Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?

  • 127 Replies
  • 43274 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

nixietube

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #50 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.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 13:45:27 by nixietube »

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #51 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.
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #52 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]
« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 21:10:52 by glovesforfoxes »
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

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #53 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.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #54 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.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2009 17:38:58 by glovesforfoxes »
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

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #55 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"!
« Last Edit: 17/12/2009 01:48:42 by glovesforfoxes »
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

*

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #56 on: 14/12/2009 20:22:44 »
Anyway, I'm interested in the animal husbandry that allows a cow to have a foal.
There ain'ta no sanity clause, and there ain'ta no centrifugal force æther.

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #57 on: 14/12/2009 21:11:20 »
Me too! [;D]
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

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #58 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.
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #59 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.
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

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #60 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?
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #61 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
« Last Edit: 16/12/2009 15:52:01 by glovesforfoxes »
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

*

nixietube

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #62 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?

*

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #63 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?

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #64 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

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #65 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.
« Last Edit: 17/12/2009 02:09:23 by glovesforfoxes »
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

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #66 on: 16/12/2009 23:50:50 »
I didn't think you had an answer........................

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #67 on: 16/12/2009 23:58:58 »
Here's one for the road:All vegetarians are fools

Turn about is fair play,..................Hey?

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #68 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]
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

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #69 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.

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #70 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...

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #71 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?
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

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #72 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.

*

Ethos

  • Guest
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #73 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.

*

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Re: Humans shouldn't eat meat. Do you agree ?
« Reply #74 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.
« Last Edit: 17/12/2009 03:06:14 by glovesforfoxes »
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

*

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
  • ****
  • 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 »
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

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 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!
  • *****
  • 31662
  • "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!

"Life is not measured by the number of Breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."

*

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
  • ****
  • 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 »
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

*

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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 »
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

*

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • *
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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 »
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

*

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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.
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

*

Offline AgimA

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • **
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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 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