The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?  (Read 42721 times)

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #75 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?
« Last Edit: 17/12/2009 02:31:29 by Ethos »
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #76 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.
« Last Edit: 17/12/2009 13:41:19 by glovesforfoxes »
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #77 on: 17/12/2009 10:39:03 »
Just to ensure this sort of misunderstanding doesn't happen again - I've changed the title.
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #78 on: 17/12/2009 11:59:55 »
Thanks Ben!
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #79 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.
« Last Edit: 17/12/2009 22:49:44 by Ethos »
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #80 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.
« Last Edit: 18/12/2009 23:44:58 by glovesforfoxes »
 

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #81 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...
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #82 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.
« Last Edit: 26/12/2009 15:40:41 by glovesforfoxes »
 

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #83 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 :)
 

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #84 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.
 

Offline Marib-yemen

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #85 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)]
« Last Edit: 26/12/2009 20:27:43 by Marib-yemen »
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #86 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?
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #87 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
« Last Edit: 27/12/2009 04:21:06 by glovesforfoxes »
 

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #88 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.

 

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #89 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.
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #90 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???
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #91 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.
 

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #92 on: 27/12/2009 15:44:00 »
Hi Gloves, now lets sing together, we all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine...
 

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #93 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?
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #94 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.
 

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #95 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!?
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #96 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!
 

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #97 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 ;)
 

Offline FuzzyUK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fusniak.co.uk
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #98 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.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #99 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.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #99 on: 27/12/2009 18:24:49 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums