EPTHuman beings are biologically defined to be omnivorous, not herbivorous. That doesn't mean we're carnivorous, but it still means we eat meat. And there are suppliers just as there are consumers. I know where y'all going with all that sympathy for chicken and cows, but honestly... think about it: the cow/chicken you are referring to, whether we farm them or hunt them, are going to meet a traumatising end. Many of us humans too, meet traumatising ends. And many a times it's not the victim's fault. The world is just like that... might as well be a meat lover than torturing yourself against your omnivorous nature. Note: Ants have a far more efficient but cruel way of farming and eating other bugs. And they're famous for conducting a utopian, unachieved-by-humans society. So there, you can stop torturing yourselves, vegetarians, or herbivore-wannabes
Vegetarianism - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
spkim1
Canada286 Posts
Human beings are biologically defined to be omnivorous, not herbivorous. That doesn't mean we're carnivorous, but it still means we eat meat. And there are suppliers just as there are consumers. I know where y'all going with all that sympathy for chicken and cows, but honestly... think about it: the cow/chicken you are referring to, whether we farm them or hunt them, are going to meet a traumatising end. Many of us humans too, meet traumatising ends. And many a times it's not the victim's fault. The world is just like that... might as well be a meat lover than torturing yourself against your omnivorous nature. Note: Ants have a far more efficient but cruel way of farming and eating other bugs. And they're famous for conducting a utopian, unachieved-by-humans society. So there, you can stop torturing yourselves, vegetarians, or herbivore-wannabes | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On May 31 2009 05:09 L wrote: Well, if people would work backwards from their beliefs and hit upon the basal assumptions that they hold, you'd find that a lot more conversations and arguments end in something other than two talking heads trying to headbutt each other into a corner. You change world views instead of stances. Anyways, that's all for my interlude. Well I didn't think that was happening, at least not with me. I was just posting my opinion into the thread, I never expected to convince anyone who didn't agree with my root views of anything. | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
On May 31 2009 04:58 Klive5ive wrote: Helping the homeless does benefit you, it makes you feel good and it shows that you're a nice person... helping you even more in the future. Also you could one day be in that situation and maybe someone will repay the favor. A human is your equal so it makes sense. People don't have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. Society has taught you what you should and should not do. We have emotions based upon taking the feeling of others onto ourselves. That's not the same thing. I can justify eating meat very easily. A fisherman's livelihood rests on the ability to sell fish. He trains in the ability to catch fish. If he offered me a fish and I was hungry I would buy and eat it. Making me feel good because fish is nice and he gets the money he needs to feed his family. Everyone wins... except the fish. But I genuinely don't care about the limited emotions of a fish. K, you're getting some things wrong here imo, or are massively overlooking them. The recognition of ones own pain and the understanding that others can feel the same occurs in children at a young age. Unless they have some psychological problem they recognise that inflicting pain on other people will have negative effects. Nobody needs society to teach them that inflicting pain is wrong. Your argument about helping the homeless is missing the point I was making anyways. From an evolutionary standpoint it makes no sense to help those less fortunate than yourself and yet we do it anyway. This occurs in nature as well (there are many examples of other intelligent creatures, such as dolphins and gorillas etc, helping injured people or members of their own group for no reason but compassion) and doesn't really seem to prove that we have any evolutionary reason to wish to kill animals just because they're inferior. So what I was trying to point out is that the cause of feeling sympathy for animals in pain has no relevance in this argument. And as far as what you say about helping the homeless - Do you actually subscribe to a doctrine of Individual Ethical Egoism or did you just make a mistake? Cause I don't see any way for you too say that all charitable actions make us feel good and are therefore selfish (or that that was the only reason we did them) otherwise... You're argument about a fishermans livelihood being at stake? wut? Thats just such a bad argument I don't even know where to start. He could find another job where he doesn't need to kill things and you could eat something that doesn't require something to die. I really don't see where you were going with this. | ||
|
sudo.era
United States300 Posts
On May 31 2009 05:22 spkim1 wrote: yeah look... I watched half a minute of the video and I just couldn't go on... OK here's the thing: if you had to look after a farm, the whole day long plowing away dirt, throwing in seeds, breaking your back carrying heavy masses of hay, earth, water and wood, feeding hundreds of chicken and cows, cleaning their droppings and dungs, either under burning sun or drenching, freezing rain, Yes, because every single farm houses every type of animal and crop plant known to mankind. Er... Also, given we should be past the fact that most farms focus on one crop or animal (and we're talking about the animal kind), you're painting an outdated country-home idea of farming. A man, his family, and some hired hands get up at the crack of dawn to sew the seeds that will feed everybody an ear of corn and a cold glass of milk at the end of the day... No. The vast majority of farming has become industrialized. You, as part of a corporate subsidization, do as little and spend as little as possible to keep your animals alive. With cows, you let them out during the day and put them in at night. You don't want to pick up their crap because that's natural fertilizer. Chicken farmers pile as many as possible into a single cage, throwing in feed and giving them water as needed. It's not back-breaking labor. Most subsidized chicken farmers clip the beaks off in order to keep them from pecking eachother to death (because of incredibly cramped space) - which I definitely don't see as being more difficult than doing generic programming code for 10 hours a day. I don't think you'd be bitching away at them like that, sitting there comfortably in a nice leisurely appartment. Honestly, it's sickening how people can be so self-centered. Besides, those farmers probably have not much of a career choice. "Self-centered"? First of all, criticizing and not participating in a specific market isn't self-centered - it's how capitalism works. If you don't like how the city bus system is run, regardless of how much bus drivers hate their jobs, it's your right to bring criticism to the local government's doorstep. You have no obligation to pay, or to like any type of service. Anyway, assuming all farmers work as hard as you described, a good example of "self-centeredness" in the meat market is a consumer complaining about the price of a T-bone steak. It's self-centered because the consumer doesn't know at all the work or markup involved in the sale, so assuming that the price should be lower is taking a self-centered leap in judgement. Farmers have the same qualifications as any manual labor; they could do anything in that vast pool of jobs they please. But again, this isn't the point of vegetarianism-for-market-denial. Vegetarians criticize farmers less, and the general market more. The blame is all-around, but they supplement eachother in a way I don't feel you understand. Think of an employee who works in an office. If the boss doesn't set yearly goals, weekly deadlines, and office/social boundaries, then the employee will slack off and possibly behave incorrectly in the office. If the boss only sets goals and no social boundaries, then the employee will work, but could still get away with harassing his co-workers. Animal farming is like an office where the boss doesn't have any social boundaries. If we, the consumers, made a strong statement about how we dislike the way the industry is run, they would change to pander to the consumers. That's that. That's the only reason businesses ever spend more money than is necessary to run the company - to please the consumers. In this Very important - changing the way animals are currently treated wouldn't be made more difficult for the workers. It would be as difficult or easier. The change would be in cost. Chickens would have to be given wider spaces to live in at all times (instead of being literally packed into cages), NOT have their beaks cut off (less work), not be boiled alive (as only some are), and only be killed by immediate/total brain trauma (as most die slowly after having the spine broken). Cows would NOT be injected with supplements that allow them eat cornmeal, ala McDonalds cows (less work), and killed with immediate and total brain trauma rather than being bled out for a full minute. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Human beings are biologically defined to be omnivorous, not herbivorous. Before I go on to this, I'd like to state that this isn't what I care to argue about and isn't my focus. I'm a vegetarian because of industry, not biology. Now, that statement you made there isn't fact. You will be surprised to learn that this is debatable. First: Natural selection and evolution, working together, determine what foods you can process. So, skipping over the NE and Evo processes, what foods you eat are determined by your location on the Earth. If you are in a snow-covered tundra where only mammoths and predators live, you can only eat those things. You can't grow plants. Opposite situation, vice-versa. But this doesn't apply to us, because we can eat anything. Second: Our bodies point toward being much more adapted at plant-eating than meat-eating. Some people cite canines, which is honestly a very weak point to argue around. Humans have some of the wimpiest canines on Earth. Also, many species of apes have larger, more pronounced canines than humans, yet less than 1% of their diets are "flesh" (bugs). On that, before you get carried away, pretty much every animal has omnivore-like digestive abilities, but that does not define them as an omnivore. Our digestive tract is also that of an herbivore. You won't find a single meat-eater on the planet that has one like ours. Meat-eating animals have a straight intestinal tract, whereas plant-eating animals have curving ones. The reason for the meat-intestine being straight is so that meat can easily be passed through the body. Meat, after decomposing within the body, becomes thick and often tries to stick to the intestinal walls. That's why, with our tracts, we have a harder time digesting meat. Beef takes way, way too long to make it all the way out - and can become hazardous to your health if there's too much in your intestines at once. An omnivore is simply something which is not limited in any type of food resource, thus the body has adapted to allow all types. This does not mean you SHOULD eat any one type of resource, simply that you CAN. Third: Humans, being both sentient (unlike most other animals), and the most intelligent beings on the planet (unlike all other animals), we have the ability to decide our own diets. You are not bound by nature. That bears repeating. You are not bound by nature. You decide your own diet. This means that any intellectual conjecture on the subject is useless. You do not have to eat meat, though you can. You do not have to eat plants, though you can. Whether you decide to eat one or both is your own decision. It is not anybody else's fault that you're eating meat, so again, don't blame it on nature. It's all you. the cow/chicken you are referring to, whether we farm them or hunt them, are going to meet a traumatising end. Many of us humans too, meet traumatising ends. I don't think you thought out that analogy. When humans meet "traumatising ends", it is tragic. Is it also tragic, then, when a cow meets such an end? Not to you, it seems. And why is it tragic when a human being meets a "traumatising end"? Because it was preventable. All unnecessary traumas and deaths are preventable. So, then, are animal traumas. Preventable. How animals are treated in both life and death can be changed in order to prevent trauma, just like I mentioned in one of the paragraphs above. "Trauma" assumes that the animal has time to experience their own death, but they definitely, definitely don't have to. And it's not just the way they die that is traumatizing. It's the way they live (as exemplified in an above paragraph). They give you food. Do you not owe them a life free of horrible living circumstances and excruciating deaths? i.e., overall, your point didn't make sense And many a times it's not the victim's fault. Are... are you saying it's the animal's fault? Your analogy... has left the forum and is currently attempting to hang itself over the causeway. ... might as well be a meat lover than torturing yourself against your omnivorous nature. You give us too much credit. It's really not that hard. Also, and again, I decide my diet. Nature is my bitch. Note: Ants have a far more efficient but cruel way of farming and eating other bugs. You're not an ant. And they're famous for conducting a utopian, unachieved-by-humans society. So there, you can stop torturing yourselves, vegetarians, or herbivore-wannabes Utopian? You mean the part where all of them work all day and nobody gets to have sex? Ant colonies are totally, completely, 100%, indefinitely incomparable to human society. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
Honestly though? With the amount of rising population... the amount of fatties in general, becoming a vege due to boycotting the industry just doesn't seem that practical. Go for it if that's what you want but let's not pretend anyone is on a superior moral high ground. That is a general statement of course, but it is what bothers me most. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On May 31 2009 07:20 Piy wrote: K, you're getting some things wrong here imo, or are massively overlooking them. The recognition of ones own pain and the understanding that others can feel the same occurs in children at a young age. Unless they have some psychological problem they recognise that inflicting pain on other people will have negative effects. Nobody needs society to teach them that inflicting pain is wrong. For a start you implied right and wrong in a wider sense. Regardless you haven't explained your point well, children are often cruel to each other and imitate the actions of their parents (which is society in a narrower sense). Your argument about helping the homeless is missing the point I was making anyways. From an evolutionary standpoint it makes no sense to help those less fortunate than yourself and yet we do it anyway. This occurs in nature as well (there are many examples of other intelligent creatures, such as dolphins and gorillas etc, helping injured people or members of their own group for no reason but compassion) and doesn't really seem to prove that we have any evolutionary reason to wish to kill animals just because they're inferior. So what I was trying to point out is that the cause of feeling sympathy for animals in pain has no relevance in this argument. There are byproducts of evolution that don't make sense by themselves but do make sense when applied to everything. We haven't always been in the position where we can choose what to eat and the majority of the world still can't. And as far as what you say about helping the homeless - Do you actually subscribe to a doctrine of Individual Ethical Egoism or did you just make a mistake? Cause I don't see any way for you too say that all charitable actions make us feel good and are therefore selfish (or that that was the only reason we did them) otherwise... No, I don't subscribe to any form of Egosim, I was merely answering the question. Don't say something you can't defend. Empathy backfiring is not a difficult evolutionary concept, I was just defending that. You're argument about a fishermans livelihood being at stake? wut? Thats just such a bad argument I don't even know where to start. He could find another job where he doesn't need to kill things and you could eat something that doesn't require something to die. I really don't see where you were going with this. Simply that there are easy examples where you can "justify" eating meat, not that you need to justify it. You can't just "find another job". I have to eat something and fish is nutritious and inexpensive. We both gain from the situation. If you believe in the supernatural or a spiritual moral code please tell me now so I don't need to reply next time. | ||
|
sudo.era
United States300 Posts
On May 31 2009 07:44 Jayme wrote: Fuddruckers is far too good to give up im afraid. Honestly though? With the amount of rising population... the amount of fatties in general, becoming a vege due to boycotting the industry just doesn't seem that practical. Go for it if that's what you want but let's not pretend anyone is on a superior moral high ground. That is a general statement of course, but it is what bothers me most. First paragraph doesn't make sense because even if the meat industry were totally shut down today, crops and any type of non-meat replacement could fill the spot and not one part of the country would go through a starvation period during the transition. Meat isn't essential. Ever. Anywhere. In any sense. I don't have a problem with someone deciding to eat meat, because that is their decision. Even if they're doing it despite cognitive dissonance, it's their decision. But you guys need to stop saying that it's necessary in some way. "Moral high ground": I don't believe in generalizing morals, but in the sense that you're talking about, it depends. "Moral high ground" is when two people have a similar moral; one behaves according to said moral and one doesn't. The person who behaves in accordance with the moral they both share is the one with the "moral high ground". I actually think that's the definition of the phrase. So it would depend. If you admit that you disagree with the current treatment of animals yet continue to eat meat, where I disagree with the treatment of animals and thus don't eat meat, that would give me the "moral high ground". BUT if you are of the opinion that animals don't deserve your empathy, then our morals aren't comparable. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 31 2009 07:20 Piy wrote: From an evolutionary standpoint it makes no sense to help those less fortunate than yourself and yet we do it anyway. Survival of the species? | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
| ||
|
Diomedes
464 Posts
| ||
| ||
