine.

XMLT

Your joke was fine, too..

 

[XMLT]

arildno,

Thanks. I'm a Vietnamese with a very little knowledge of English. So if I make mistake just tell me ok?

XMLT

 

[arildno]

Sure enough; I was not sarcastic, if you thought so..

 

[XMLT]

-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]

Your joke was fine, too..

hey i didn't get the joke
everyone else seems to get it
what's the joke?

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

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 referring to the whole argument 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]

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]

"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 really 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, which has nothig to do with health or genes - or jobs.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

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]

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!

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]

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.

I don't know the why you persist on insulting me. If it's because of frustration you should try and take things in a less serious context. If you simply get pleasure out of insulting me, then I suppose you can continue if you wish.

 

[chroot]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 explanation that is satisfying to the point that I can say "Aha... I've got it now".

 

[chroot]

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]

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]

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]

I agree, however, with criminals I think my logic could be applied effectively.