Naked Science Forum

General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 02:18:15

Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 02:18:15
Why don't you take this serious ??
Cos of your meat foods.
you are becoming the main cause of Killing Animals.
Let the food chain continued by wild animals in ecosystem.
being Science people why do you eat ??


You all are foolish people.
You can't even understand MORELS.


When an animal is struggling for life. we should let it go cos it got right to live.
but cos of you eat meat people KILL them to earn money.

Stupidity of mankind is Infinite.
Einstein was correct.


NOW cut your own hand and know the pain of those ANIMALS !!


My message to all meat eaters / to human Carnivores.

hi,my name is Kiran.I am 20 male.
I used to eat meant when I was little Kid.when I don't even know what is meat ?? LOL
I know it tastes good but .. I gave up at the age of 7.

but than i have seen a goat was being killed as religious scarifies.
I have seen head of a goat on a plate.
than my conscious mind awakened when I was 7 years old boy.Now I don't even eat an egg. I don't even smoke or drink ha ha ha ha....
I belong to a Hindu religion where I can eat meat but I have changed minds of my family from meat eaters to vegetarians.

Ha..Ha...Ha.. LOL

But lots of animals got extinct due to hunting.

as Discovery Channel says "when buying stops Killing too"

Please people "The Nerd and Science people" Please stop eating meats ..

Can't you ??

I cry all the time for this innocent animals.

What this animal has done to you ??
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.ning.com%2Ffiles%2FvHMtjnQsMivOqJVG9b4trkivCMk1RRHJx4mStm0IHm10zNeNE-pgANX9joeeO22fmkoMSQCQLcNezz6WOJJdyT5IbZ2LNOfh%2Fdolphin.jpg&hash=78e35aa628208fda25f30fa407d01958)

They want to live like us ... don't you think ??

Guys stop it !!

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.gi%2Ffiles%2Fdont_kill_us_Apes.jpg&hash=6e13f8fafa3546c5866b93190ef7347b)


our planet is not same as it used to be ...

SAVE them !

Stop eating animals you human Carnivores !!

HELP them !


I want to form a Powerful team, the mission of this team is to stop Killing animals worldwide.

Today we rule Earth. before us the world belongs to them.
 
SAVE out planet form extension of Evolved species.

Let this guy do all the job ... for food cycle in ecosystem.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcanimals.org%2Flion-leopard-tiger-wild-big-cats-poster.jpg&hash=bf0522f19d5a14a5cd9a68e0c6c211a3)   


Responsibility was given to them by nature Not to humans.

and some people make things from Animal skin. Please stop buying those goods.


What should I do to stop all this ?


(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhoneygrahams.typepad.com%2Fphotos%2Ftanzania_2%2Fimg_2782.JPG&hash=0b4ee3f95728d7860a7b9e24fcec0131)


Look at those bio weaponry systems ... Humans can't kill like that cos humans evolved to do smart things.

When you go to hotels say you don't want any meat.

we have not evolved to this ..

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fquizilla.teennick.com%2Fuser_images%2FK%2FKnockturn%2F1054615594_adimageCLB.JPG&hash=13ebab8aab518e6a04da6bd3ea094fe8)

I request all to stop eating meat.

Let me put in this way LOL
In religious way LOL.
GOD sent me to advice and stop you guys not to eat meat.
If you don't listen to me YOU GO TO HELL.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi36.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe7%2FBLOOD_TRAIL%2FHell_Fire.jpg&hash=b3527ce94f87446cab72c7e8ad76b491)
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: neilep on 28/11/2009 02:39:26
Do ewe wear any animal skin ?..wear a leather belt ? shoes ?
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 02:41:43
Do ewe wear any animal skin ?..wear a leather belt ? shoes ?
Man you again I bet you eat meant !!
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: neilep on 28/11/2009 02:46:32
Do ewe wear any animal skin ?..wear a leather belt ? shoes ?
Man you again I bet you eat meant !!

I think your cause is noble and yes..I am meat eater....we are carnivores...but the fact of the matter is.....I luff it !!.....I do try to buy my meat and fish from responsible sources though. I could not give it up....don't want to !
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 02:49:07
Do ewe wear any animal skin ?..wear a leather belt ? shoes ?
Man you again I bet you eat meant !!

I think your cause is noble and yes..I am meat eater....we are carnivores...but the fact of the matter is.....I luff it !!.....I do try to buy my meat and fish from responsible sources though. I could not give it up....don't want to !
STOP it man ..
some say it causes cancer !!

CAN you stop eating for the sake of innocent animals and GOD !!???

Fish Ok !! food chain of fish is very less .. it's Ok with fish not all other.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: neilep on 28/11/2009 02:52:54
Do ewe wear any animal skin ?..wear a leather belt ? shoes ?
Man you again I bet you eat meant !!

I think your cause is noble and yes..I am meat eater....we are carnivores...but the fact of the matter is.....I luff it !!.....I do try to buy my meat and fish from responsible sources though. I could not give it up....don't want to !
STOP it man ..
some say it causes cancer !!

CAN you stop eating for the sake of innocent animals and GOD !!???

Fish Ok !! food chain of fish is very less .. it's Ok with fish not all other.


telling me to stop eating yummy meat is like me telling ewe to start eating it again.

There are actually some good reasons (for animals welfare) to eat them.....I just need reminding of them....
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Karen W. on 28/11/2009 03:46:20
I am also a meat eater have no problem with vegetarians or vegans.
 It is not my place to choose for someone else or demand that they stop eating meats... seems to me that there are things in the bible that tell us to eat meat and what animals should not be eaten... but this forum is not a religious platform.
 I do however respect your belief and believe you have the right to eat as you wish according to your religion... so long as it does not harm others in the process.

I know lots of people who are vegans and vegetarians.. which is nice.. but not for me.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 05:44:30
I am also a meat eater have no problem with vegetarians or vegans.
 It is not my place to choose for someone else or demand that they stop eating meats... seems to me that there are things in the bible that tell us to eat meat and what animals should not be eaten... but this forum is not a religious platform.
 I do however respect your belief and believe you have the right to eat as you wish according to your religion... so long as it does not harm others in the process.

I know lots of people who are vegans and vegetarians.. which is nice.. but not for me.
Whosaid I follow religious stuff..

I never follow religious stuff

I follow our History.
Heros of our history.

I follow the conclusions of all great minds ha ha ha ha ha h

I make my own rules.
I don't follow what other tell me..

HA HA HA HA HA
 
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Madidus_Scientia on 28/11/2009 10:21:35
I've never heard a good reason to stop eating meat, and trying to say i'll go to hell if I do eat it is the least effective argument you could give me since I have also not heard a good argument for the existence of a god/s.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 13:18:51
I've never heard a good reason to stop eating meat, and trying to say i'll go to hell if I do eat it is the least effective argument you could give me since I have also not heard a good argument for the existence of a god/s.
LOL I was just joking ????
Even i don't know any thing about god...
I love animals so I posted this and this is for Noble reason.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 13:19:54
I've never heard a good reason to stop eating meat, and trying to say i'll go to hell if I do eat it is the least effective argument you could give me since I have also not heard a good argument for the existence of a god/s.
LOL find something else to fill your belly LOL !!
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 16:06:55
I've never heard a good reason to stop eating meat, and trying to say i'll go to hell if I do eat it is the least effective argument you could give me since I have also not heard a good argument for the existence of a god/s.
The good reason is Start loving animals.
YOU are indirect KILLER ha ha ha ha LOL
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Don_1 on 28/11/2009 16:19:57
YOU are indirect KILLER

As are you, if you did but know it.

Humans are omnivorous, we have been for our entire existence. Why, and who do you think you are, to question nature???

I object to the waste of any food, but not to eating meat.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 16:24:47
I've never heard a good reason to stop eating meat, and trying to say i'll go to hell if I do eat it is the least effective argument you could give me since I have also not heard a good argument for the existence of a god/s.
Deep inside your mind it sleeping. it's not awaken yet what is it ??

it's sympathy and mercy for innocent animals.

it's OK when we get lost in forest and don't have any thing to eat.
But you don't love animals and don't have sympathy and mercy...
WHY ?
so desired for meat ..??
it causes lots of diseases.
like some say cancer.
some worms stay inside fresh meat... !! so, some people cook it LOL
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 16:27:15
YOU are indirect KILLER

As are you, if you did but know it.

Humans are omnivorous, we have been for our entire existence. Why, and who do you think you are, to question nature???

I object to the waste of any food, but not to eating meat.
Perhaps...
EAT dead animals LOL..
they are KILLING your turtles..
STOP them ??
YOU guys are so desired for it. 
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 16:30:52
It's Wast to tell you ALL.
WHO ARE DESIRED TO EAT !!
TOo BAD ... I AM NOT YOUR BROTHER or SON or Any relative.

I just tried to change your mind.
just to give a MESSAGE FROM CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 28/11/2009 16:40:54
It's not your fault guys.
Let it GO!
Fact is FACT ..

never can't be changed.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Nizzle on 01/12/2009 08:09:46
I'm allowed to eat meat. My astro sign is Lion.

But i do make a point of not eating any endangered species. I just stick to cow/pig/chicken/turkey/sheep and occasionally deer/ostrich/kangaroo/elk/duck/pigeon/bunny rabbits

I apologize in advance to all species I forgot to mention [:P]
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 01/12/2009 08:12:03
I'm allowed to eat meat. My astro sign is Lion.

But i do make a point of not eating any endangered species. I just stick to cow/pig/chicken/turkey and occasionally deer/ostrich/kangaroo/elk/duck/pigeon

I apologize in advance to all species I forgot to mention [:P]
YOU are EVIL !!
How can you eat innocent cow ??
In india we consider COW as god.
and you consider as food.

HOW CAN YOU EAT INNOCENT ANIMALS ???
HOW ?
LOOK at their innocent eyes ??
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Nizzle on 01/12/2009 08:13:55
In Belgium we consider dogs as man's best friend and you consider as food.

I rest my case.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 01/12/2009 08:15:35
In Belgium we consider dogs as man's best friend and you consider as food.

I rest my case.
Who said we don't eat dogs !!
HA HA HA HA ........
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 01/12/2009 08:17:06
In Belgium we consider dogs as man's best friend and you consider as food.

I rest my case.
lest forget about who consider what ??
but LOOK AT INNOCENT ANIMALS.
JUST ONCE KILL AN ANIMAL WITH YOUR OWN HANDS.
than say me what you feel after that.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Nizzle on 01/12/2009 08:25:46
I killed a pig and a chicken with my own hands already when I was young (I come from a family of farmers).
I haven't killed a cow or a sheep yet since a law was introduced in Belgium that animal slaughter (exception of fowl) could only be done by a professional butcher with a licence to kill animals shortly after I killed the pig.

I didn't feel very comfortable afterwards, probably due to my age (about 13 years old when killing the pig), but the bacon was yummy.



Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 01/12/2009 08:29:57
I killed a pig and a chicken with my own hands already when I was young (I come from a family of farmers).
I haven't killed a cow or a sheep yet since a law was introduced in Belgium that animal slaughter (exception of fowl) could only be done by a professional butcher with a licence to kill animals shortly after I killed the pig.

I didn't feel very comfortable afterwards, probably due to my age (about 13 years old when killing the pig), but the bacon was yummy.





WOW what a experienced killer.
you might even kill people to fill your belly when you get lost in forest with your friends.

COZ you don't have sympathy and mercy.
you don't know the value of life.
and you study biology.

CAN YOU create life ??
with out using any lab DNA or any thing !!
YOU CAN"T !!
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Nizzle on 01/12/2009 09:08:05
I have somewhat slight moral objections towards killing humans for food, but if i get lost in the forest with my friends, I'd definitely try to kill an animal to survive.

And yes I can create life, it's called unprotected intercourse [:P]
Furthermore, I create life yearly, when i cross breed and pollinate my collection of carnivorous plants.

Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 01/12/2009 09:27:46
I have somewhat slight moral objections towards killing humans for food, but if i get lost in the forest with my friends, I'd definitely try to kill an animal to survive.

And yes I can create life, it's called unprotected intercourse [:P]
Furthermore, I create life yearly, when i cross breed and pollinate my collection of carnivorous plants.


What if you can't find an animal ?
in your way of creating life of plants you are correct.
But I am talking living animals or human can you ?

Mr.copy cat you just copied the style of Nature.
Without using methods of nature can you create ?
YOU CAN't aha haha aaha hhaa ha ha ha .......

Example: just take a knife can cut one of your hand.
Can you feel the pain ?
can you ? (Ok don't tell me that you would remove pain receptors from your skin)

When any animal is struggling to survive or to live. it got rights to live OK.

WHO the hell are you to kill ??

YOU can't create life without using nature techniques.

or Human copied techniques from Nature. 

you should understand pain and sufferings of all living thing.
than one day you would understand.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Don_1 on 01/12/2009 09:29:05
SBC, can you please stop eating plants. I am a keen gardener, plants are my friends, I love plants, they too are alive until you kill and eat them.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 01/12/2009 09:30:23
SBC, can you please stop eating plants. I am a keen gardener, plants are my friends, I love plants, they too are alive until you kill and eat them.
LOL
if I stop that ??
how can I live ?? Huh?
you CAN live without meats I can't live with out plants.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 01/12/2009 09:31:29
SBC, can you please stop eating plants. I am a keen gardener, plants are my friends, I love plants, they too are alive until you kill and eat them.
they are killing your turtles.
i think you like them killing your research. 
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Don_1 on 01/12/2009 09:57:07
Different cultures eat different meat and vegetation, that I am prepared to accept, but do not accept hunting wild animals to the point of extinction, or to near extinction, nor do I accept hunting wild animals for useless medicines.

Therefore, I, like Nizzle, eat only meat from animals reared for the purpose (beef, lamb, pork, chicken etc.) and those which are culled out of necessity e.g. venison.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 01/12/2009 09:58:35
Different cultures eat different meat and vegetation, that I am prepared to accept, but do not accept hunting wild animals to the point of extinction, or to near extinction, nor do I accept hunting wild animals for useless medicines.

Therefore, I, like Nizzle, eat only meat from animals reared for the purpose (beef, lamb, pork, chicken etc.) and those which are culled out of necessity e.g. venison.
have fun in eating meats !!
I always cry for them ..... too bad
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Nizzle on 01/12/2009 10:20:13
Mr.copy cat you just copied the style of Nature.
Without using methods of nature can you create ?
YOU CAN't aha haha aaha hhaa ha ha ha .......

Pff, first you ask if i can create life without lab DNA, then I can't copy nature..
I admit I'm not a gifted AI programmer so I have to say I cannot create life if I can't use Lab DNA or copy Nature.

However: can you spell the word meat? But you can't use letters!! aha haha ahum  [::)]

Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 01/12/2009 10:50:13
Mr.copy cat you just copied the style of Nature.
Without using methods of nature can you create ?
YOU CAN't aha haha aaha hhaa ha ha ha .......

Pff, first you ask if i can create life without lab DNA, then I can't copy nature..
I admit I'm not a gifted AI programmer so I have to say I cannot create life if I can't use Lab DNA or copy Nature.

However: can you spell the word meat? But you can't use letters!! aha haha ahum  [::)]


very funny !LOL
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 02/12/2009 02:09:02
If we shouldn't eat animals, why are they made out of meat?
cos this is only way for nature to make strong animals.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: geo driver on 02/12/2009 03:16:52
meat is good.
vegan is good.

but just think of all the muted cry s of the plants as you rip them out of the ground incapable of the communication needed to stop you from riping them away from there home and boiling them
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 02/12/2009 03:21:01
meat is good.
vegan is good.

but just think of all the muted cry s of the plants as you rip them out of the ground incapable of the communication needed to stop you from riping them away from there home and boiling them

That arguement would work, if plants had a nervous system to a linkage with a brain-capacity.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: geo driver on 02/12/2009 03:24:25
ok true enough. but it made me smile
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: geo driver on 02/12/2009 03:24:50
oh and i eat i belive far too much meat
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Mr. Scientist on 02/12/2009 03:26:52
oh and i eat i belive far too much meat

Then think of everytime you go to KFC... then bring up the rights of animals. I've seen footage of them being boiled alive when they are supposed to be incapacitated. Workers deny all knowlegde. As usual.

They don't want to impede their own identites.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Geezer on 02/12/2009 05:50:44
Nizzle - Em, maybe you missed out le chevaux? Maybe just a teeny, tiny nibble perhaps?
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: ScientificBoyZClub on 02/12/2009 08:50:04
meat is good.
vegan is good.

but just think of all the muted cry s of the plants as you rip them out of the ground incapable of the communication needed to stop you from riping them away from there home and boiling them

You all are foolish people.
You can't even understand MORELS.


When an animal is struggling for life. we should let it go cos it got right to live.
but cos of you eat meat people KILL them to earn money.

Stupidity of mankind is Infinite.
Einstein was correct.


NOW cut your own hand and know the pain of those ANIMALS !!
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 12/12/2009 23:17:00

GOD sent me to advice and stop you guys not to eat meat.
If you don't listen to me YOU GO TO HELL.

Mr. SBC;

You pictured a Lion, a Tiger, and a Leopard. I just have one question I'd like to have answered:

Are all Lions, Tigers, and Leopards going to Hell?
And what about all birds of prey?
And Bears, Monkeys, Sharks,.......

My goodness, there won't be any room left in Hell for any of us humans will there?????????

Go out and order up a nice juicy medium rare porterhouse. Believe me, once you enjoy one, you'll change your tune.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 13/12/2009 20:27:04
I've already spoken about veganism to a few people on the forums privately & openly criticise the defense of using animal produce in all forms, including leather, isinglass, honey, dairy, eggs, meat, including that of fish.. anything that has a nervous system, that has the capability to feel pain, should not be made to do so in order to serve human ends. There are several reasons for this:

I've said this before, & I'll say it again: unfortunately science has been misused to justify moral atrocities. The institutionalised, widespread suffering by animals is the currently the worst moral atrocity. I urge you all to not let science be misused & no longer finance the suffering.

SBC, I wouldn't call omnivores fools, but I'd definitely say their thinking is inconsistent, misguided & hypocritical. Fortunately, things change.. people can change. I do not think people actively want to cause suffering to animals. The link between an omnivore lifestyle & causing suffering is difficult to make for some people, because the moral norm is to use animals.

Feel free to ask questions or comment - but I've found once I post such a comprehensive, philosophical attack on the omnivore lifestyle which is consistent with scientific thinking & secular morals people don't often reply. Makes me wonder why, really..
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/12/2009 21:03:48
SBC,
Quite a lot of the UK's higher ground is too cold and wet to grow much apart from grass. People can't eat grass so we would starve if we didn't eat animals.

Why does your "moral" crusade want to see me and my neighbours dead from starvation?


By the way I understand morels well enough to know they don't really figure in this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morchella
More importantly I understand the importance of morals and I don't think it's morally acceptable for you to enforce your point of view on the rest of us.
It's not morally acceptable to cause unneccesary suffering to the animals we eat. We should do our best to look after them humanely (and I know there's some irony to that word).
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 13/12/2009 23:04:40
SBC,
Quite a lot of the UK's higher ground is too cold and wet to grow much apart from grass. People can't eat grass so we would starve if we didn't eat animals.

Why does your "moral" crusade want to see me and my neighbours dead from starvation?


By the way I understand morels well enough to know they don't really figure in this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morchella
More importantly I understand the importance of morals and I don't think it's morally acceptable for you to enforce your point of view on the rest of us.
It's not morally acceptable to cause unneccesary suffering to the animals we eat. We should do our best to look after them humanely (and I know there's some irony to that word).
Well said BC,..........well said!
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 13/12/2009 23:38:58
Quote
It's not morally acceptable to cause unneccesary suffering to the animals we eat. We should do our best to look after them humanely (and I know there's some irony to that word)

Unfortunately, since the demands of meat are so high, conditions for animals are rarely good. & since when is killing something & eating it treating it humanely? Yes, it feels no pain after it's dead, but you can use that same argument to justify the killing of humans. One of the reasons killing things is bad is because you're preventing them from feeling where they otherwise could - enjoying the sunshine, food, to be free. Though to be honest, where most animals are killed for food, it's safe to say it's a mercy killing, given that they are raised in boxes..
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: nixietube on 14/12/2009 00:11:13
Quote
It's not morally acceptable to cause unneccesary suffering to the animals we eat. We should do our best to look after them humanely (and I know there's some irony to that word)

Unfortunately, since the demands of meat are so high, conditions for animals are rarely good. & since when is killing something & eating it treating it humanely? Yes, it feels no pain after it's dead, but you can use that same argument to justify the killing of humans. One of the reasons killing things is bad is because you're preventing them from feeling where they otherwise could - enjoying the sunshine, food, to be free. Though to be honest, where most animals are killed for food, it's safe to say it's a mercy killing, given that they are raised in boxes..

What are you views on other animals towards the top end of their food chain?  pick any.. say a crocodile drowning its prey.
Drowning doesn't seem like a great way to go to me. Why is that acceptable just because it is not human? Compare that to say a bolt through the brain, a common effective means of dispatch. I know many farmers, they care for their livestock and take pride in their welfare. How many farmers do you know? Not all animals are raised in boxes. You cant tar the entire farming industry with the same brush. The suffering crux of your argument above is flawed. Sadly my expertise is not in nutrition, so I'll leave that to you to investigate yourself. Set aside your bias, and take a look at arguments "from the other side".


You mention honey.. what is wrong with using/consuming honey? Do you know what honey is? 

Where are you with Jesus feeding 5000 with 5 loaves of bread and two fish?
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 14/12/2009 00:34:32
Quote
What are you views on other animals towards the top end of their food chain?  pick any.. say a crocodile drowning its prey.

The killing is necessary for it's food. A crocodile can't be vegetarian & live. Humans don't need to be predators, they have a conscience, & where there are other means of survival they should be used above all else.

Quote
Drowning doesn't seem like a great way to go to me. Why is that acceptable just because it is not human?

It is acceptable because it is free of morality & necessary. The crocodile needs to eat, & does not consider the morality of what it is doing because it can be reasonably assumed it doesn't have a conscience.

Quote
Compare that to say a bolt through the brain, a common effective means of dispatch. I know many farmers, they care for their livestock and take pride in their welfare. How many farmers do you know? Not all animals are raised in boxes. You cant tar the entire farming industry with the same brush.

I can tar them with the same brush that they all kill animals; if they kill, they are doing something wrong. Welfare isn't enough. You don't raise a child, then one day decide because it isn't good for serving your ends anymore that it can't live. No. It's wrong. In exactly the same way it's wrong to kill an animal - even if you treat it right while it's alive.

Quote
The suffering crux of your argument above is flawed.

Which bit?

Quote
Sadly my expertise is not in nutrition, so I'll leave that to you to investigate yourself. Set aside your bias, and take a look at arguments "from the other side".

I've been a meat eater for nearly 18 years. Only recently have I turned vegan, but I've spent time researching about what goes on in farms, nutrition. The arguments from the other side are morally non-existent or seriously flawed - i.e arguments to evolution. I used to defend it, & I used to think vegetarians were weird. Now I see that they have taken the golden rule & applied it consistently. Treat thy neighbor as thyself. I consider everyone in the world, every sentient creature, my neighbor.

Quote
You mention honey.. what is wrong with using/consuming honey? Do you know what honey is?

Yes. Honey is food for bees. Not humans.

http://www.vegetus.org/honey/honey.htm

In addition to that, bees are often killed near winter time to cut down on costs. This is wrong for the same reason it's wrong as killing animals.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Geezer on 14/12/2009 08:36:27
Quote
I consider everyone in the world, every sentient creature, my neighbor.

So, is it more morally defensible to slaughter non-sentient creatures?

"Oh! Whack them. They can't think. What do they care?"

or perhaps,

"I can't think. Therefore I ain't."
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 14/12/2009 10:39:02
Quote
So, is it more morally defensible to slaughter non-sentient creatures?

"Oh! Whack them. They can't think. What do they care?"

or perhaps,

"I can't think. Therefore I ain't."

Yes, it is more morally defensible. Living things can be differentiated from say rocks since it is their intent to stay alive, ordered, & it has specific mechanisms for doing that. So living things must be treated with more respect than inanimate things, & living sentient things should be treated with even more respect than living things. The belief in animal's capability to feel pain, as well as a belief that you should not enslave a sentient creature to serve you, is the foundation of my veganism.

I can already forsee the problem I think you are about to propose, & that's of people in comas, perhaps? They should be treated with respect because they are, or were, capable of consciousness, as well as the angry family members who are definitely still conscious - you'll see when the lawsuit for assault comes through [;D]

If something cannot percieve the world with a consciousness, how can it feel pain?
This is a question I am still asking myself about plants. I plan to research it once I'm back at university. If I find that they do feel pain, I will learn to forage.

http://www.vegetus.org/essay/plants.htm
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: nixietube on 14/12/2009 12:39:49
If something cannot percieve the world with a consciousness, how can it feel pain?
This is a question I am still asking myself about plants. I plan to research it once I'm back at university. If I find that they do feel pain, I will learn to forage.



I think this may have been touched on briefly on an earlier podcast, sorry I cant find it, I looked. I think you need to define pain in the context of the plant ( please would a biologist step in here).. aren't there signaling chemicals  (alluded to in your link )which have been identified when the plant suffers damage or attack? Is that "pain" ??? This reminds me of mushroom farming. It was on TV recently.. the exact details to trigger the 'fruit' is not known, but farmers know to cover the soil which somehow tells the fungus to produce. Sounds like fungus abuse to me, dial 999.

That nicely leads me onto another question I ask myself from time to time.. why do we anthropomorphise just about everything? That is we the human race, I suspect we all do it at times, empathy etc and all that non-verbal communication. Probably best left to another thread.

I respect your views gloveforfoxes, but I do not agree with all of them. The fact remains the human race would not have evolved without being carnivores, but I guess that is ok, because there will be a cute argument for that one somewhere on the interwebs.  I will continue to enjoy my ethically, locally sourced meat and dairy products, along with honey. I'll be visiting a good friend who happens to be an apiarist, we'll have a good read of the link you gave re. honey bees, probably over many beers. We'll try keep the laughter down to a minimum to not waken the flora while you forage.

With no ill intent, and strictly tongue in cheek.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Don_1 on 14/12/2009 16:57:56
Your point on plants feeling 'pain' is not without ground. Plants do send chemical signals out when under attack. In this way nearby plants of the same species may be able to produce toxins in their leaves/stems etc to protect themselves against a raider.

It is all very well to say consuming meat is unnecessary, but humans have been killing and eating other animals since our ancestors appeared on the Earth. I see no reason to question nature or to alter it.

As one who loves gardening, I could complain that eating my precious plants would be wrong.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 14/12/2009 16:59:19
Yes, we might need to define pain in the context of a plant.. but how can we ever hope to understand or relate to such an experience?

Quote
The fact remains the human race would not have evolved without being carnivores

Whether that is true or not (I have good reason to believe it isn't - we are carnivores as the result of intelligence, not the cause of it - just look at our meagre muscles, natural weapons, digestive system adapted to mainly eating vegetation..) it is irrelevant to moral arguments & furthermore is an ethically dubious defense at best. You cannot describe something the way it is & say that is justification for the way it is - it's called the naturalistic fallacy. I am concerned with the present & future welfare & rights of animals, not ones I can do nothing about.

It's not anthropomorphism when you compare animals & humans: humans are animals. There is no massive, great divide between humans & animals. They are all animals. We happen to have millenia of acculmulated knowledge because of paper, & as a result, civilisation. Humans seem to think they are in a special place above animals because we're more intelligent. Negatively judging an animal for lacking as much intelligence as a human is like a bird judging a human for lacking as many wings as a bird. It's nonsensical. As far as I'm aware, that's a lot less anthropomorphic than you claim..

You have to impregnate cows to get calves to get milk (usually artificially, with a giant rod) so effectively the cows are continually raped. Then the calves are seperated from their mothers - a process which causes the mother emotional pain. This is without mentioning stereotyping behaviour of caged animals, the cruel process of debeaking, the various diseases farmed animals suffer..

You simply cannot have ethical meat, milk or egg. Or honey. The animals own their bodies & have right over their produce simply because they produce it & are aware of it, just like you have right over your organs & muscles & are, no doubt, aware of it. & don't tell me about free range produce, because it suffers the same flaw: viewing animals as property, instead of as animals.

We should be the responsible stewards of animals - not the theives of their produce. First it was the rights of black people, women, gays, & if history is anything to go by, animals are next. Then this holocaust can be stopped.

Edit: reply to Don_1.

Well, if you think tradition is above the morality of inflicting pain, there is nothing I can say to convince you.

Edit 2: baby cows are calves, not foals [:-X]
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Geezer on 14/12/2009 17:28:19
Quote
You have to impregnate cows to get foals to get milk.


Wow! That would be rather remarkable  [;D]

Seriously, the point about plants indicates that the whole thing is shades of grey. We can try to draw a line in the sand somewhere and say it's OK to kill some living things for food and not others. But if we are going to take the real moral high ground, we really should not kill any organisms for food, or "steal" milk from cows, etc.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 14/12/2009 17:31:49
I agree. That is the highest moral ground. Unfortunately, it is not sustainable for a human to live as a fruitarian. Perhaps as a forager, though, as I've already said - no killing plants or stealing from them. We can minimise suffering by not eating animals, since they're on a higher trophic level & eat many plants themselves. I am committed to minimising the negative consequences on others through existing.

Reducing the population size would be a good way for all of humanity.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 14/12/2009 18:24:46
Quote
But I have canine teeth, and this and other scientific/medical evidence tells me that I'm supposed to eat meat.  I can't deny this scientific evidence; however, I admit that I could not work in a slaughterhouse or go hunting.

I've already commented on the naturalistic fallacy several times. If you think there is something wrong with the naturalistic fallacy, discuss that, but I've already replied to the idea of appealing to nature as a justification for eating meat: it isn't one for reasons I've stated before.

Quote
But that's not an excuse to be a vegan.

Isn't it? Doesn't that show that you're actually repulsed by such things, but have been socialised to see it in a better light? It's a lamb dressed as mutton.

Of course, you can argue that both the repulsion & the attraction are the result of incorporating norms into emotional responses [;)] One consistent emotional response to the same product would be.. well.. consistent. I choose repulsion.

Quote
I might not be able to withstand the gore of a surgical operation, but I would want that operation performed on me.  In the same way, I'll buy meat in a store, but don't ask me to turn a live animal into a deli item.  I don't even like to deal with the dead flesh of a store-bought fresh whole chicken, although I'll carve a cooked one.

This is disanalagous - the purpose of the surgical operation is to save life, slaughter obviously is not.

Quote
Pure vegans must eat a careful diet to ensure they receive the nutrients that they don't obtain from meat and other animal products.

They don't need to, in the same way many people don't need to reduce their intake of saturated fat & salt in order to reduce their chances of various heart diseases. They do if they want to be reasonably healthy, though. I've heard off vegans who live off dark chocolate & crisps. Vegans don't need to be particularly health conscious any more than the general population does.

Quote
How are uneducated people in other countries (or our own) convinced to ignore their appetite for meat, and how are they educated to eat a vegetarian diet?  How do vegans justify telling starving people not to eat animals? We're not talking about substituting textiles for animals pelts as a means of clothing ourselves.  We're talking survival.

I don't ignore my appetite for meat. I grew up in a family with fairly traditional ideas about food; 3 good, big meals a day are necessary, milk is good for you, meat is necessary & tasty, etc. I have turned myself off to animal produce by meditating & imagining the animals suffering as part of my own - a Buddhist practice, & an effective one in developing compassion.

As for your quesion about starving people, it is irrelevant in this country, & in many. If we stopped eating meat, there would be much, much more food to go around anyway - currently, in terms of food, the third world countries subsidise our way of life. The soya used to feed animals can be used to feed people instead - it's of no less quality. If you have an understanding of trophic levels you'll understand this.

Quote
Let's not conveniently blind ourselves to other animal "crimes".  Humans cause plenty of animal deaths, and not just for food.  Washing our hands kills millions of bacteria.

The difference, as I've already said, is sentience.

Quote
Just because we can't hear them scream doesn't mean they don't feel the pain.  Has anyone calculated the (perhaps) millions of pounds of bacteria killed yearly for the sake of "washing our hands"?  If I remember correctly, we torture yeast to produce alcohol.


It is reasonable to assume animals have a similar existance to our own, in terms of pleasure & pain, since we have a very similar nervous system. It is not to assume plants or microorganisms do.


Quote
We gladly kill mosquitos.  Whether we walk, ride bikes, drive cars or fly in planes, we kill animals for the right to transport ourselves ... the right to walk in the woods, the right to sleep away from where we work, the right to go out with friends for a dinner and a movie, the right see the autumn foliage in the fall, and the right to live on the opposite coast (or another country) from where the rest of our relatives live so we "must" fly home for the holidays.  We're not even talking about eating to survive.  This is merely our exercise of free will.  Shoes squish bugs, cars cause road kill, airplanes strike birds, etc.  The bug splatter with car windshields and radiators alone is legendary, and we surely kill plenty of animals in the making of "bug guts removal chemicals" or simply windex or windshield washer fluid just to keep our cars "pretty".  Humans have run entire rivers dry -- rivers that don't even reach the sea anymore!! -- and killed off their many different animal populations just for the sake of filling our swimming pools, running the water while brushing our teeth, or watering our well-manicured lawns.  The number of flying insects driven to die around the millions (or is it billions) of streetlights and other outdoor lights.  Let's not pretend we live in a cutsy hobbit world except for eating meat.

The intent of an action matters. Accidentally killing a dog is not the same as murdering it; the same goes for all animals, including humans.

I agree with your point about transport. I don't own a car or fly.

Quote
I don't know the source for this morality of animal non-suffering.  Animals must not suffer, but are humans allowed to?

Depends. Do you think a King deserves the suffering of not having such extravagant food, considering it needs to be used by his fellow peasants? If you don't, well.. then I cannot convince you, no matter what I say. It might be painful for that King initially, but he'll get over it. The peasants don't get over being hungry.

Quote
Or do such proponents also advocate human euthanisia as well as for animals?  Is non-suffering the ultimate goal?  Is that all there is to life?

Not sure what you mean about euthanisia.

It is my goal. I will persue animal rights & try to secure them until the day I die. I'm currently teaching myself about past rights movements & educating myself in the best way of going about it. Until then, & no doubt afterwards I will talk to people about animal rights, starting with veganism. It matters.

It might not be everyone's goal. Everyone is interested in justice, because it concerns desertion, fairness, basic rights. From this I think everyone could be interested in animal rights, presented correctly.

By the way - I am also for human rights. I buy fairtrade. I am volunteering next year for a counselling service.

Edit: oops.. changed "agree" to "argue"!
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Geezer on 14/12/2009 20:22:44
Anyway, I'm interested in the animal husbandry that allows a cow to have a foal.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 14/12/2009 21:11:20
Me too! [;D]
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Don_1 on 16/12/2009 14:42:48
Anyway, I'm interested in the animal husbandry that allows a cow to have a foal.

Stop horsing around.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 16/12/2009 14:55:49
After thinking about what you say & stand for Don, I've thought about another criticism you might be able to relate to better..

Quote
It is all very well to say consuming meat is unnecessary, but humans have been killing and eating other animals since our ancestors appeared on the Earth. I see no reason to question nature or to alter it.

Does that give me liscence to find a turtle, kill it, & eat it?

No. It doesn't. These appeals to nature essentially miss the point of veganism/animal rights movement - you can argue against every single change by arguing that it wasn't like that in the past. If that change is good, you should fight for it. If it isn't, you should accept it with grace if possible, or fight with all you can against it.

For example, I believe the conservative govt. plan to uplift a ban on hunting. Honestly, I hope they do try to go ahead with it, because it will bring animal rights back into the news in a major way. It means I can get a £70 ticket to go to London, & protest against it, & other forms of unnecessary animal cruelty & use. I will do everything I can to protest it - hunger strikes if it becomes necessary. My temporary pain I can deal with. The pain & death of the thousands of animals that will suffer when hunting is legalised again I cannot accept.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: LeeE on 16/12/2009 15:14:20
Lol - I notice that the thread title has been retrospectively changed.  It now seems that omnivores and carnivores are now fools for having evolved that way.  Who's going to volunteer to tell Bengal Tigers, salt water crocs and Great White sharks that they're just being foolish?
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 16/12/2009 15:48:21
We don't need meat or any animal products. Part of the crux of my argument is that eating meat is unneccessary for humans (though I disagree entirely with SBCs conduct & reasoning for being pescatarian, he's still doing a good thing) & we have a conscience which means we are capable of thinking about this issue & changing. I believe we should, for the extensive reasons, many of which are still unchallenged, I have given previously.

I've already stated the logical problems with comparing different species. You have to judge each species on it's own merit, not compare them to humans. In fact, you really need to judge each creature in terms of their own merit, though you can make claims that species X are capable of doing Y, usually, sometimes you will find a member that cannot. That doesn't mean they are no longer a member of that species, it just means that they are a member of species X that cannot do Y.

For example, you could say that all humans are capable of hearing. But a person that can't hear because of a genetic defect is still a person - one quality does not define what a human is. It is many qualities, taken & viewed holistically, that makes a human a human.

Edit: clarification
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: nixietube on 16/12/2009 16:43:06
We don't need meat or any animal products. Part of the crux of my argument is that eating meat is unneccessary for humans... we have a conscience which means we are capable of thinking about this issue & changing.

Is that the benchmark? Are you certain we are the only species with the capability? What is conscience?
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: rosy on 16/12/2009 18:16:41
GlovesForFoxes... where do you stand on the question of using animal models for the developement of medical treatments?
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 16/12/2009 20:57:31
Where do we draw the line? How about the bugs some in the undeveloped world eat? Or maybe, the tiny insects that populate the inside of mushrooms? What about bacteria and germs? For there to be any resolution to this debate, you Vegetarians need to establish the demarcation and then explan why. And what if some of your cohorts disagree about this boundry? If you can't reach a concensous, how can you expect us reason with you?

I'll give you all some advice: You eat what you want, and we carnivors will do the same. Don't come here preaching about our moral depravity because a bug is just as much a life form as a cow or pig. When you can explain why it's OK to eat a bug and not a cow, then maybe you'll garner an audience.

My 2cents..............................Ethos
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 16/12/2009 23:42:49
We don't need meat or any animal products. Part of the crux of my argument is that eating meat is unneccessary for humans... we have a conscience which means we are capable of thinking about this issue & changing.

Is that the benchmark? Are you certain we are the only species with the capability? What is conscience?

It's my benchmark. Otherwise you get yourself into all sorts of logical possibilies that are simply unpractical (for example, trying to save every single animal from predation!)

No, I'm not certain. I'm certain that most of our species does, however.

What is conscience? Interesting question.. One that I can't sensibly answer without more thought. I will get back to you. It's shared knowledge what it is, though, without a definition - right? [;)]

Edit: posted like an automatron & forgot there were 2 others posts to reply to!

Quote from: rosy
GlovesForFoxes... where do you stand on the question of using animal models for the developement of medical treatments?

I am anti-vivisectionist, & yes, I'm still studying science. Yes, it still makes me a bit nervous even admitting this to myself.. a lot of vegans come from alternative lifestyles in the first place - I have not. I believe in the power of science, it's beauty, & more importantly, the truth. I have a full commitment to it.

I also have a commitment to doing the right thing & behave as a good citizen, & to reduce pain & suffering to smallest possible I can, even if it is not possible to eliminate - not just around me, but in the world. That's why I also buy fairtrade (yes, I'm a uni student, yes, I'm poor & in debt - but most of my colleagues spend money on drinking, where I spend that little extra spare money ensuring I'm not helping people that exploit, which is far, far more important to me than getting pissed - though of course I have fun & occasionally get drunk!).

I think that background is necessary before I start the argument so you know the context of where I'm arguing from.

Okay, so. Sure the animals used in experiments might yield good results in medicine, cures for cancer, that sort of thing.

However, so could the experiments on Jews that the Nazi doctors performed at Auschwitz in the 2nd world war.

In both of these cases, the doctors were aiming to reveal information about the present in the hopes that they would glean useful information that can be used to save lives.

The problem with both of these things (I don't consider the justifications for them exactly a world apart..) is that they hope to save lives by using animals (or in the case of the Nazis, the Jewish people) as, once again, an end to human means. The animals used for experimentation already are alive, & should be kept that way for reasons I've already stated. Animals are sentient, can feel pain, did not choose to be born that way & thus deserve at the very least the right of non-interference. Believing they are there to serve humans is called "speciesist", in the same way that viewing black slaves as the tool of white people is racist. You are treating them for what they are naturally, for what they cannot help being; it is unjust.

I have no doubt that the research gleaned from animal experimentation is useful, just like no doubt the information the Germans got was useful, but the ends do not justify the means. Even without inflicting pain, animal research is about using the animal - I have the same problems with this as I do with using humans. Like I've said, there is no great divide between animals & humans. Physiologically, yes, but we all hate pain. I'm not sure if we all hate confinement, but I'll give the animals the benefit of the doubt [:)]

Quote from: Ethos
Where do we draw the line? How about the bugs some in the undeveloped world eat? Or maybe, the tiny insects that populate the inside of mushrooms? What about bacteria and germs?

The line is for you to draw for now. Where do you think the line is when it comes to killing things? From your attitude, I guess you think it's pretty good! I draw the line at sentiency & pain, as you will see if you read my previous posts & this one..

I give insects the benefit of the doubt when it comes to pain. Though the evidence for them feeling pain is much weaker than say, fish, or tigers, there is weak evidence. They have a nervous system, & react to stimuli. Whether or not they are conscious or not is a tricky question. I choose to believe they do, but that's all it is - a belief. Some vegans do not mind killing or using insects, but I doubt any would go out of their way to kill them.

That's new to me - there are tiny bugs inside mushrooms? I will have to look into this to see if they have a nervous system. Thanks for making me aware, I won't eat them anymore if I find they shelter life possibly capable of sentiency.

There is zero evidence for sentiency & pain in microorganisms.

Quote from: Ethos
For there to be any resolution to this debate, you Vegetarians need to establish the demarcation and then explan why.

Sorry, but vegetarianism means "not eating meat". Veganism means "not eating meat & the products of an animal, or using them as a means to human purposes". We are not a unified group any more than atheists are. You cannot be a unified group of not believing in something, & obviously there is going to be disagreement. That's a great thing.

I have already replied to your point about setting limits. Other people set their own limits, but I base mine on scientific evidence, comparisons, reason & consistently applied ethics.

Quote from: Ethos
If you can't reach a concensous, how can you expect us reason with you?

Like I've said, we are not a people with the same beliefs. There are degrees of belief in animal rights & animal welfare, like there are degrees in belief in god/s. We are not one people, do not expect us to be. What vegetarians have in common is that we do not eat animal flesh. That is it.

You can reason with me. My positions are:

Animal abolitionist (campaigning against ALL uses of animals for human means)
Vegan (do not consume or use any product derived from an animal, possibly including insects - personally I avoid any produce that uses pesticides, & all insect derived ingrediants such as the red food colouring made from crushed flies used in the majority of marshmallows, & I will refuse to kill insects, down to the smallest fly or meanest wasp)
Animal rights activist (I work for ALL animal to be granted legal protection)

Edit 2:

Quote from: Ethos
I'll give you all some advice: You eat what you want, and we carnivors will do the same. Don't come here preaching about our moral depravity because a bug is just as much a life form as a cow or pig. When you can explain why it's OK to eat a bug and not a cow, then maybe you'll garner an audience.

I missed this the first time around.

I don't believe the majority of people are morally depraved. I believe they are misled, taught to care for some animals instead of all of them for whatever reason, downright lied to, removed from the reality of animal farming & slaughter, & maybe at worse apathetic & anthropocentric. I don't believe anyone that's replied on this thread, for example, could easily murder a dog. The link between financing the killing, slavery & exploitation of animals & morality is a hard one to make - I didn't for 18 years, & after many months thought before I became vegan - I don't expect anyone here to, at least not immediately. Issues of social justice are of the highest importance, since it directly concerns people's, & by extension animal's lives.

I don't believe it's okay to eat a bug or a cow, & I've already exhaustively given the reasons I will not. That's why I garnered an audience with good questions rather than being dismissed as another dogmatic preacher. If you cannot see that, then I apologise - I cannot do much more - I, & my views, are open to the deepest of constructive criticisms. Feel free to start making some if you wish, & please, before you do, make sure you know what I have written & ensure you do not try to straw-man my arguments.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 16/12/2009 23:50:50
I didn't think you had an answer........................
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 16/12/2009 23:58:58
Here's one for the road:All vegetarians are fools

Turn about is fair play,..................Hey?
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 17/12/2009 00:00:08
Be patient Ethos - I'm sorry, I pressed the reply button too quickly. I tried messaging you, but obviously it did not work. I am in the process of editing the above post to reply to both you & rosy, but it takes time, energy, & not pressing the "Reply" button too hastily [;D]
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 17/12/2009 00:02:35
Be patient Ethos - I'm sorry, I pressed the reply button too quickly. I tried messaging you, but obviously it did not work. I am in the process of editing the above post to reply to both you & rosy, but it takes time, energy, & not pressing the "Reply" button too hastily [;D]
Understand my friend, I don't discuss these topics via private message. I thought we were clear about this.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 17/12/2009 00:03:58
Be patient Ethos - I'm sorry, I pressed the reply button too quickly. I tried messaging you, but obviously it did not work. I am in the process of editing the above post to reply to both you & rosy, but it takes time, energy, & not pressing the "Reply" button too hastily [;D]
If you'd try a little meat, You might have a little more energy...
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 17/12/2009 00:12:13
Quote from: Ethos
If you'd try a little meat, You might have a little more energy...

Really? Interesting. I thought ATP was ATP, no matter what source it came from, but it seems I am sadly mistaken. Can you enlighten me?
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 17/12/2009 00:16:14
Quote from: Ethos
If you'd try a little meat, You might have a little more energy...

Really? Interesting. I thought ATP was ATP, no matter what source it came from, but it seems I am sadly mistaken. Can you enlighten me?
NO, no you don't. I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier post. Unless you have one, I suspect you're trying skirt around it by changing the subject. No matter, the real point here is we Carnivores don't like being called fools. How about it fool.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 17/12/2009 00:18:19
Plain and simple, Unless you change the title of this thread, you'll have no more participation from me...................FOOL.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 17/12/2009 00:24:52
I was not the original poster or title chooser of this topic & have actually said that I disagree with the method the original poster used to start & sustain it. I also disagree with his reasons for being pescatarian vegan (if you didn't know, a pescatarian is someone who eats sea-based life, but generally not land - though some may eat chickens, there is no real specific word for eating chickens & sea-based life, besides perhaps flexitarian, which is so broad it means nothing) which seem to be based on, or appeal to religious ideas, at least in part. Mine are based on secular ethics which scientists can appreciate, drawing comparisons to the rights movement against slavery, since it is a poignant example.

Continue insulting me without reading what I have said & I will report you to the moderators.

I am almost finished replying.

Edit: added "& sustain" for clarity, & provided an explanation of pescatarian, & of the motivation of SBCs beliefs

Edit 2: added info about SBC's POV - see below

SBC has since said via PM on another site that he is "pure vegetarian", which is the same as vegan. I apologise to him, & retract that he is a pescatarian.
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 17/12/2009 02:23:24
I was not the original poster or title chooser of this topic & have actually said that I disagree with the method the original poster used to start & sustain it. I also disagree with his reasons for being pescatarian (someone who eats sea-based life, but generally not land - though some may eat chickens, there is no real specific word for eating chickens & sea-based life, besides perhaps flexitarian, which is so broad it means nothing) which seem to be based on, or appeal to religious ideas, at least in part. Mine are based on secular ethics which scientists can appreciate, drawing comparisons to the rights movement against slavery, since it is a poignant example.

Continue insulting me without reading what I have said & I will report you to the moderators.

I am almost finished replying.

Edit: added "& sustain" for clarity, & provided an explanation of pescatarian, & of the motivation of SBCs beliefs
I see now that you are not the orginial poster of this thread and I surrender my apologies sir. Why I didn't catch this has me quite embarrased. At any rate, you still haven't answered my questions about the standards by which we draw the line. How do we decide which life form it is wrong to injest?
Title: Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 17/12/2009 02:59:04
I accept your apology [:)] If you check your email inbox listed on your profile, you will also see why I believe it was wrong of you to ignore me via PM, but that of course is upto you & more ambiguous.

I have already said many times, I finished the edit before; the limits I use are the capability of pain & sentience. If there is both, or even one, or if, in general, their species is capable of sentience & pain for which there is reasonable, if only little evidence for, then animals at least should have the right of non-interference from humans. I do not believe this is sufficient, I believe we do, at the very least, have a duty not to directly or indirectly kill, cause pain, use, exploit, profit from, breed or genetically modify to any animal currently in our care, & actively promote good health to animals that cannot be released into the wild.

Please take care to read next time, & double check!

Edit: I think I have made my case well so far - but philosophy is only half the battle. Emotionally connecting with the animals, appreciating their lives & empathising with them does not necessarily come from agreeing with a philosophical point of view. If anyone is interested in becoming vegan or vegetarian, or hell, even just reducing their intake of animal produce for the sake of justice, the environment, or the health benefits associated with examining your diet closely (but not necessarily, more healthy than a good omnivorous diet!), feel free to message me. I will listen to any worries, questions or comments & give advice to the best of my ability if people want it. It is much less hard & requires less discipline than you'd think. I only hope for the sake of the animals that you do.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: BenV on 17/12/2009 10:39:03
Just to ensure this sort of misunderstanding doesn't happen again - I've changed the title.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Karen W. on 17/12/2009 11:59:55
Thanks Ben!
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 17/12/2009 13:07:45
Just to ensure this sort of misunderstanding doesn't happen again - I've changed the title.
Thank you sir, and may I also offer my apologies to everyone for causing such a stir. It was not my intent to be disrespectful or insulting but because I felt insulted myself, I lost my usual control.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 18/12/2009 23:37:06
This is a reply to LeeE, who posted in another topic about humans eating meat in a post alongside one about companion animals. Here is the topic. The original post was the 1st reply by him in the topic.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27567.0;topicseen

I have split the reply because I believe it more appropriate to do so; the arguments are distinct, but similar, since we directly have control over our own bodies but it is a different matter of exerting control over another being's diet, as well as it being a continuation of another topic.

Quote
It seems to me that essentially, you are arguing against the reality that has resulted from the evolution of life on Earth, based upon boundaries between different levels of life that are purely arbitrary.

How can you argue for change if you look to the current situation & say, oh, this is how it is? Accept it?

Exactly. The boundaries between different species are hard to discern right now, as they always have been. I don't really see how this is relevant - I argue that all life capable of pain, pleasure & sentiency, in other words, things that can be morally wronged, are worthy of the right of non-interference.

Quote
You are arguing about what should have happened, instead of what actually happened as a consequence of evolution, using arbitrary delimiters to make the argument sound reasonable.

No, I'm arguing for what should happen, not what should've happened. I can't do anything about the past, but the future is open to change.

I've already stated that there are two main problems with using evolution as a justification for the continuation of using animal products (& therefore using them as means to our ends). One is that it is entirely irrelevant as far as morality goes; you can use an evolutionary justification for why we enslaved black people, but that doesn't mean it's right. It just means it is.

The second is that the evidence gained from observations leads us to the conclusion that you do not "win" at evolution, though many people seem to think otherwise. Humans think they have conquered nature & other species, but they have not - nature is far more powerful than we will ever be. We are each adapted to our niche, & while we may adapt to a very wide area compared with other species, it does not necessarily mean we have to dominate or control them to fulfil our evolutionary purpose. At least, not nowadays.

Using "arbritary delimiters to make the argument sound reasonable"? What do you suggest, I conduct an experiment on animals where I test how much in pain they are by correlating vocalisations with more extreme injuries, or do a similar one with pleasure? Of course it's abritary! This isn't quantitative science, it's subjectivity.

Quote
The fact is that we have evolved to desire meat in our diets, and as we have become more civilised, we have tried to satisfy that desire in the best overall way; farming meat means that extra animals are bred to meet our needs, instead of hunting from the natural pool of animals, and so don't risk hunting them to extinction as nearly happened with the North American Bison.

Haha - it is civility to ensure that you can continue to kill animals over lots of generations instead of a few? You're really arguing that?

You really think an animal cares about our clever evolutionary arguments?

An animal cares nothing for the big picture of the survival of it's species, not even a human animal aware of evolution when it's life is in danger or it is being hurt will care about that. All that matters is the feeling, that panic as a creature knows it's life is about to end - that's the mechanism evolution gave animals - powerful emotions to motivate us to escape so that, yes, we can propogate. That is not life's only function, however, at least not day to day, moment to moment & I highly doubt people too old to procreate would enjoy you trying to kill them using the justification that they have already served their evolutionary purpose of propagating themselves.

"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than blacks were made for whites, or women for men." - Alice Walker

Quote
You also seem to base your argument upon the basis of an organism's capability to experience what you have defined as pleasure and it seems to me that you're using an arbitrary point on a scale of sentience to define pleasure.  Are the smallest mammals, or fish, capable of feeling 'pleasure'?


I am going to ignore the criticism of "my definition" of pleasure, since I think in this context the definition is irrelevant. I can define pleasure, but that does not mean I understand what it means to feel pleasure, or appreciate it's moral significance. You understand it, I understand it, & animals understand it.

Why would size impact their ability to feel pleasure? As for fish, not sure if they feel pleasure, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since nature likes using mechanisms which will encourage the survival of the animal - primarily through, as we can see from other animals, the experience of pleasure.


Quote
Would it be ok to farm voles and shrews for meat then?  Is fish farming ok?

No. There is evidence for their sentience because they have a nervous system & brain structure similar to ours & even if I didn't have that evidence, it's fairly common knowledge that if you damage an animal, it will move away from you in the same way a human will if it's capable. We know humans are capable of pain, therefore we say that animals that do this are probably feeling pain. Isn't that how scientific conclusions from evidence are made?

Here is an interesting article on fish:

http://www.firstscience.co.uk/site/editor/024_ramblings_05092003.asp

Edit: The site has just gone down! Doh! By the time you read it it should be back up.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 26/12/2009 02:43:07
Hi, I personally felt insulted by your nonsensical rantings about "innocent" animals. Just registered and I'm new here.

First, animals are no more innocent than you or me. They have different personalities and there are even, what we humans call, morally corrupt animals, according to their specific cultural codices. Yes, animals have even cultures that can differ in the same species. One of the most "morally corrupt" animals, that means that they can do things we would define as cruel, are the cute dolphins or monkeys you pictured. They can be cruel onto others without apparent necessity.

It happens that I'm diabetic and HAVE to eat meat in order to lead a normal life. The balanced-healthy diet promoted by actual medicine, made me sick, period. Now I eat loads of meat, eggs, nuts, berries and roots, HAVE to... Only with that I can keep my metabolism in balance and let insulin jabs away, I have a carbohydrate problem, lactose problem and a gluten problem, so for me it's no carbs (excepting alcohol) and no wheat and related products, no fruits and no milk or related products.

It's sad that the head of a goat on a plate traumatized you so much as a kid, but that's no excuse to insult fellow humans because of your personal preferences. Perhaps you should seek a therapy to relieve you from that, understandably, traumatic event. But don't make your own belief system some kind of moral standard, it's clearly not.

I don't get that you can say something like "it's ok to eat fish" but not those innocent animals. I always thought that fish are animals, besides, do you think that plants are happy when eaten? BTW, just keep in mind that plants will generate a lot of toxins when killed, and if you only eat vegan, then good luck in not getting sick very early...

So long...
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 26/12/2009 15:31:40
I assume you are responding to SBC's posts. I will try to respond to some of the points I think are relevant & defend it from SBC's point of view, as well as my own, since they're the same except the rudeness.

For clarity, I am a vegan (just like SBC). Read through my posts to gain a better understanding of my position. Please bear in mind that the main crux of my argument is that eating meat (& indeed using or eating any animal derived product) is unnecessary & often cruel. If it is necessary, my argument no longer stands. In your case it is not, & if I was diabetic I would much prefer insulin jabs to meat eating, no matter the relatively trivial pain or inconvenience it caused me. Injecting yourself, even if it is many times daily, is not much sacrifice compared to the killing of animals.

Quote
It's sad that the head of a goat on a plate traumatized you so much as a kid, but that's no excuse to insult fellow humans because of your personal preferences. Perhaps you should seek a therapy to relieve you from that, understandably, traumatic event. But don't make your own belief system some kind of moral standard, it's clearly not.

Choosing not to kill things is personal preference?

Veganism should be a moral standard - & indeed in parts of India (where SBC comes from) it is. It is based on the idea that you should not harm any animal. Is that a weird moral standard that we shouldn't try to reach for? Explain to me why it isn't, or why we shouldn't try to reach it.

Quote
just keep in mind that plants will generate a lot of toxins when killed, and if you only eat vegan, then good luck in not getting sick very early

The American Dietectic Association has stated that vegetarian & pure vegetarian (aka vegan) diets are adequate to meet nutritional requirements & are healthy. I do not see why they would say this if it wasn't well researched. Do you have any conclusive, recently published research which is not based on cherry-picking which shows that vegan diets or vegetables are bad for you in normal circumstances?

http://www.eatright.org/Media/content.aspx?id=1233&terms=vegetarian

Quote from: ADA
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes.

ADA’s position and accompanying paper were written by Winston Craig, PhD, MPH, RD, professor and chair of the department of nutrition and wellness at Andrews University; and Reed Mangels, PhD, RD, nutrition advisor at the Vegetarian Resource Group, Baltimore, Md.

...Vegetarian diets are often associated with health advantages including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure levels and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes, according to ADA’s position. “Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Vegetarian diets tend to be lower in saturated fat and cholesterol and have higher levels of dietary fiber, magnesium and potassium, vitamins C and E, folate, carotenoids, flavonoids and other phytochemicals. These nutritional differences may explain some of the health advantages of those following a varied, balanced vegetarian diet.”

Note that the illnesses (cancer & various forms of heart disease) are the two biggest killers currently in the West. Veg*nism isn't just ethically good for animals; it's also better for poorer people & environmentally for the same reason: meat production is an energy intensive thing, & requires a lot of food that could otherwise go directly to humans. If everyone became vegetarian, I think the current estimate is we could feed the entire world three or four times over.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 26/12/2009 16:17:27
Hi all, while I can understand that some people have scruples eating animals, my opinion is that it is a purely personal decision not to eat them. To me it has no moral/environmental justification.

Unless you consume ATP directly, you will always have to terminate or harm somone else's existence in order to sustain your organism.

Some facts about the human body comapared to a typical carnivore and hervibore organism:

the length of the instestine in relation of the body length/height:

Cat (99.9% carnivore) 3:1 (this means that for every meter in body length, a cat has 3 meters of intestine)
Human 6:1
Goat (99.9% hervibore) 24:1

Assuming that a goat is a typical herbivore and represents the left end of the herbivore to carnivore scale. The cat represents the right end. Where does a typical human stands? To me like a omnivore with strong carnivorous needs, according to the intestine/body height ratio...

Then comparing the stomach of a human to that of a cow, they have 4 to digest vegetals, we have only one and not a very well developed one for green food.

Meat is by orders of magnitude less enegery intensive to digest than vegetals.

Fat stores in the same mass around 6 times more energy than glucose, that means that for every 1 kg of fat you consume you will have to consume 6 kg of sugar to get the same amount of energy.

Fat is the preferred energy source for the human organism. There are some tissues, mainly in the brain that need glucose, but the amount required is easily produced by, mainly, the liver.

Glucose promotes early aging through glycation, seems to raise trygliceride plasma levels and in combination with fat, promotes obesity.

Glucose is essential for anaerobic energy delivery, that means, that cells that rely on fermentation to sustain life, need humungous amounts of glucose and insulin to survive. Those cells are better known as cancer. Recent and not so recent research, suggests that a glucose deprived diet is beneficial against cancer. Something that I had observed myself on my skin, the aberrant growths that I had on a specific part of my body, just dissapeared in a matter of 2 months when I switched to a mainly carnivorous diet.

People that have reached an old age and are still fit, seem to have very low plasma levels of insulin.

Fat doesn't raise glucose and insulin plasma levels, protein raises insulin but not glucose levels.

Archeological evidence, suggests that when our ancestors switched to a mainly carnivore diet, the brain size becan to literally explode. Which isn't surprising seeing the energy stored in fat, compared to glucose. The human brain uses up to 1/5 of the total energy intake.

So in my opinion, a healthy diet for a human is completely different from what mainstream nutritionism counsels. Or it just can be that I'm more primitive in my buildup than other humans... :D (According some researchers, an insulin intensive diet is the sure path for early aging).

Thanks for yor time :)
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 26/12/2009 16:44:47
Hi gloves,

you choose to kill plants, I choose to kill animals, so that makes you morally better than me? Clearly not, we're both "killers".

Exogenous insulin is not as easy as you think, it's not like I would fear the jabs, I stick every day myself around 5 times a day, to measure glucose levels. My fear is that the correct insulin dosage is impossible, too much and you may harm yourself and others (f.e. while driving), too low and you'll feel tired or agressive... So, If I have to chose between my well being and security and a cow, the choice is obvious. A cow is a cow, a human a human and a sellerie a sellerie...

Veganism is as moral as "meatism" or "yogurtism".

For the ADA, well do some due diligence on them. They've probably killed more diabetics with their recommendatins than insulin jabs... The ADA is an organization sponsored by insulin producers, what do you think they will recommend? Well yes, an insulin intensive diet, it's about business. And vegan diets are insulin intensive, too many carbs, sorry, not for me. Diabetes is a huge business that is costing everyone too much, including yourself, with correct dietary counseling, the costs would be dramatically lower. Diabetes is just a milking cow for the industry.

Please, inform yourself better about diabetes, perhaps then you can make qualified comments about this metabolic imbalance, instead of stating ignorant (in the sense of not having knowledge of...) opinions.

I stand by my point, veganism is detrimental for the human organism and it has nothing to do with morals, to live you have to kill or harm, and to me it doesn't matter if you kill an onion or a rabbit. Life is life.

Thanks for your time.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Marib-yemen on 26/12/2009 20:18:41
philosophy or not philosophy!

cattle meat is murder
animals attack there prey
humans eat cattle meat
once again
cattle meat is murder
 [O8)]
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 26/12/2009 22:10:09


cattle meat is murder

Then; Tuna meat is murder, shrimp meat is murder, yogurt is murder, or didn't you know that yogurt is full of small life forms we call bacteria, small micro-oganisms. Where do we draw the line on which organism is worth living or not. Everytime we eat anything, whether plant or animal, something must die that we may live.

I think it's a bit condescending to accuse others of moral depravity because they choose not to live by your self imposed standards.

I've asked this question before and didn't get an answer and I doubt I'll be seeing one anytime soon. But just for the sake of argument, I'll ask it again. Where do we draw the line?
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 27/12/2009 03:57:35
Quote
Hi all, while I can understand that some people have scruples eating animals, my opinion is that it is a purely personal decision not to eat them. To me it has no moral/environmental justification.

It has environmental justification at the very least, even if you cannot or won't make the morality connection - livestock are responsible for equivalent of ~18% CO2 warming according to the "Livestock's long shadow" report by the United Nations. Here is a nice video presenting the other ways (for the first 8 minutes or so) in which veganism is better environmentally:

http://veganvideo.org/

The morality aspect can be seen as an extension of the golden rule of ethics, "treat thy neighbor as thyself". If you would want to be enslaved & forced to work for humans, impregnated & then have your children taken away repeatedly, then after you have become useless to another species are killed then by all means. It certainly is morally justifiable.

Quote
..Use of science to show humans are more worthy of living than animals..

Please read my previous posts carefully; if you want to debate the naturalistic fallacy, then go ahead. I will not repeat myself on such a large topic. Basically it is the fallacy of using what is found in nature as justification for what is right. You can also use this justification in the same way that Confederates justified using black people as slaves. It seemed natural that slaves were "lower" because they lacked how Westerners perceived intelligence. That does not make the enslavement & use of black people for white means right - it just is.

Quote
you choose to kill plants, I choose to kill animals, so that makes you morally better than me? Clearly not, we're both "killers".

I agree. A killer is not necessarily a bad person. I do not judge people for eating meat; it would be entirely hypocritical since it took me 18 years to figure it out. I hate the action & love the person, though it can be tough sometimes.

Obviously I think it's morally better to be a vegan, else I wouldn't be here debating it with you. In this context, there is a good reason why.

Your choice to kill animals kills more of both animals & plant than my choice to only eat plants. If you have any understanding of trophic levels you will understand this fairly intuitively.

That means even if plants suffer (though there is no good evidence that they do) my existence causes less suffering than yours does. Veganism is not about eliminating all suffering from your existence, it's about reducing it as much as possible because it's morally good to.

Quote
Please, inform yourself better about diabetes, perhaps then you can make qualified comments about this metabolic imbalance, instead of stating ignorant (in the sense of not having knowledge of...) opinions.

For the sake of this discussion I know enough already. If eating meat is necessary for you to be alive, then eat meat. If it is not necessary, do not eat meat. It is simple. You have said yourself it is unnecessary, & yes, may cause you inconvenience - your statement that it is "impossible" to get the correct dosage is completely wrong. You may need training in calculations to work out your dosage based on your insulin levels & weight. A small price to pay to save animal lives from unnecessary death.

Quote
I stand by my point, veganism is detrimental for the human organism and it has nothing to do with morals, to live you have to kill or harm, and to me it doesn't matter if you kill an onion or a rabbit. Life is life.

Please refer to the ADA source to see that a vegan diet is not detrimental for the human organism & has many benefits over the current omnivore diet, though both can be perfectly healthy.

Okay. Using your logic applied more consistently, I can come & kill you & it's morally exactly the same as uprooting a potato, since both are alive. Sure you don't want to revise your opinion before I come find you? [;)]

In the future, it's good practice on forums (& anywhere in life) to avoid being too personal. I am not making a negative or positive judgement about & only care about people eating meat so much because it harms others in such a massive way. Keep the rudeness & accusations to a minimum please.

Quote from: Ethos
I've asked this question before and didn't get an answer and I doubt I'll be seeing one anytime soon. But just for the sake of argument, I'll ask it again. Where do we draw the line?

I've answered this question earlier & haven't yet seen any sensible response. For a more full response, scan my posts.

The line should be drawn at sentience & the ability of that species to feel pain. Since if something can suffer, it ought not to, because suffering is universally morally bad according to utilitarianism. On a similar note, if that sentient creature is denied access to pleasure it would feel by killing it, it would be morally wrong, though not only for this reason. Killing a human is not just morally wrong because you're preventing them from feeling pain; it's wrong because that human has a right to live & a right to non-interference, just like animals should. This guards against causing unnecessary pain. Meat is a luxury requiring the killing of animals.

Edit: added video
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 27/12/2009 13:43:02
Hi gloves,

well, the environmental issue, AFAIK, about cattle breeding is methane and not CO2, but then no one takes into account on how much more humans fart when we eat vegetals vs. meat. The methane issue is a reason why I stick to pigs and poultry, whenever possible from organic breeding.

Well and you enslave plants, take their babies (seeds) repeatedly away and blah, blah, blah, sounds ridiculous? Yes it does, just as your "justification".

The thropic levels you're talking about are an arbitrary limit YOU put onto others and based on your fantasy. You don't understand the feelings of a plant, nor do I, but I presume that every living being wants to live. And in order to live you have to feel, to be aware of your environment and your current metabolic status. And if you're killing a plant, I presume that it feels it, feels threatened and in some way suffers. So your thropic level thing is null and void to my understanding.

About the diabetes thing and correct dosage, again, either you're willing to inform yourself or we let the issue, because I'm not going to discuss with you the implications of injecting genetically modified insulin analogues into your body and the day by day struggle you will have with lows, highs, paramedics, etc... Just look into some forum for diabetics and see the suffering THERE. Diabetes is not only about insulin-glucose problems, it's also the nervous system, digestive tract etc...

I cannot eat a pizza, f.e. in a matter of 10 minutes I will get cramps, belly aches and the day after, diahorrea, the same with spaghetti, bread, so even if I would inject I would SUFFER. Do you really expect me to have that daily because of your fantasy? Surely not.

It's sad that you apparently value the well being of other species more than yours.

For the vegan diet, again, vegetals should be used mainly for medicinal issues, the substances contained in vegetals are very powerful and incorrectly used will harm you. Lets take soy, soy in VERY modest amounts can be beneficial for the human organism, but consumed daily it is not. If you consume it daily, the probabilities that you'll get your thyroid messed up are great. The same is true for f.e. broccoli or coliflower. They contain iodine inhibitors. If I eat soy, I will get a burning sensation all over the body and feel nauseous, rapid heartbeat and so on...

Wheat is also something that is making people sick, the gluten contained in it messes with your nerves and your digestive system. Gluten is an opiate, like heroine, go figure...

Thank you for your time.

Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 27/12/2009 13:54:20
Ethos, I think they draw the line in this way:

if it is cute, has eyes, extremities and moves fast enough so that it can be noticed by the human eye, then it must be human... If it doesn't move, doesn't cry when harmed, then it must be a rock.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 27/12/2009 14:49:24
Ethos, I think they draw the line in this way:

if it is cute, has eyes, extremities and moves fast enough so that it can be noticed by the human eye, then it must be human... If it doesn't move, doesn't cry when harmed, then it must be a rock.
Good one AgimA,......ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,......And I think I know where all the rocks are located, if you get my drift???
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 27/12/2009 15:07:27
Quote
So your thropic level thing is null and void to my understanding.
Quote
For the vegan diet, again, vegetals should be used mainly for medicinal issues, the substances contained in vegetals are very powerful and incorrectly used will harm you.
*
Quote
well, the environmental issue, AFAIK, about cattle breeding is methane and not CO2, but then no one takes into account on how much more humans fart when we eat vegetals vs. meat. The methane issue is a reason why I stick to pigs and poultry, whenever possible from organic breeding.
*of course this is partly true, but anything used incorrectly will harm you - drink too much water & you will die, but nobody is panicking about that.

I'm sorry AgimA. Your biology & nutrition knowledge is at the very least patchy - I am not qualified to teach you. How can you expect to have a reasonable debate with someone if you know so little about the subject?

I have asked you to avoid the personal attacks, but you did not. I will not reply to you after this post unless this changes.

Quote
You don't understand the feelings of a plant, nor do I, but I presume that every living being wants to live.

The arguments I make are not my fantasy. There are many vegetarians & vegans in the world, though they represent a minority, that does not mean they are wrong.

Quote
It's sad that you apparently value the well being of other species more than yours.

I do not. I do not ascribe value to them based on how useful they are to humans, but I still value humans. I am volunteering next year at my University for a night time helpline. I am a member of Amnesty International & The Vegan Society. I am planning to set up a standing orders next year to help charities which help people as well as charities that help animals.

Quote
Well and you enslave plants, take their babies (seeds) repeatedly away and blah, blah, blah, sounds ridiculous? Yes it does, just as your "justification"..

And if you're killing a plant, I presume that it feels it, feels threatened and in some way suffers.

...

if it is cute, has eyes, extremities and moves fast enough so that it can be noticed by the human eye, then it must be human... If it doesn't move, doesn't cry when harmed, then it must be a rock.

I draw the line based on reasonable distinctions between species. If I do not have evidence, or cannot find evidence for something to feel, I can safely assume it doesn't. There is plenty of evidence that most animal life does feel pain & is sentient, but there is next to none for plants. If you can show me some I'd be delighted to reduce my intake of plant-based life. They have no nervous system, no brain, & therefore no consciousness as we experience it.

If you read my previous posts (from the 2nd page halfway down onwards) you may gain a fuller appreciation of the reasons & evidence to back them up why I am vegan. There are many posts which already answer most of your points.

The point about your meat eating as unnecessary still stands.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 27/12/2009 15:44:00
Hi Gloves, now lets sing together, we all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine...
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 27/12/2009 15:44:47
Ethos, I think they draw the line in this way:

if it is cute, has eyes, extremities and moves fast enough so that it can be noticed by the human eye, then it must be human... If it doesn't move, doesn't cry when harmed, then it must be a rock.
Good one AgimA,......ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,......And I think I know where all the rocks are located, if you get my drift???

In hell? On the floor?
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 27/12/2009 15:49:06

In hell? On the floor?
No,..............there is an expression: "They got rocks in their head", I think you know who I'm refering to.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 27/12/2009 16:02:36

In hell? On the floor?
No,..............there is an expression: "They got rocks in their head", I think you know who I'm refering to.

Ah, LOL, in my country we say something like: "there's air in between your ears".

But, hey, since the problem for them apparently is the presence of a brain, we could breed brainless cows, pigs, chickens (admittedly a monstruous idea), perhaps then, they would be happy people. But I fear that that wouldn't do the trick for them, as the resulting organisms still would have eyes and extremities...

You'll see that in the future the same type of people will join the PETR, People for the Ethical Treatment of Robots and rant about on how mistreated those industry robots are and how we enslave them and that they're not here for our use.

BTW, I just noticed that this is a science forum, now I wonder what was the intention of the OP in posting his diatribes in it!?
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 27/12/2009 16:15:28

You'll see that in the future the same type of people will join the PETR, People for the Ethical Treatment of Robots and rant about on how mistreated those industry robots are and how we enslave them and that they're not here for our use.

BTW, I just noticed that this is a science forum, now I wonder what was the intention of the OP in posting his diatribes in it!?
Yes my friend, and what about the ill treatment I give this POOR, POOR computer of mine?? Pounding away upon it's keys with little regard for it's senseabilities, how brutish!
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 27/12/2009 17:35:07

You'll see that in the future the same type of people will join the PETR, People for the Ethical Treatment of Robots and rant about on how mistreated those industry robots are and how we enslave them and that they're not here for our use.

BTW, I just noticed that this is a science forum, now I wonder what was the intention of the OP in posting his diatribes in it!?
Yes my friend, and what about the ill treatment I give this POOR, POOR computer of mine?? Pounding away upon it's keys with little regard for it's senseabilities, how brutish!

You monster! But never underestimate the fanaticism associated with such radicals. Their unwillingness to accept others lifestyle may have something to do with B12 (a vitamin) deficiency, no kidding here...

Just a clarification, my diabetes type, is classified, for insurance sakes, as Type 1. The medical intelligentsia would say I'm a type 1.5 or LADA. So my problem wasn't due to insulin resistance because of too much adipose tissue, but because, and this is my personal opinion, of the chronic intake of toxins and a carbohydrate overload.

It's really that after 2 years of eating healthy, that means almost no meat, a lot of whole grain, lots of milk and dairy, veggies, no fat, etc... I got diagnosed. Sure that doesn't mean that the diet was the main culprit, but it seems too much of a coincidence to me ;)
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: FuzzyUK on 27/12/2009 18:08:59
Quote
CAN you stop eating for the sake of innocent animals and GOD !!???

Fish Ok !! food chain of fish is very less .. it's Ok with fish not all other.

Why is it OK to eat fish but not other animals? Fish feel pain too.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 27/12/2009 18:24:49
Quote
Why is it OK to eat fish but not other animals? Fish feel pain too.

I think SBC was trying to say it's more morally permissable for others to eat fish, but he is actually a pure vegetarian (aka vegan) himself.

I do not believe the pescatarian (eating fish but nothing else) position is defendable ethically & is just as wrong if you kill land or sea based life to eat.

Then again, I do not believe vegetarianism is fully defendable ethically. That's why I'm a vegan - but you need other arguments than killing is wrong, inflicting pain is wrong when arguing against, for example, free range eggs.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: graham.d on 27/12/2009 19:32:02
I just had a vegetarian meal which involved sprouts. Regrettably I could find no way to remove the numerous blackfly (aphids) without killing large numbers. I admit I did not try too hard. Of course frozen sprouts are well cleaned, but these were organic sprouts on a stalk. I can see the logic, if having ethical objections to killing anything, in becoming a vegan, but cannot perceive its practicality when taken to the extreme. I appreciate that there is something to be said in doing one's best, but this seems, at least to some extent, a logical contradiction in an attempt at absolutism.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 27/12/2009 19:40:27
I do not object to killing plants for food currently. I do not object to killing as an absolute rule. I do object to killing undeserving creatures which can feel as an absolute rule, as most here do in other circumstances involving animals. You do not kill pets for pleasure (& find it abhorrent to do so I am willing to bet) so why should you finance & therefore enable the killing of other creautres which are quite clearly capable of emotion?

Eating meat yet being unable to personally kill an animal is much more contradictory than my position. I do not believe in some mystical, spiritual aspect of life. I approach veganism from an entirely secular point of view.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 28/12/2009 19:31:36
Wow, I've looked into the vegan community, and they're creepy. They're comparable to creationists (in the sense of denying every available knowledge/evidence) or some other "we got the absolute moral truth" groups.

From what I read on diverse forums, the majority is comparable to the original poster. Usually they seem to be quite young, radical, incongruent and agressive in their world view. A lot of times they show a latent disregard for human life, excepting their own, of course. An there's an open "we're intelligent and superior, meat eaters are stupid and inferior" "Gedankengut"...

Some go even so far to feed their children, cats, dogs with a vegan diet. Despite all the evidence that children will be harmed by such a diet. There even some cases where, admittedly well intentioned, parents have been jailed, because of feeding their children vegan diets. The result for their children: malnutrition, retardment and in severe cases, death. We don't even have to discuss what a vegan diet will do to a cat or a dog... Animal cruelty at its best, weird for declared animal lovers.

The most congruent group I've found, are the fruitarians, they claim that they feed exclusively on fruits. Which to me, sounds like a lie. I'm 100% sure that on a frugivore diet, a human will begin to develop serious health problems in a short period of time.

At least fructarians, for short periods of time, will achieve the "no killing" dogma. That being said, a vegan is a monstruous as an omnivore or carnivore to a fruitarian.

Here I have found an interesting essay, at least to me, on commom tinfoil arguments thrown around by vegan/fruitarians, dissected in detail:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml

Other interesting read, from a group that advocated, that's how I understood them, a vegan diet in the past (now it's the paleo-diet for them...):

http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet2.html

(There's an interesting article about rats eating eachother's babies when fed on a frugivore diet, not saying that fruitarians do that, but who knows?! ;) )

A rather amusing article:

http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/00509.htm

(The best part, Guru Maharaj Ji's knowledge...)

"The vegetarian myth" a book written by an ex vegan:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/the-vegetarian-myth/
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 28/12/2009 21:55:43
Wow, I've looked into the vegan community, and they're creepy. They're comparable to creationists (in the sense of denying every available knowledge/evidence) or some other "we got the absolute moral truth" groups.

From what I read on diverse forums, the majority is comparable to the original poster. Usually they seem to be quite young, radical, incongruent and agressive in their world view. A lot of times they show a latent disregard for human life, excepting their own, of course. An there's an open "we're intelligent and superior, meat eaters are stupid and inferior" "Gedankengut"...

Some go even so far to feed their children, cats, dogs with a vegan diet. Despite all the evidence that children will be harmed by such a diet. There even some cases where, admittedly well intentioned, parents have been jailed, because of feeding their children vegan diets. The result for their children: malnutrition, retardment and in severe cases, death. We don't even have to discuss what a vegan diet will do to a cat or a dog... Animal cruelty at its best, weird for declared animal lovers.

The most congruent group I've found, are the fruitarians, they claim that they feed exclusively on fruits. Which to me, sounds like a lie. I'm 100% sure that on a frugivore diet, a human will begin to develop serious health problems in a short period of time.

At least fructarians, for short periods of time, will achieve the "no killing" dogma. That being said, a vegan is a monstruous as an omnivore or carnivore to a fruitarian.

Here I have found an interesting essay, at least to me, on commom tinfoil arguments thrown around by vegan/fruitarians, dissected in detail:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml

Other interesting read, from a group that advocated, that's how I understood them, a vegan diet in the past (now it's the paleo-diet for them...):

http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet2.html

(There's an interesting article about rats eating eachother's babies when fed on a frugivore diet, not saying that fruitarians do that, but who knows?! ;) )

A rather amusing article:

http://www.vanguardonline.f9.co.uk/00509.htm

(The best part, Guru Maharaj Ji's knowledge...)

"The vegetarian myth" a book written by an ex vegan:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/lipid-hypothesis/the-vegetarian-myth/
Excellent work AgimA...............
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 29/12/2009 01:33:42
Quote
Some go even so far to feed their children, cats, dogs with a vegan diet. Despite all the evidence that children will be harmed by such a diet. There even some cases where, admittedly well intentioned, parents have been jailed, because of feeding their children vegan diets. The result for their children: malnutrition, retardment and in severe cases, death. We don't even have to discuss what a vegan diet will do to a cat or a dog... Animal cruelty at its best, weird for declared animal lovers.

The ADA's position, bearing in mind that this has been written by experts in nutrition compared to your opinion (using the sources of other people's opinions/case studies to back it up) is:

Quote
Well-planned vegetarian diets — even a vegan diet — can supply all the nutrients that children require for their growth and energy needs.

http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=4294967646&terms=vegetarian

I trust the ADA much, much more than I trust you to have looked thorough, scientific research about vegetarian & vegan diets. I'm willing to bet most others are too.

This also covers the claims by the other webpages, which are again simple, albeit lengthy opinion peices rather than anything coming close to science (except, perhaps, this one: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-1a.shtml but that is a comparison of anatomy, rather than healthy diets)

As for cats & dogs, I am unsure about the healthiness of vegan diets according to scientific evidence. It is a fairly rare phenomenon to feed a cat or dog a vegan diet, but I believe vets tend to agree that it is healthy with supplemented amino acids.

All of the links, sadly, still use some form of the naturalistic fallacy in all of their arguments against having a vegan diet. Seriously, learn what it is, reread the articles once you have, I will not bother to reply if you don't. Also learn about the is-ought problem, the wiki page for both of them are pretty good.

The last link mentions, in the book excerpt, that:

Quote
And agriculture isn’t quite a war because the forests and wetlands and prairies, the rain, the soil, the air, can’t fight back.  Agriculture is really more like ethnic cleansing, wiping out the indigenous dwellers so the invaders can take the land.  It’s biotic cleansing, biocide. … It is not non-violent.  It is not sustainable.  And every bite of food is laden with death.

Which, while accurate about agriculture, fails to mention that an omnivore requires much more land than a vegan, which is because all those animals must graze. Please, please, learn about trophic levels & energy transfer in ecosystems, & apply that knowledge to eating meat. Meat is more energy dense exactly because the animals have built it up over a very long period of time from lots of sources with less energy. A lot of that energy is spent on getting rid of, & chemically altering waste substances. Some is simply lost through heat that all warm blooded animals lose.

This also links with the claim that humans evolved larger, more well developed brains when they started eating meat. I do not think it is a valid claim, since I already knew chimpanzees & other great apes ate meat on occasion, or have heard about it - they have not magically transformed into more intelligent creatures as a result, though I recognise that isn't how evolution works, you would expect them to become more intelligent as a result of eating meat perhaps. Anyway, I'm not going to waste time trying to argue for something I disagree with. If the claim is true, then that is because meat provides more energy per kg than say berries, vegetables, maybe even grains, allowing the use of that energy in building a more organised/bigger/adaptable brain.

Aside from that, the rest of your claims & some of the ones in the other links are just quotations of other vegans - you get crazies in all groups of people. I am not a fundamentalist. I am studying Chemistry at The University of Leeds. Do you really think I am in some way a fringe scientist, or do not truly believe in mainstream science, or whatever? I follow the truth. I love it. I am passionate about truth. I think science is the best tool for finding out the truth.

Well, think what you will, I don't really mind. I do mind you trying to make out vegans as a bunch of crazies or as you quote "creepy", because they're not. Like most groups, it seems to be a normal distribution of weirdness. I think I'm pretty average, but decide what you will.

Thanks for toning down the rudeness. Have a good day [:)]
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 29/12/2009 02:31:35
"I do mind you trying to make out vegans as a bunch of crazies or as you quote "creepy", because they're not. Like most groups, it seems to be a normal distribution of weirdness. I think I'm pretty average, but decide what you will."

I don't have to, you're doing the job yourself. You may be pretty average for a vegan, which would put you, in my personal view, as less... well how can I put it in nice words? Fantastic utopian?

You have the nerve to tell me that I have to inject insulin and eat stuff like soy, wheat and a lot of vegetals, that are demonstrably harmful for me just because of your radical, utopic fantasy. Can I take you and the likes seriously? Only for your fanaticism, surely not for your ideals.

Only your questioning of if a vegan diet for dogs of cats is harmful is just so out of the moon... it clearly demonstrates that you show symptoms of severe cultism.

Take care of you, I hope that you get through your phylosophy unharmed, I really do.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 29/12/2009 02:38:29
For the record, the links I provided are opinions and research by a vegetarian, an ex vegetarian, an ex vegan and ex vegan society. People/organizations that have way more experience, in human years, with the mentioned diets than Gloves. One stopped after 20 years of veganism...

And they do explain Glove's reaction in detail, denial and crank science (as put by the vegetarian).
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 29/12/2009 02:58:00
Sponsors of the American Dietetic Association:

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/american_dietetic_association.html
http://www.eatright.org/HealthProfessionals/content.aspx?id=7454&terms=sponsors

First I thought that Glove was talking about the American Diabetic Association.

A "non profit" organization that relies on the sponsoring by large corporations, fot its existence, is quite questionable, regarding their recommendations and imparciality, at least to me.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 29/12/2009 12:50:25
Quote
A "non profit" organization that relies on the sponsoring by large corporations, fot its existence, is quite questionable, regarding their recommendations and imparciality, at least to me.

Haha, yes! Look who they're sponsored by! The "National Dairy Council", sure they're for vegan diets, Unilever, a giant international company which commonly uses animal ingredients & testing, CoroWise, which state that "skim milk [reduces] cholesterol", Kelloggs, who use honey in a lot of breakfast cereals. The others either stand to gain a little from a vegan diet, such as SoyJoy, but the rest have mixed products or no benefit from a vegan diet, for example Coke/Pepsico. Do you really think SoyJoy can "outbuy" a company compared to the likes of Unilever?
The other page lists others:

Quote
Major ($100,000+) donors include: Kellogg, Kraft Foods, Weight Watchers International, Campbell Soup, National Dairy Council, Nestlé USA, Ross Products Division of Abbott Labs., Sandoz, Coca-Cola, Florida Department of Citrus, General Mills, Monsanto, Nabisco, Procter & Gamble, Uncle Ben’s, Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. (Nov-Dec 1996 ADA Courier)

In addition to companies I've already mentioned;

Nestle produce no vegan chocolate & few other vegan products which are by nature e.g coffee granules, Procter & Gamble are notoriously unethical  when it comes to testing on animals, as well as practically owning the world financially.

They actually have a vested interest in saying that a vegan diet is unhealthy, since that is what most of their sponsors would like consumers to hear. Unfortunately, some people value integrity, even if they work for a company whose purpose is to educate people about life-saving nutrition.

Even if you do find more evidence of vested interest, that does nothing to refute the claim itself that a vegan diet can be healthy. If you're still worried about vested interest issues, then here's an article by the NHS (National Health Service of England for you international folks):

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx

Bearing in mind that The National Health service has published this! They have a vested interest in giving people the right information about dietary choices, since if they don't they will end up with a lot of very sick vegetarians/vegans on their doorstep, or people attempting it. The National Health service is a government organisation & will therefore come under a lot of fire if it is found to be giving misinformation about diets.

Yes, I'm well aware that the latter half of the article is written by a member of the Vegan Society (I am a member myself!) but this does not mean in any way that the society financially supports or otherwise puts pressure on the NHS for any other reason except for producing good health information. After all, a dead or sick vegan as a result of their diet is not likely to continue financially supporting a company promoting veganism now, is it?

Quote
For the record, the links I provided are opinions and research by a vegetarian, an ex vegetarian, an ex vegan and ex vegan society. People/organizations that have way more experience, in human years, with the mentioned diets than Gloves. One stopped after 20 years of veganism...

And they do explain Glove's reaction in detail, denial and crank science (as put by the vegetarian).

Interesting, can you point out exactly where instead of making sweeping claims?

It seems to me that the author uses exactly the same irrelevent arguments omnivores make referring to the moral side (i.e appeal to nature). & I've already explained why environmentally, her critique of agriculture has merit as in yes, it takes land away from animals, but she fails to recognise the same things you do: producing meat is an energy intensive process. Omnivore diets require a LOT more food overall (& therefore land), since you have to take into account animals need to be fed before they grow to a size where the muscle is large enough for people to eat. Once again, simple understanding of trophic levels (the "invention" of mainstream biological science, not me!) would make this intuitive to understand.

Quote
"I do mind you trying to make out vegans as a bunch of crazies or as you quote "creepy", because they're not. Like most groups, it seems to be a normal distribution of weirdness. I think I'm pretty average, but decide what you will."

I don't have to, you're doing the job yourself. You may be pretty average for a vegan, which would put you, in my personal view, as less... well how can I put it in nice words? Fantastic utopian?

*shrug* I'm not particularly radical. I've taken the same morality that we use to legally or morally protect other animals from abuse or death, like pets, or "cute"/good looking animals like polar bears, tigers, pandas & extended it further to include all sentient species, since that is the only basis which is not insensibly discriminate. You should not treat an ugly child worse because it is ugly. The same applies to different animals.

Quote
You have the nerve to tell me that I have to inject insulin and eat stuff like soy, wheat and a lot of vegetals, that are demonstrably harmful for me just because of your radical, utopic fantasy.

You should ask your doctor to test you for celiac's disease, if you haven't already. Perhaps it is that rather than diebetes which causes your suffering.

I'm sure you'd live on a non-vegan diet pain free without unnecessary/additional medication, but my level of knowledge about diabetes (& possibly celiac disease) in combination with a vegan diet is not that high. Even if you didn't, I still think it's your duty to put other animals before your own interests.

Quote
Can I take you and the likes seriously? Only for your fanaticism, surely not for your ideals...

Only your questioning of if a vegan diet for dogs of cats is harmful is just so out of the moon... it clearly demonstrates that you show symptoms of severe cultism.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=27567.0;topicseen

How embarrassing.

Quote
Take care of you, I hope that you get through your phylosophy unharmed, I really do.

I will. I'm sure if a group like this can live for ~5000 years without any animal products, I can for a little while.

Quote
The few thousand Brok-pa Aryans have over 5,000 years lived in these hostile terrain at 15,000 ft altitude, subsisting on a vegan diet.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/life/2005/01/07/stories/2005010700080200.htm



Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 29/12/2009 15:55:39
From the linked article:

"Their striking features include blue eyes, aristocratic noses, fair complexion and flawless skin. They appear ethnically distinct from Ladakhis or Kashmiris. They do not marry outsiders and restrict their contact with the outside world, seemingly happy in their isolated existence. Married women braid their hair, which gives them a resemblance to Greeks. One of the women photographed at Dah could have easily been mistaken for a German tourist. She was blonde and had high cheekbones, rotund face and unmistakable German features.

The Aryan tribes believe in prophecies and the recording of dreams. Most of the elderly Aryans meet in the morning at the Juniper grove and discuss their dreams. One of their folk songs sung at the Bononah festival is translated as follows:

In the beginning there was water all over the earth and some of it froze. Dust settled on this patch of ice. Later, a small patch of grass appeared on the frozen patch and, soon, a juniper tree sprouted from the earth. The whole universe was created by Chag (fire), Ser (water) and Yun (earth)."

What are you bringing next? Adolf Hitler's (a convinced vegetarian) ideas on vegan nutrition? There's another tribe in the Himalays the Hunza, which are also mentioned by vegan/vegetarians as an example of people living since bazillions of years on a vegan/vegetarian diet... It comes out, that when scientifically investigated, most claims are plain myths, exaggerations and crackpot idealizations.

While I'm aware that aryan was a term misused by national socialists, the direction into which this writing is pointing, should be clear, blue eyes, blonde, aristocratic aryan nose, vegetarian = Übermensch, brown, brown, brown, meat eater = monkey.

That's what I'm writing about, you're making a fool out of yourself, you deny evidence, you resort to distortions and show your disdain towards, in your eyes, inferior humans. You're an anti-humanist, if we humans are such a pest, then why are you still living?

You value the well being of a pig more than mine, ok, you're definetly nuts, like Adolf Hitler, that valued the well being of his dogs more than the well being of millions of human beings, disgusting.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: graham.d on 29/12/2009 17:11:40
I do not object to killing plants for food currently. I do not object to killing as an absolute rule. I do object to killing undeserving creatures which can feel as an absolute rule, as most here do in other circumstances involving animals. You do not kill pets for pleasure (& find it abhorrent to do so I am willing to bet) so why should you finance & therefore enable the killing of other creautres which are quite clearly capable of emotion?

Eating meat yet being unable to personally kill an animal is much more contradictory than my position. I do not believe in some mystical, spiritual aspect of life. I approach veganism from an entirely secular point of view.

I did not think you would mind killing the sprouts; it was the aphids I was wondering about.

Do aphids feel pain? Are they sentient? Because they react to stimulus does not make them sentient in my book.

I also agree that my position is contradictory, though I am unsure about the meaning in degrees of contradiction. I am aware and choose to live with this, and many other, contradictions. I just choose which battles to fight and this is not high on my priority list.

I am unsure of the relevence of this but I remember talking with a Buddhist priest many years ago who was happy to live with the idea that he did not have to work but live on the charity of others, and he obviously accepted that the world would not allow everyone to behave this way. But this did not stop him trying to pursuade everyone to adopt his stance and just concentrate on seeking enlightenment. I think living with contradictions is part of the human condition; the above is more stark tham most.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 29/12/2009 18:13:05
Quote
What are you bringing next? Adolf Hitler's (a convinced vegetarian) ideas on vegan nutrition? There's another tribe in the Himalays the Hunza, which are also mentioned by vegan/vegetarians as an example of people living since bazillions of years on a vegan/vegetarian diet... It comes out, that when scientifically investigated, most claims are plain myths, exaggerations and crackpot idealizations.

While I'm aware that aryan was a term misused by national socialists, the direction into which this writing is pointing, should be clear, blue eyes, blonde, aristocratic aryan nose, vegetarian = Übermensch, brown, brown, brown, meat eater = monkey.

You're well aware of it & yet you're making wild conclusions like the above from the only evidence below:

"Their striking features include blue eyes, aristocratic noses, fair complexion and flawless skin... She was blonde and had high cheekbones, rotund face and unmistakable German features."

You're right - gather round the Allies, we need to fight these monsters for appreciating blonde hair & blue eyes, along with a reference to Aryans which you yourself have admitted was twisted by national socialists.

As for whether or not it's a myth, well, I don't really care. I'm not going to fly over & find out. I don't really need to - I am living healthily on a vegan diet, as are about 200,000 other vegans in the UK.

Please do get checked out for celiac's disease, which explains your inability to eat grains much more than any form of diabetes.

Quote
You value the well being of a pig more than mine, ok, you're definetly nuts, like Adolf Hitler, that valued the well being of his dogs more than the well being of millions of human beings, disgusting.

Well, if anything, thanks for using reductio ad Hitlerum.

I've already stated I'm also for human rights in previous posts, I do not believe we are an evil species though we may do many evil things, we are also capable of good. That is the purpose of my posting. To encourage people to see that veganism is a morally good thing to do. Unfortunately, some people simply cannot see that killing sentient creatures=wrong & meat requires killing, or that animals should have property rights over what they produce simply because they produce it. I would not make a farm of human women, rape them continually so that they can produce milk & then collect that milk from them so I can make profit. It would be barbarious. Just as it is with cows.

I have calmly (with great effort) responded point by point with evidence & science to each of your claims about veganism/diet. You have failed to respond to mine & instead have resorted to sweeping statements, insults & comparisons to Hitler, God only knows why.

Continue with this & I will report you to moderators. I will not stand for it, & even if they disagree with the points I make, they will agree that your conduct is not acceptable.

I'm done with you unless you make some meaningful, thought out, researched points. Please remember to get tested for celiac's disease, which ironically I know about through the vegan lifestyle.

Quote from: graham.d
I did not think you would mind killing the sprouts; it was the aphids I was wondering about.

Do aphids feel pain? Are they sentient? Because they react to stimulus does not make them sentient in my book.

I would not kill them. This is mainly a benefit of the doubt kind of thing; once again, it follows my "the killing is unnecessary" rule. I'm sure you would've lived without eating those particular sprouts [:)]

That is a far too loose definition of sentiency. I'm just unsure about whether or not they are sentient. There is more evidence that they suffer compared to plants, for which there is almost none, as far as I'm currently aware. Because of this, I err on the side of caution & do not kill insects where I can avoid it. If they were pests, i.e insects killing a plant, I would research the methods organic farmers use to discourage pests from landing on that food & use those.

Quote
I also agree that my position is contradictory, though I am unsure about the meaning in degrees of contradiction. I am aware and choose to live with this, and many other, contradictions. I just choose which battles to fight and this is not high on my priority list.

Good that you choose which battles to fight, but obviously I think this is one worth fighting. I'm still unsure about how it's contradictory - I never made the claim that all killing is wrong, just argued for different parameters on which killing is wrong. Killing or inflicting pain upon innocent, undeserving sentient animals for our own purposes, whatever they may be, is wrong to me & definitely a battle worth fighting for, even if it is contradictory.

Quote
I am unsure of the relevence of this but I remember talking with a Buddhist priest many years ago who was happy to live with the idea that he did not have to work but live on the charity of others, and he obviously accepted that the world would not allow everyone to behave this way. But this did not stop him trying to pursuade everyone to adopt his stance and just concentrate on seeking enlightenment. I think living with contradictions is part of the human condition; the above is more stark tham most.

Well, I'd say that the Buddhist is doing work, just not traditionally how we define work. He's acting in the same way spiritual leaders & psychologists do in the West, except using an unfamiliar method. Helping people is a job in itself.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: AgimA on 29/12/2009 18:46:33
Gloves, for the sake of information:

Gluten is probably toxic to some degree for every human being. The detection of Coeliac's is quite difficult, sometimes not even a biopsy will show positive results, despite an individual having overtly symptoms. If you want more information on wheat related problems, study biochemistry and the interactions of the proteins contained in wheat, with the human body. On why proteins contained in wheat act like insulin in the wrong places, fomenting aberrant growths in the intestine. None to say, I did all tests but they came negative.

What is more insulting, to value my life less than the one of a pig (calling me, by induction, less than a pig, or even an arachnid), or to call you a crazy fool? Decide for yourself. Now report me to the moderators. If they're political correct, then sure I'll get banned...

It's the second time you tell me that will ignore me, stand by your word and do it.

If you don't want to see if what you base your ideas on is correct or not, why do you post a stupid article about some "aryan" tribe in the himalayas to prove your points? Incongruency.

I wonder how many from those 200000 will develop one of the following: MS, Diabetes, Hypothyroidism, neuropathy, would be interesting to study them.

Your messianic zeal, your holier than thou attitudes, your arrogance, whatever...

Take care.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: graham.d on 29/12/2009 19:59:21
Gloves, in my limited experience of home produce, it is almost impossible to grow sprouts without aphids getting on them, or, alternatively, using pesticides. I am fairly sure this is true of many vegetables. I guess it is theoretically possible to grow them in a sterile environment, but this is not a practical solution. In any case you have to clean them or cook the insects with the sprouts. A contradiction for you to solve maybe :-)

If you watched the Xmas lecture for children (I caught a part of it) the subject of aphid reproduction was discussed. Without natural controls they reproduce at a phenomenal rate. They reproduce using Parthenogenesis (essentially reproducing clones of themselves) and do so in a way that each adult has two generations of offspring prepared and ready to go. Why do you think, because we have brains, that this should mean that it disqualifies us from the natural order of being a controlling factor? It just makes the decisions harder. It is part of the Pandora's box that is called knowledge.

I know this has diverted from the original discussion, but hey, lets be wild :-)
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 29/12/2009 20:32:25
Quote
Gloves, in my limited experience of home produce, it is almost impossible to grow sprouts without aphids getting on them, or, alternatively, using pesticides. I am fairly sure this is true of many vegetables. I guess it is theoretically possible to grow them in a sterile environment, but this is not a practical solution. In any case you have to clean them or cook the insects with the sprouts. A contradiction for you to solve maybe :-)

Like I've said before, I honestly know too little growing organic produce to know how they deter insects, but I think there are methods. I'd have to ask an organic farmer [:)]

Quote
If you watched the Xmas lecture for children (I caught a part of it) the subject of aphid reproduction was discussed. Without natural controls they reproduce at a phenomenal rate. They reproduce using Parthenogenesis (essentially reproducing clones of themselves) and do so in a way that each adult has two generations of offspring prepared and ready to go. Why do you think, because we have brains, that this should mean that it disqualifies us from the natural order of being a controlling factor? It just makes the decisions harder. It is part of the Pandora's box that is called knowledge.

I know this has diverted from the original discussion, but hey, lets be wild :-)

I never knew that about aphids!

Oh, we are a controlling factor, sure, & as much a part of nature as a lion or a honeybee. Issues of determinism & responsibility are fairly complex. I used to think that because the macroscopic world is essentially deterministic, at least as far as I can see, we are absolved from responsibility of our actions, but I have revised it simply for practicality. It may or may not be true - whether it is or not is irrelevant because I will still be held accountable for my actions by my own sense of morality & other by people, & I still have an impact on the world simply by existing. The simple fact of my existence may cause suffering to other organisms, but I try not to worry about things I cannot do anything about. I have come across information & access to the wonderful emotion of compassion that helps me to reduce that suffering as much as I practically can, & I am extremely grateful that I have.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: graham.d on 30/12/2009 11:03:05
I think you are right, to a point, about not worrying about things you can do nothing about, especially if you class worrying as an unhealthy extension to having doubts or concerns. I think that for the foreseeable future man needs to concentrate on his behaviour towards his fellow man and on the maintenance of the planet. I suppose I see the choice of veganism as a rather unimportent and personal decision that is likely to have little impact. Its main value would be to instill people with a greater degree of empathy for other humans via association with the animal surrogates. I see that as worthwhile. Practically, removing vast herds of cattle could reduce the production of greenhouse gasses but that may have to include reducing natural populations too. By the way, although it has been reported many times that rearing livestock is an inefficient method of producing food, it seriously dpends on what is the type of land available and how it is managed. Try growing crops on a hill farm in Wales or the west of Ireland! The balance of arable and livestock farming has been a key factor in optimising land use, especially in marginal areas. It is also a key factor in organic farm management. Rather like the Buddhist I mentioned, the idea is great for a few people to satisfy their concience, but probably not alright for everyone. Try eating the numerous tasty dishes you have learnt to cook if you had to source all the ingredients locally.

I don't think you can sidestep trying to classify animals' worth (maybe on a judgement of sentience) by the notion of whether they are capable of free movement or not. It is far more complicated than that. You would also have to stop walking, driving or other transport to avoid inadvertently killing bugs. This is not to mention how you contol pests that would otherwise eat the vegetables you wish to have as food. I cannot easily see the moral problem being solved by introducing natural methods of control, rather than artificial methods, either. Quite intelligent animals can also be pests too. It is all very well to say we should "deter" them, but that may not be very practical today.

For the foreseeable future I don't see the world becoming vegan and I do not even see it as a practical proposition. I would like to see more respect for animals and their welfare and develop a much greater understanding that animals range in sentience and perception. It is fine for people to become vegan if they wish and the concepts, and the moral stances adopted, are importent in promoting this understanding. I rather think it is similar to thinking it good for people to be pacifists, but in the event that there is a threat to also think that it is good that some people are not. As knowledge grows so does responsibility, and humans are presented with more and more moral dilemmas. I see the world as many shades of grey and it is rare to be able to make such a black/white choice.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 30/12/2009 13:16:48
Quote
I suppose I see the choice of veganism as a rather unimportent and personal decision that is likely to have little impact. Its main value would be to instill people with a greater degree of empathy for other humans via association with the animal surrogates.

Once again, this displays the speciesist attitude that I dislike.. let me explain why I think animals should be considered having 'instrinsic value' much like humans are seen has having. I see your arguments as similar to the arguments an 18th century slave owner who is sympathetic towards the black people. Nothing personal, this is just for the sake of argument.

If you use sentience or intelligence solely as a way of judging how well we treat living things, there are cases with humans where, if using a strict definition, we would treat a human badly. Take for example the severely mentally disabled, who cannot even look after themselves, or people in comas. We do not treat them badly simply because they lack intelligence, or because they lack a work function which helps towards keeping civilisation intact. In these cases, the line between species membership is very blurry.. at what intelligence level is a human no longer a human? When they are raised in a feral environment? The same question can be asked about sentience - at what level is a human no longer a human? When they are in a coma?

Of course, we would not treat feral humans or comatose patient badly, even if that person were not sentient. It is the capability of sentience, or even the slightest chance of sentience, as well as that feeling of violating a person's right, that deters us. It feels morally intrinsically wrong because that person has moral intrinsic value; not simply because of what he is, as a human, but simply because there is the slightest possibility that he is aware of what is happening around him. Besides that, even the dead are respected enough to be protected by law from theft, rape, etc, though arguably this is no longer a crime against the person. I believe we afford the dead this protection because of what they were. But this is an aside..

Even if you see animals as having only the tiniest chance of being sentient, then everything should be done to protect them, using the same arguments as I have above. This includes from being murdered, manipulated to serve human ends, raped, abused in any sort of way.

That is why veganism is important for animals & not simply just for humans, though it would be beneficial for both. Rights protect us from being used as means to ends, no matter what ends they are. Animals should not be used as means to our ends simply because it's wrong to use something sentient as a mere tool. Not only that, but it is a question of desertion; the animal has been born into the world as it is, just as you have - neither of you "deserve" the body any more than the other, but one will be subjugated to misery to it's most of it's life, whereas the other will be the subjugator. That is mere luck, nothing else. We have already recognised that it's really morally dumb to treat people badly based on if they have black skin or are born with sex organs that don't dangle - the time is ripe to recognise that we should not treat things badly if they hooves, feathers, or fur. This is also I believe characterising sentient animals in degrees of sentiency is dangerous; at what point can we use a sentient creature capable of feeling for our ends? is the wrong question to ask. Any sentient creature should be afforded at the very least the right of non-interference from humans. It is not a question of sidestepping anything, it is simply that the information about degrees of sentiency & capability of pain are unimportant if you're going to apply the moral principle properly. That's why animals deserve to be treated with intrinsic value & as a result, moral & legal rights.

Quote
that is likely to have little impact.

I'm going to repeat this because it is a major barrier in people becoming vegan.

Let me ask, do you vote? Statistically speaking, your vote makes no difference. Looking it from the perspective of the entire population, your vote makes no difference. That's not really the point, though, is it? It's about partaking in your government, about trying to make as much difference as you, as an individual, can.

This is really a question of perspective. I could argue that from the perspective of the universe, humans are less than nothing. Our lives are over faster than the blink of an eye to the universe. That's missing the point of life, though, isn't it? We do not give up on life simply because we are the briefest of winds in the universe - we have feelings, & they give us meaning. Enjoying ourselves is the ultimate end.. at the same time, we must recognise that all other sentient creatures are also trying to reach that ultimate end of being happy: violating it is similar to how you feel when others make you unhappy. It is deeply unsatisfying. It can be reasonably assumed that other humans & animals have emotions based on similarities with us, it does not require such a massive leap of faith to recognise this.

Similarly, thinking you do not make a difference is a skew of perspective that prevents you from acting in a better way. It is as poor an excuse to not strive for morality as it is being lazy your entire life because you won't make an appreciable overall impact on society from the point of view of the entire of society.

16 10 billion land animals will still be raised for the slaughter next year whether I'm vegan or not. I do not expect to save even a few hundred animals. Hopefully I can save a couple. My expectations for myself are not high. I do not even expect to convert a single person to being a vegan, but I hope to.

If enough people try, then maybe we can make an appreciable impact, even from the perspective of the number itself [;)]

Quote
For the foreseeable future I don't see the world becoming vegan and I do not even see it as a practical proposition.

It is not practical to happen immediately - I don't expect veganism to happen overnight.

Quote
I rather think it is similar to thinking it good for people to be pacifists, but in the event that there is a threat to also think that it is good that some people are not.

I do not. Pacifism universalised would mean that the nation in question would be conquered pretty quickly. It is an unsustainable position for a country to take (arguably it is not if it is fully universalised, since no one would be interested in violence, but I guess some people always will be). Veganism is not; it requires much less land & water than a non-vegan diet, though it might require transport as you've pointed out. It does not require that you never kill an animal ever again, only that you do not kill an innocent animal intentionally.

Quote
I see the world as many shades of grey and it is rare to be able to make such a black/white choice.

At what point of womanness does it become okay not to grant them the right to vote? This suffers the same problem I have gone at length to describe above. This isn't really about shades of grey, though I recognise that in many situations it is, the treatment of animals is not.

PS I apologise for the long read, but I think it's necessary to really make my points [:)]

Edit: WARNING, EXTREMELY GRAPHIC & DISTURBING

a nice movie to watch on my arguments summed up is Earthlings: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142&ei=6H07S9XVMdqv-AbaxqimAQ&q=earthlings&hl=en&view=3&client=firefox-a#

If that link doesn't work, head over to google video & search for it. I'm sure some people will enjoy it. [:)]

Find it illuminating. [:-\] I know I have. I am cautious about generalising this to all factories, but based on the cheapness of a lot of meat, I would not say it is uncommon practice. The Kosher section I found extremely shocking.

Edit: corrected number of land animals killed per year for food
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: graham.d on 30/12/2009 17:14:20
Again, I see you are justifying your position on the basis of converting your emotional response into a justification for the concept, then extending the concept ad absurdum. Let state my position as clearly as I can:
1. It is wrong to intentionally and unnecessarily inflict pain or distress on sentient animals that we can reasonably expect to feel such pain or distress.
2. It is wrong to intentionally and unnecessarily harm sentient animals except where doing so is necessary for the essential benefit of other sentient animals, including humans, or for other animals of the same species.
3. It is essential that views be taken on degrees of importance in any decisions as it is easy to see that conflicting situations can arise. This would have to be done by decisions on a hierarchy of sentience combined with the impact of any decisions. This would have to be codified as law.
4. The world is not currently in a state where a practical codification is possible and there are many other important problems to be solved.

There are almost certainly more "rules" I could think of with enough time.

Comparison with the slave trade: All men are equal - slavery is wrong. An 18th century slave trader may justify his actions on the basis that the slaves were some sub-species but, more generally, slaves were considered a useful bounty of war in most cultures. The concept of them being inferior was a justification to placate those who may have felt uneasy about it in a developing liberalism.

Comparison with the severely mentally disabled or those in a coma: Yes, they may recover but a sheep is not likely to start reading Proust :-) More importantly, there are laws which are there to protect individuals when those individuals are not able to do that themselves. It is nonetheless the case that someone can be judged to be in a persistently vegetative state and have life support removed. It may be clear that severely mentally disabled people may not recover, but these people have considerable "sentience" compared with any non-human animal. It is necessary for the law to protect such people and we have such laws.

I would guess that you are against abortion. That is a subject for another debate. Personally I dislike abortion beyond a very early stage (zygote stage) but I also think there is a conflict between the continued health and well-being of the mother, the (possibly) unwanted child and the rights of the unborn baby who is no doubt to some extent sentient when abhorted at (say) 3 months. Absolutism does not work here either. We (humans) have to make decisions and formulate laws that can be practically applied within the limitations of the world we live in and the knowledge we have.

It is fine for you to take the view that you are being logically consistant in being a vegan and if you wish to evangelise the idea, that's OK too. It wasn't any sort of "put down" when I said it will be unlikely to matter much. What I meant was, that the idea is impractical with the world as it is, so the concept does no harm. If it encourages people to think about sentience in animals and empathise, then it is a positive for the human race. I happen to think that we will move in such a direction (higher mammals are clearly sentient) but that I think we are looking at 100 to 200 year time span. It will have to involve a good deal of categorising and making value judgements, so I wholly disagree with your view that you should avoid killing anything. I am fairly sure that I would not classify aphids as sentient. I think you are going too far in anthropomorphising all creatures and I think we have to do better than that.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 30/12/2009 19:02:03
Quote
Again, I see you are justifying your position on the basis of converting your emotional response into a justification for the concept

Of course I am! Show me morality that doesn't! Emotions are the basis of what is good & what is bad. When we say something is "good" or "bad", that doesn't mean anything if no emotions are involved - describing something as good means it brings a pleasurable outcome to usually, the most amount of people, though there are flaws with this definition. I have based my morality on something wider - the effect it will have on not only humans, but on animals, since the suffering animals feel can be assumed to be very similar to humans, & vice versa. It is simply because we are humans & understand human experience more easily - I am not comparing animals to humans because I think they have human qualities, I think they have shared qualities, most importantly, the shared qualities of feeling pain & being aware. There is extremely good evidence for this - go & apply an injurous stimulus to an animal, & it will try to get away from the stimulus. The evidence for consciousness comes from the similarity in nervous system & brain to humans in other animals & I agree that the evidence becomes weaker the further removed from this setup a nervous system becomes. It is strong enough for me, however, to believe individual fish are conscious. This is almost the opposite of anthropomorphism - I'm not granting animals human qualities, I'm saying in some morally important respects, we have the same qualities, irregardless of whether you're a vole or the president of Nigeria.

Quote
2. It is wrong to intentionally and unnecessarily harm sentient animals except where doing so is necessary for the essential benefit of other sentient animals, including humans, or for other animals of the same species.

I have only quoted point 2 because I agree with points 1 & 4 except the part about importance. Point 3 & the importance issue will be tackled later on.

See, the problem is, you're already framing the issue in terms of instrumental value: that is, if an animal can be used as an instrument to gain more knowledge, then the ends justify the means. The benefit to other species is irrelevant. It's like arguing that we can enslave, experiment on, & then kill a black person, because it is beneficial for another group. It might provide the most useful, amazing new scientific information in the world, but that's not the point. It's still instrinsically wrong in the same way that it is intrinsically wrong to do the same thing to animals. For this reason, there is no need for a heirachy of sentience - there is a need for determining whether a living thing can be reasonably assumed to be sentient - fortunately, there already is one - the biological classifications of animalia, for the current purposes, are fine. The divisions are not perfect. Sponges are included, however, & cannot reasonably be assumed to be sentient or feel pain; for this reason I still buy & use sponges.

However, if you truly believe that one group of sentient creatures should suffer or be killed for the possibility, however likely, of benefitting another group, then we have nothing more to talk about - there is no argument against it, it is a fundamental belief.

Quote
All men are equal - slavery is wrong. An 18th century slave trader may justify his actions on the basis that the slaves were some sub-species but, more generally, slaves were considered a useful bounty of war in most cultures. The concept of them being inferior was a justification to placate those who may have felt uneasy about it in a developing liberalism.

Isn't this an argument for fighting speciesism, rather than against it? The same jusfication is the made by many in this age for the same purpose.

Quote
Comparison with the severely mentally disabled or those in a coma: Yes, they may recover but a sheep is not likely to start reading Proust :-) More importantly, there are laws which are there to protect individuals when those individuals are not able to do that themselves*. It is nonetheless the case that someone can be judged to be in a persistently vegetative state and have life support removed.
*Bold added

I agree that a sheep is not about to start reading Proust [:D]

You have hit the nail on the head on why such legislature is important. It protects the weak from the strong, in other words, protects both parties from animalistic (I'm using that word ironically of course [;)]) predatory behaviour.

As for the vegetative state, well, that's because the person is essentially the same as dead. They no longer experience feelings or percieve the world. Animals do.

Quote
It may be clear that severely mentally disabled people may not recover, but these people have considerable "sentience" compared with any non-human animal. It is necessary for the law to protect such people and we have such laws.

I think you're confusing intelligence with sentience here. Maybe you recognised it yourself, since you put sentience in quotation marks.

Quote
I would guess that you are against abortion. That is a subject for another debate. Personally I dislike abortion beyond a very early stage (zygote stage) but I also think there is a conflict between the continued health and well-being of the mother, the (possibly) unwanted child and the rights of the unborn baby who is no doubt to some extent sentient when abhorted at (say) 3 months. Absolutism does not work here either. We (humans) have to make decisions and formulate laws that can be practically applied within the limitations of the world we live in and the knowledge we have.

This is always a hard debate. I'm pro choice, not pro life.. I do not believe fetuses, at a young age, can be considered sentient or feeling. They are a mass of cells, not yet experiencing. When there is evidence that they are sentient, then I disagree that they should be killed. That fetus, morally, is then a child. That's why I'm okay with stem cell research too. The mere future potential for sentiency & life is not good grounds for granting moral protection; if it were, we would be lead to the moral conclusion that all egg capable of being fertilised should be, which is practically & morally ridiculous.

Quote
It is fine for you to take the view that you are being logically consistant in being a vegan and if you wish to evangelise the idea, that's OK too. It wasn't any sort of "put down" when I said it will be unlikely to matter much. What I meant was, that the idea is impractical with the world as it is, so the concept does no harm. If it encourages people to think about sentience in animals and empathise, then it is a positive for the human race. I happen to think that we will move in such a direction (higher mammals are clearly sentient) but that I think we are looking at 100 to 200 year time span. It will have to involve a good deal of categorising and making value judgements, so I wholly disagree with your view that you should avoid killing anything. I am fairly sure that I would not classify aphids as sentient. I think you are going too far in anthropomorphising all creatures and I think we have to do better than that.


I don't ever claim you should avoid killing everything (an absurd position, imo) & I've tried to explain why we do not need to classify animals further above, as well as explain why I do not think it is anthropomorphism.

I recognise that there are important differences between animal & human rights, but it is the common experience of being able to suffer that means that we should afford the basic right of non-interference to the animals that we routinely hurt.

Thanks for recognising that it's a good thing though - it's enough for me to get people just thinking about this seriously - I really hate that groups like PETA & ALF are the faces of the animal rights movement. The entire reason I'm continuing to spend time debating this with you, & other people, is exactly to show that we are not all fanatics, evangelical, but rather that there are sound reasons behind giving animals rights that can be derived from already existing secular ethics.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: graham.d on 31/12/2009 11:17:19
Quote
Emotions are the basis of what is good & what is bad.
Yes and no. As far as an individual is concerned this would be true for everyday use. It is a personal opinion and, as far as we share a degree of commonality in being human, it works as a moral signpost. However, there are many that will disagree on many subjects, others who may agree but do not care to act in sympathy with their own concience, and others still who may agree but see that in many cases their idealistic views may be self contradictory when taken to extremis and they have to make decisions about a least bad course. I think most of our laws are based on our shared moral sense, usually codified based on earlier religious concepts.

You are using your own moral judgement to make decisions about your own actions; this is fine as long as it does no harm to the rest of the society you live in. There are plenty of cases where this is not an acceptable course of action though; militant religious extremism for example and, as you have alluded to, some animal rights movements. Regrettably there are often problems with idealism.

It is not necessarily the case that because an organism has a response to a stimulus (that may damage that organism), that this is any way related to sentience or in any way similar to that of a human. Evolution has resulted in organisms having reactions, probably originating as methods of defence. That humans also have a similar reaction is unsurprising though the human response is going to be more sophisticated. As far as higher mammals are concerned, there are structural similarities in the nervous systems and it is likely that distress in such animals can be compared with that in humans; in that I agree.

Is it "good or bad" to kill sentient animals? I have an instinctive view that is the same as you, but this is not shared by all humanity. I would not deliberately harm another sentient creature but I also recognise that this is anthropomorphising the animal, and so my feelings are not reliable, and also not a currently sustainable view in the society we live in.

Comparing past treatment of black slaves to today's treatment of animals is fallacious. It is a straw man argument. That the slave trade often treated the slaves as they would livestock is true. That this was wrong was, primarily, because they were human and not because humans should not treat any creature this way. Today most would not agree to treat livestock this way either, but that is not the point you are making. We have made decisions in this society that it is not right to kill a human for the benefit of other humans. However we do have "opt-out" clauses for immediate prevention of killing of other humans. The law does not extend to exploitation though.

If there were a colony of apes about to be killed off by diseases spread by rats and the only option was to kill the rats then I would do that if it were in my power and there were no other viable option. I would make the decision that the apes were worth more than the rats. It may be hard to justify this, and probably impossible from your standpoint, but I would guess that most people would agree to this. If it were one species of ape versus another species of ape this would make the decision very hard but with knowledge and power comes responsibility. To them we are playing at being a God.

If it is one group of humans and another group it is even more difficult as all the world's wars have shown.

You should read about whether a 3 month fetus is sentient or not. You were debating the possibility of whether flies should be harmed the other day and yet take a pro-choice view
on abortion. I don't disagree with your choice but I do not find it at all consistant with your views on how to treat animals. Stem cell research is fine with me too because a Zygote has no nervous system. A 3 month fetus is considerably developed however. There was much debate on the legality of whether there should be elective abortions at this point of development or whether the term should be shortened or lengthened. Not easy, but part of the responsibility I was talking about.

 
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 31/12/2009 12:08:20
I agree with the first paragraph after the quote. It was a little too simplistic to say that.

Quote
You are using your own moral judgement to make decisions about your own actions; this is fine as long as it does no harm to the rest of the society you live in. There are plenty of cases where this is not an acceptable course of action though; militant religious extremism for example and, as you have alluded to, some animal rights movements. Regrettably there are often problems with idealism.

From the extremist's point of view (a well known group is ALF), animal rights must try their hardest to do everything to save animals right now. ALF are committed to non-violence against people, but not against property - they take the tools out, so to speak. I do think this is a necessary part of any revolution - it gives the AR groups a lot more leverage overall. The basic idea behind it is that they need to protect the animals by proxy, even if that means acting outside the law & even day to day morality. Civil disobedience can be a good thing against a system that is evil. After all, that system is set up to maintain the status quo; if you believe the status quo is evil (& ALF members obviously do, for pretty much the same reasons I do) one way of immediately getting attention to your cause as well as leverage is to destroy property & free animals from their cages, literally.

They recognise themselves that violence against property is not the only way for the war to be won, simply the fastest. & of course the faster ARs are recognised, the more animals will be saved. This is much different to religious extremism.

Read this page for more information on how they justify violence towards property, & their argument against pacifism: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Pacifism.htm

Mostly they just come across as angry jerks, they aren't exactly professionals. What they say has some merit though.

Quote
anthropomorphising the animal, and so my feelings are not reliable, and also not a currently sustainable view in the society we live in.

It's not anthropomorphising the animal. It is not granting them human qualities. The argument is, which you've already accepted here that:

Quote
there are structural similarities in the nervous systems and it is likely that distress in such animals can be compared with that in humans; in that I agree.

If you were a cow & studied human physiology, & then said to other cows "look! they have a similar physiology, so it's likely that they feel pain in the same way we do!" those cows would not accuse you of bovinialmorphism ( [;D] ) in the same way you should not accuse me, or yourself, as anthropomorphic. We compare the animals to humans because we are human, but that doesn't mean that I think the animals are like humans in every way. They might not day dream, but there is evidence that both cows & humans experience pain & suffering in a very similar. Whether you use a cow as your starting point or a human as a starting point is irrelevant, because they are both very similar.

Quote
also not a currently sustainable view in the society we live in.

Of course it isn't! That's why I'm arguing for change!

Quote
Comparing past treatment of black slaves to today's treatment of animals is fallacious. It is a straw man argument. That the slave trade often treated the slaves as they would livestock is true. That this was wrong was, primarily, because they were human and not because humans should not treat any creature this way.

No, it is wrong because they can feel pain, although at the time the basis was that they are intelligent. We've already discussed why using intelligence as a measure for how well you treat something is stupid: simply because intelligence is at least partly determined by genetics, so there is no desertion, & because of the mentally disabled person or child argument. It is not a straw man argument; the blacks were treated badly by oppressors, as animals are today by all humans, either by proxy or directly.

"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" - Jeremy Bentham

Quote
If there were a colony of apes about to be killed off by diseases spread by rats and the only option was to kill the rats then I would do that if it were in my power and there were no other viable option. I would make the decision that the apes were worth more than the rats. It may be hard to justify this, and probably impossible from your standpoint, but I would guess that most people would agree to this. If it were one species of ape versus another species of ape this would make the decision very hard but with knowledge and power comes responsibility. To them we are playing at being a God.

This is too hard a dilemna for me to respond to. I will spend time thinking about it, but I suspect my answer would be to deny the validity of the thought experiment since killing the rats would never in real life be the only option to save the apes. I'll have more of a proper think about it though.

Quote
You should read about whether a 3 month fetus is sentient or not. You were debating the possibility of whether flies should be harmed the other day and yet take a pro-choice view
on abortion. I don't disagree with your choice but I do not find it at all consistant with your views on how to treat animals. Stem cell research is fine with me too because a Zygote has no nervous system. A 3 month fetus is considerably developed however. There was much debate on the legality of whether there should be elective abortions at this point of development or whether the term should be shortened or lengthened. Not easy, but part of the responsibility I was talking about.

It is fully consistant; I would not kill a sentient, feeling creature whether it is an unborn child or a cow. I would not pay someone to do it for me, & I would not agree with anyone that does, since in terms of consequences it amounts to the same thing, though I recognise a different in intent. Like you've said - you would not harm an animal yourself, yet you are going to long lengths to defend why it's okay for someone to do it on your behalf. The two actions, financing suffering/killing or doing it yourself, amount to the same consequence. That is why I take care not to accidentally step on insects or kill them - it results in the same thing, though I recognise I am less culpable for one than the other. I am still culpable for both though, even if it's just in my own head.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: graham.d on 31/12/2009 13:12:42
Quote
It is fully consistant; I would not kill a sentient, feeling creature whether it is an unborn child or a cow.
How is it consistant? You said you were pro-choice not pro-life.

I do not claim such self consistancy. I recognise that there are contradictory positions in all aspects of life and choose to live with them. All extreme positions are arrived at by not choosing to see this.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 31/12/2009 16:07:20
Yeah. It's consistent because I'm not against killing as an absolute; I am against killing sentient, feeling creatures as an absolute. I'm not sure about the evidence or exact time, but there is a certain point where a fetus is unfeeling & unaware - it is a mass of cells, no more feeling than a rock. I am for abortion until this point, until the fetus becomes sentient, at which point I would call it an unborn child rather than a fetus, but I know that this is medically incorrect. IMO, if people pushed for this change in meaning, it would not only be more meaningful, but perhaps discourage people from having abortions after the point where the fetus grows into sentiency/feeling.

I'm well aware that humans are full of contradictions & we have to live with it.. we simply do not have the time, intelligence or awareness to tackle them all of our hypocritical attitudes, but when 10 billion animals are killed per year for food alone, with a vast majority of them suffering through life, it is definitely an important enough contradictions to tackle. Like I've said.. even if me being vegan for the rest of my life only results in saving just one creature from that suffering life, I'm sure that creature would be eternally grateful for it.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: Ethos on 31/12/2009 16:32:53

 I'm not sure about the evidence or exact time, but there is a certain point where a fetus is unfeeling & unaware - it is a mass of cells, no more feeling than a rock.
That may or may not be true. At least a rock is by no means organic nor alive. I'd like to see your evidence for that statement. Frankly, I doubt you have any....................Ethos
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: graham.d on 31/12/2009 17:05:26
Gloves, I guess we all have specific missions which we regard as ones worth pursuing. I am more active on a political website (with a pseudonym). I have enjoyed the discussion with you here though.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: glovesforfoxes on 31/12/2009 17:12:46
Quote
That may or may not be true. At least a rock is by no means organic nor alive. I'd like to see your evidence for that statement. Frankly, I doubt you have any....................Ethos

I already said I don't have evidence for when, but I do have reasoning: a zygote does not feel pain or is aware. There will be some time passage between when it is a zygote & to the point where it is aware, in which the cells multiply but are not yet aware. When that is I have no idea - I've never claimed perfect knowledge, & I doubt I will, unless I get working on those delusions of grandeur.. yes.. hmm.. [:D]

Quote
Gloves, I guess we all have specific missions which we regard as ones worth pursuing. I am more active on a political website (with a pseudonym). I have enjoyed the discussion with you here though.

Cheers graham, me too [:)] Politics are definitely important - I can only hope that you perhaps become a politician one day - we need more politicans with an appreciation of science. You've asked some great questions, thanks for taking the time to debate.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: sansal on 23/02/2010 07:24:23
Nowadays,mostly humans have increased consumption of flesh foods over time, probably in order to survive in poor environments when there was a scarcity of fruits.Meat is a best source of protein.Thanks for sharing views,good healthy tips.
Title: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
Post by: FuzzyUK on 30/05/2010 12:29:13
Fish Ok !! food chain of fish is very less .. it's Ok with fish not all other.

What hypocrisy to say it is wrong to eat meat but it is OK to kill fish.