0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
The fact remains the human race would not have evolved without being carnivores
You have to impregnate cows to get foals to get milk.
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.
But that's not an excuse to be a vegan.
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.
Pure vegans must eat a careful diet to ensure they receive the nutrients that they don't obtain from meat and other animal products.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know the source for this morality of animal non-suffering. Animals must not suffer, but are humans allowed to?
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?
Anyway, I'm interested in the animal husbandry that allows a cow to have a foal.
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.
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.
Quote from: glovesforfoxes on 16/12/2009 15:48:21We 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?
GlovesForFoxes... where do you stand on the question of using animal models for the developement of medical treatments?
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.
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.
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 
If you'd try a little meat, You might have a little more energy...
Quote from: EthosIf 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?
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
Just to ensure this sort of misunderstanding doesn't happen again - I've changed the title.
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.
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.
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.
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'?
Would it be ok to farm voles and shrews for meat then? Is fish farming ok?
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.
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
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.”
cattle meat is murder
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.
..Use of science to show humans are more worthy of living than animals..
you choose to kill plants, I choose to kill animals, so that makes you morally better than me? Clearly not, we're both "killers".
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.
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?
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.
So your thropic level thing is null and void to my understanding.
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.
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.
You don't understand the feelings of a plant, nor do I, but I presume that every living being wants to live.
It's sad that you apparently value the well being of other species more than yours.
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.
Quote from: AgimA on 27/12/2009 13:54:20Ethos, 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?
Quote from: AgimA on 27/12/2009 15:44:47In hell? On the floor?No,..............there is an expression: "They got rocks in their head", I think you know who I'm refering to.
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!?
Quote from: AgimA on 27/12/2009 16:02:36You'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!
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.