On June 04 2011 06:50 Ig wrote: Hey Laerties, you can eat exclusively meat and survive. Plant matter isn't "necessary" for human health and survival. It's true, just ask the Inuit peoples.
Um.....people who are vegetarian don't eat meatttt sooooooo.........
Also, If you had to make the choice between harming an animal or harming a plant to survive, I'm pretty certain you can be safe in your assumption that the plant is going to suffer less.
And...there are people who eat exclusively meat so...what was your point?
Also, plants respond to physical harm as well, they simply don't have faces and the ability to scream so people like you don't think they suffer as much.
You should refer to the point I made about plants in the post above. Also, ethical and moral decisions are traditionally made on what is observable. So maybe YOU need to rethink they way you think .
You should refer to the point about using the line of reasoning that says "they don't feel the same way we do," it's not something you should just brush off because it doesn't suit you. You can't say you're not arguing morality when it's clear you are, and it's clear you think yours is superior.
My point on this goes along with that and isn't that you have to eat meat or can't be vegan, my point is that it's a matter of personal choice that should not involve morals because you can't say "I hold all life in the highest regard" (some do) or anything about life at all, and choose to eat some forms over others because of some ambiguous moral issue. It's said very plainly in that article and a fact of life: human beings survive by eating other living things. Would you tell a bear, which in many ways occupies a similar ecological niche to us humans, to not eat salmon or a sick deer it can catch because it can survive off of plant material? This is ecology and our ancestry, we eat meat (and plants), we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat, and it is a luxury of our modern society that we have the time to argue over the ridiculous notion of the morality of eating meat, not an actual moral issue akin to equality. Now how we obtain our meat is another issue and I am most definitely against factory farming and the massive amount of meat that we eat - we can eat meat, just eat less so we don't have a demand for operations such as factory farms.
hotbreakfast put it in a funny way, but he's not wrong. Pretty much the only living things that exist to be eaten are fruits. Maybe you should only eat fruits and tell me how that goes.
I didnt say I wasn't arguing morality, I am. What your wrong about though is that I think my morality defines me as a superior human being. I care about morals because I believe that they are extremely valuable for individuals and societies, I don't think that I am a superior person . If you want to hear it, I think in many ways I am less valuable than most people.
You say that I shouldn't consider morality when making the personal choice of eating meat or not because I am trying to communicate that "I hold all life in the highest regard" but still eat plants and have weak justification for that. This isn't true however. I don't hold all life in the highest regard. I value my moral assessment of situations, and eating plants is more moral than eating animals. I have tried to explain the reasons for this distinction several times and I will do it again below.
As far as plants go, they literally do not feel pain in the way people define it. They do not have a brain to process any stimulation they can detect and EVEN if they did, they definitely have no ability to emotionally or psychologically respond to a life threatening situation. EVEN if you were to say that plants and animals suffer equally*which is ridiculous*, it takes around 10 human servings of grains to provide 1 portion of meat because of how much grain cows eat so meat eating inarguably incurs more suffering than not eating meat.
You gave a funny example with the bear, and your right, I wouldn't expect a bear to only eat vegetables. ....Bears don't have the ability to interpret right from wrong, they are solely concerned with their survival, the ability to make distinctions between right and wrong is one of the defining characteristics of being human. Also, " we were able to evolve big brains because we ate meat", no. I definitely agree that this is a more minor ethical issue than human equality but I don't see that as a reason to not argue or abide by it. Tell me what you think, minus the hateful personal stabs pls?
After reading the tl fitness thread pretty much constantly saying how bad grains are for you (refined and unrefined), I'm wondering if one can really consider the vegan diet to be all that healthy. The alternatives for protein and omega fatty acids come from grains but some people consider grains in general to be anti nutritious. It would seem that eating meat is the healthier alternative.
On June 04 2011 09:05 shinosai wrote: After reading the tl fitness thread pretty much constantly saying how bad grains are for you (refined and unrefined), I'm wondering if one can really consider the vegan diet to be all that healthy. The alternatives for protein and omega fatty acids come from grains but some people consider grains in general to be anti nutritious. It would seem that eating meat is the healthier alternative.
A lot of the protiens also come from beans like soy and lentils. I would agree that a full vegan diet is a bit unhealthy though. It is much easier to get protien from things like milk and eggs. I am vegetarian and I have no problem getting around 60g of protien a day. I usually have milk with breakfast which sometimes has up to 22g of protien for like 16 oz. I then usually have some kind of veggie burger(28 g protien for 2 patties) with lunch or at least include some kind of beans/eggs(usually around 18-20). By dinner I'm ready to to eat some carbs, like pasta or what not. A serving of pasta actually has around 7g protien. a
On June 04 2011 09:05 shinosai wrote: After reading the tl fitness thread pretty much constantly saying how bad grains are for you (refined and unrefined), I'm wondering if one can really consider the vegan diet to be all that healthy. The alternatives for protein and omega fatty acids come from grains but some people consider grains in general to be anti nutritious. It would seem that eating meat is the healthier alternative.
Vegans/vegetarians simply cut specific foods out of their diet. It's still possible to balance fat intake/carb intake/etc. The primary issue with vegetarian diets is that they lack amino acids that are only found in meat. It's usually compensated by a diet supplement pill of some kind.
Vegetarianism is a passably healthy way to live. The only visible effects are yellowing skin or thinner hair.
I feel like the OP typed up a wall of text that could be summed up as "Animals have the right to not be raised just to be slaughtered and eaten by humans".
I disagree.
Also, my cat and I have an agreement that if we're ever trapped under a building or something with water but without food for a month, whichever one of us doesn't die first gets to eat the other. Not to brag or anything but I'll bet I taste pretty good.
your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote: So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
On June 04 2011 09:44 Number-J wrote: your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Agreed. Morality is how one ought to act. Just because killing animals is harmful to animals, you can't logically imply that one ought not to kill animals. You can't logically derive ought from is. The whole argument is arbitrary as it implies that subjective preferences can somehow create moral truths.
What OP has done is merely stated some arguments that support his subjective preference (i.e. dislike for animal consumption), he has ultimately failed to establish an objective moral truth.
while i understand the op and have reduced the amount of meat i eat in recent years; animals don't care about us and will never care about us, so i don't care about them. aside from that, not eating meat wont stop the next guy from eating the burger i rejected nor will it bring the cow that was killed and processed days ago back to life. voting with your dollar doesn't work because a billion others will willing toss theirs in. hence why video game companies are allowed to nickle and dime you and are getting worse and worse.
On June 04 2011 09:44 Number-J wrote: your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Agreed. Morality is how one ought to act. Just because killing animals is harmful to animals, you can't logically imply that one ought not to kill animals. You can't logically derive ought from is. The whole argument is arbitrary as it implies that subjective preferences can somehow create moral truths.
What OP has done is merely stated some arguments that support his subjective preference (i.e. dislike for animal consumption), he has ultimately failed to establish an objective moral truth.
Morality isn't how one ought to act. saying that there exists a way that a person ought to act is stating that morality exists. what you've done is point out that there is no logical reason why an animal suffering should prevent us from eating meat. You've reinforced his belief that morality is real though
On June 04 2011 09:39 Hinanawi wrote: I feel like the OP typed up a wall of text that could be summed up as "Animals have the right to not be raised just to be slaughtered and eaten by humans".
I disagree.
Also, my cat and I have an agreement that if we're ever trapped under a building or something with water but without food for a month, whichever one of us doesn't die first gets to eat the other. Not to brag or anything but I'll bet I taste pretty good.
Agreed.
I have this deal with my cat that if he leaves the birds and snakes and moles he kills on the front porch instead of leaving them laying on the stairs I'll give him catnip and tuna. So far, it isn't working.
My kitty is too spoiled to eat human at this point.
On June 04 2011 09:44 Number-J wrote: your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Agreed. Morality is how one ought to act. Just because killing animals is harmful to animals, you can't logically imply that one ought not to kill animals. You can't logically derive ought from is. The whole argument is arbitrary as it implies that subjective preferences can somehow create moral truths.
What OP has done is merely stated some arguments that support his subjective preference (i.e. dislike for animal consumption), he has ultimately failed to establish an objective moral truth.
The argument is not based upon morality being a fundamental part of the universe. I'll just thow the definition of moral from Merriam webster here" a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>" So, morals are fundamental principles used to define right and wrong actions. So while I don't see the moral judgment of a situation as the sole factor, it, along with necessity are the key factors to my decision to not eat meat. So, because I see eating meat as immoral, and for me is unnecessary, I don't believe there is a good reason I should eat meat. I totally agree that morals have been extrapolated by humans to make sense of the world, they are not 'fundimentally flawed' because the world wasn't made by humans though. You wouldn't say that D=r*t is wrong because its a way for humans to make sense of a world that wasn't defined by humans. Your argument would imply that any human interpretation of anything that isnt made by humans is wrong.
On June 04 2011 09:44 Number-J wrote: your entire thesis is based on the idea that morality is a fundamental, transcendent part of the universe, not an extrapolated idea created by human beings to help make sense of a world that simply exists without needing to conform to standard human thought. it is therefore fundamentally flawed.
Agreed. Morality is how one ought to act. Just because killing animals is harmful to animals, you can't logically imply that one ought not to kill animals. You can't logically derive ought from is. The whole argument is arbitrary as it implies that subjective preferences can somehow create moral truths.
What OP has done is merely stated some arguments that support his subjective preference (i.e. dislike for animal consumption), he has ultimately failed to establish an objective moral truth.
Morality isn't how one ought to act. saying that there exists a way that a person ought to act is stating that morality exists. what you've done is point out that there is no logical reason why an animal suffering should prevent us from eating meat. You've reinforced his belief that morality is real though
No, essence does not imply existence. A four-sided triangle has an essence, but this doesn't mean it exists. Morality has an essence (i.e. how one should act), but its essence doesn't logically imply its existence.
On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote: So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
Again with a sensational video... If the product is not tested on animals, how can we know it's safe? Should we test it on humans immediately? Let's try all new medicines on humans first. Better yet, don't try the medicines at all before putting it in use.
And don't say something stupid like "we don't need new products."
On June 04 2011 06:59 Deadlyfish wrote: If I kill 1000 cows, it wouldnt matter if i did it for pleasure or for survival, at least not to the cows. You could say that it was mean and wrong to kill them, and you would have a point. But to suggest that it matters to anyone but yourself why they were killed is silly. That is what i have a problem with. Your reasoning is based on some philosophical moral on what is wrong or right, but it doesnt help the animals at all, which is the whole point in the first place isnt it? If your moral was that "we shouldnt kill animals" then the reason for killing would be irrelevant.
On June 04 2011 04:42 Iranon wrote:As an outdoorsy guy, many of my friends are hunters, and I have absolutely no problem with eating hunted meat. If I'm over their house and they cooked up an awesome venison thing, sure, I'll have that. All the hunters I know are very respectful ones, not assholes with guns who just like killin' shit. There is certainly a place in the world for killing animals for food, just not so much doing it by the millions.
I actually first became a vegetarian myself BECAUSE of hunting. I witnessed a kid's mother being shot and dying, and the kid being too young to understand to run away. It just kept trying to cuddle its mother and it was wailing because its mother died. We took the mother home for food and kept the kid as a pet, but as the years went by I could see how much better it would have been for the kid to have continued living in the wild with its mother. Animals that are hunted have families too and we shouldn't take that away from them simply because we want to eat them. See the 6:25 mark in the following video:
On June 04 2011 04:19 FuzzyJAM wrote: One thing I do want to know, though, is whether vegans foresee a future without "speciesism". Do you think you will eventually wins rights for animals equivalent to humans? Also, if you believe animals to be equal to humans and worthy of the same rights, do you not think almost every human alive and who has ever lived is essentially evil for being a mass murderer?
Many of our grandparents were racists and owned slaves. Many of our ancestors were Christians and carried out mass murdering of non-Christians. Doesn't make it right.
On June 04 2011 09:05 shinosai wrote: After reading the tl fitness thread pretty much constantly saying how bad grains are for you (refined and unrefined), I'm wondering if one can really consider the vegan diet to be all that healthy. The alternatives for protein and omega fatty acids come from grains but some people consider grains in general to be anti nutritious. It would seem that eating meat is the healthier alternative.
On June 04 2011 07:40 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: am i stupid for expecting some recipes and cool pictures when i clicked on this thread? im not a vegan/vegetarian at all but wouldve liked to see if they are some dishes i might like
or is this just a place where side A tries to convince side B that they are right?
You can easily find those sorts of recipes on the internet. I personally prefer debating type threads because I have a legal background and am interested in forums simply because of the discussions and arguments that occur.
If somebody created a Christianity thread, I would much rather click on it hoping for an atheist versus Christian debate on the existence of God rather than a whole bunch of Christians talking about what Church they go to and how to read the Bible in order to get a fulfilling 'relationship with God'.
On June 04 2011 03:08 Ravencruiser wrote: So OP, answer in one short paragraph or less please: Why DON'T you care more about animals that are used for medical/product testing (which undergo much more suffering than animals that are simply killed for food)?
I DO care about animals that are used for experiments - that is why I am against vivisection and try to avoid products that are animal tested. See the following:
Again with a sensational video... If the product is not tested on animals, how can we know it's safe? Should we test it on humans immediately? Let's try all new medicines on humans first. Better yet, don't try the medicines at all before putting it in use.
And don't say something stupid like "we don't need new products."
It's not 'sensationalist' - it is simply showing the footage of how animal testing is carried out. If we watch a documentary on slavery in history, it's not 'sensationalist'. It's a documentary on how it occurred.
"I have studied the question of vivisection for thirty-five years and am convinced that experiments on living animals are leading medicine further and further from the real cure of the patient. I know of no instance of animal experiment that has been necessary for the advancement of medical science; still less do I know of any animal experiment that could conceivably be necessary to save human life." -H. Fergie Woods, M.D.
"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it." - Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine
EPT
. 
