PETA activist group or whacko brainwashing cult?

[russ_watters]

That's my moral stance, yes.

It probably comes off as arrogant when I say it, but as a biologist, I'd think the similarities/differences between humans and animals would make the issue relatively clear to you (which is why I value your opinion on the matter). My position has always been that there is no fundamental difference between humans and the animal kingdom biologically, thus it should be morally acceptable to do what the animal kingdom does.

Conversely, humans are different because of their intelligence and one manifestation of that is that we have invented/discovered morality. But because of that, human morality applies to humans only.

In short, where we are the same (as animals) we eat other animals. Where we are different, we don't eat each other.

 

[James R]

Moonbear:

I think you're ignoring the ratio of food consumed by humans meant for animal consumption compared to the food consumed by humans directly.

I have been using the figure 10:1, which is only for memory, but I don't think it's an overestimate.

Assume that half of all crops grown for human consumption are wasted because humans don't eat all the parts of the crops animals could eat. Now compare. To produce the same amount of nutrient for the eventual human consumer, the animal must eat 10 times the amount a human would eat directly.

So, if we have 10 fields of food crops to be directly consumed by humans, then 5 of them will be used and 5 wasted (probably an overestimate of waste, but what the hell).

If, on the other hand, we have 10 fields of crops used to support animals, 9 of them will be wasted, effectively, because the humans only get 1/10 of the food the animals eat, in effect.

You say that animals consume all parts of the crop. Even supposing that is true, how much do the animals then emit again as waste (dung etc.)? If the eventual aim is human consumption, then we're still better off planting vegetarian crops.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is always interesting to watch the tactics and the length meat-eaters go to to try to defend their practices. The thing is: we all believe we are good people. And if you eat meat and you're a good person, it can't be that you're doing something immoral, could it? So meat-eating must be ok. Extend that a little, and you feel justified in saying all vegetarians are crazy people, who ideally should be ostracized from polite society. There's enough material for a psychology thesis in these kinds of attitudes.

Most of the condescension I have seen so far in this thread has come from you and your defense of your morally superior posturing.

This discussion of plant sentience and so on is a common tactic used to try to deflect this kind of conversation onto safer ground - to turn it from a concrete discussion over things which most people have little doubt about, into a philosophical debate which cannot be resolved in any useful way.

Do you have any pets (e.g. cat or dog)? If so, compare.

Do you think your dog (for example) is conscious of its existence?
Would your dog try to avoid being killed, in a conscious way?
Do you think your dog has a reasonable expectation that its life will continue, until it ends naturally?
Can your dog suffer in a similar way that you can suffer?

Now, ask the same questions for a petunia growing in your garden.

See how silly this argument is? The answers are obvious.

I've not argued plant sentience at all. My argument also is not a philisophical one, it is scientific and logical. Plants have evolved natural defense mechanisms to preserve themselves and so have more complex lifeforms. The more complex the lifeform the more complex the defense machanisms. Pain, "consciousness", and the like are just more tools for survival which have evolved. The only difference is familairity. Animals are more similar to people who fall into the "fallacy" of believing that there is something inherantly more "special" about an animal than a plant due to familiarity.
Your argument on the other hand is not as logical and obvious as you think. The crux seems to be "consciousness", morality, and sufferage. These subjects are the ones that are largely philosophical and highly debatable.
Surely you can agree that morality is a subjective and debatable point. The others you may not agree with me on. I think we can agree to place sufferage and consciousness together for the sake of argument yes? Now about "consciousness". I have a friend who is a grad student at UCI in the Cognitive Science department. We argue the existence of consciousness all the time. Oddly enough I'm generally the one arguing for it. At any rate, considering what I have gleened from my friend, our discussions, and what I have read personally on the subject it's safe to say that those who study "consciousness" themselves still debate furiously on it's nature and even it's existence. Those who take "consciousness" for granted without question would be on par with those who simply assume that eating meat is ok without questioning it.
As a side note, my friend who is skeptical of the existence of "consciousness" is also a vegetarian. He though will simply say he is one because he is one and would probably argue your moral authority right along side me.

You are committing what is called the "naturalistic fallacy" here. That is, you assume that what is natural is morally good.

Nope, not at all. I do not generally consider "moral goodness". Like I said morality is subjective and debatable. I hold the same standard for the concepts of good and bad or right and wrong. I prefer to lean on logical analysis. I assume that what is natural is only logical, evolution has been working for millions of years on this and I have only been pondering these things for a couple of decades. Ofcourse this doesn't mean I will cease questioning it.

Humans (most of them, anyway) have a moral sense, which an insect, and even a dog, may not have. We can CHOOSE what we do with the ecosystem, in ways that dogs cannot. And our choices ought to be moral choices.

We take moral stances in many aspects of our lives. So why should our choice of food consumption be any different? Do you really believe there is NO moral issue to be considered in eating an animal? Or is it that you think eating an animal can be justified on moral grounds? If so, how?

Time to face up to your own beliefs, rather than trying to take the discussion off on a tangent.

I think I have pretty much covered the rest of this. I do not justify anything on moral grounds, only logical grounds.
Time for you I believe to quit believing that what you say is only obvious and logical and let me in on the workings of these ideas I think. So far you have only kept this turned on me and asked me questions. It's your turn to participate in looking at and analysing your beliefs.

 

[hypatia]

dung is not waste, its 100% reuseable.

 

[russ_watters]

Most of the condescension I have seen so far in this thread has come from you and your defense of your morally superior posturing.

Time for you I believe to quit believing that what you say is only obvious and logical and let me in on the workings of these ideas I think. So far you have only kept this turned on me and asked me questions. It's your turn to participate in looking at and analysing your beliefs.

Though I'm a meat eater and a leather car seat fan, I recently argued the opposite side of this issue against my boss because of just such an attitude. IMO, its more common on the veggie side, but my it can just as easily come down to self evident beliefs on the meat-eating side: itself evident to my boss that animals have no soul(or, if you prefer, consciousness), therefore they are just food. The argument was short though, for the reason you point out: if that's all that an argument is based on, there really isn't anything to debate. And I refuse to do all the work in a debate: both sides need to substantiate their positions.

So to bring this back to the OP: cult? - I don't know about that, but I get the impression that the radical animal rights activists do believe these things with religous fervor. What that means for your request specifically: you may be wasting your time asking for an actual reasoned argument (though it never hurts to ask, of course). There is a decent chance no such argument exists.

We had an enormous thread about the morality of eating meat and though it died due mostly to hostility, it went round and round in circles because a high fraction of the argument (on both sides, but more the animal rights side, imo) was just assertions of supposedly self-evident beliefs.

 

[Moonbear]

So, if we have 10 fields of food crops to be directly consumed by humans, then 5 of them will be used and 5 wasted (probably an overestimate of waste, but what the hell).

The problem here is that I think you're severely underestimating the wastage if those crops are used solely for human consumption. How much of a corn plant, by weight, is edible for human consumption? And what percentage of that is protein for that person to eat? When all we're eating are the seeds of the plant (true for soybeans as well), I don't think it's an unreasonable estimate that more than 90% of the plant is NOT edible for humans, but IS edible for ruminants. That doesn't account for how much of that edible portion is digestible for us and converted to protein. Also, that ratio of amount of food a cow needs to eat to produce meat doesn't take into account that the cow's waste (manure) is used to fertilize crops, thus is a manner of recycling. We very poorly digest plants, even the edible parts. You also need to take into account what is meant by "used for human consumption." For example, the majority of soybean crops are not used for soy milk or tofu, but for soybean oils; the dry protein portion then gets used for animal feed (it has other uses too, but that's not what it's generally used for). The farmer may not be growing the crop for animal feed, but the by-product of the soybean oil processing plant gets used for that anyway.

I'm not saying we should switch to an all-meat diet, that would be just as irresponsible as suggesting we switch to an all vegetarian diet, and doesn't make good nutritional sense. But, supplementing our diet with meat makes sense. If we can take all the inedible parts of our crops and feed them to food animals, then we are maximizing the efficiency of that crop. And when you grow crops that are feed crops on soil that is not sufficiently fertile for growing crops for human food, you maximize the efficiency of your land in general.

We also can't pretend we're not part of the ecosystem ourselves. As hypatia pointed out, I have pointy teeth in my mouth that tell me I'm supposed to eat meat (actually, two of my incisors are pointy too...I'm apparently slightly more carnivorous than most ). Oddly enough, I had to have 4 of those broad, flat teeth that are used for grinding vegetables removed because apparently they didn't want to grow in any useful direction, and last time I checked, the human appendix was considered a vestigial organ (it's similar to the very well-developed cecum in non-ruminant herbivores that helps them digest all that plant fiber). It seems we're not very well adapted to be herbivores.

 

[loseyourname]

You have 3 fields. You use 1 to grow food for human consumption, 1 to grow food for your animals, and 1 to house the animals. Compare: You use all three to grow food for human consumption.

You're forgetting one other thing: the fields used to house the animals and the fields used to grow grain for the animals are not always suitable for growing human crops. Not all land is equal. For instance, where I live it is extremely hilly and fairly rocky, although we do get a lot of rain and the climate is moderate. There is a lot of agriculture, but the hillsides are really only good for two things: cattle pastures and growing grapes for wine production. The land used for cattle pastures offer little to no ecosystem destruction because the plants that the cattle graze on are largely naturally occurring grasses that require no tilling or soil treatment. Two things to consider are these: 1) The rockier land, especially the land on hillsides, could not be used for human crops. That throws the argument that the land would be better used that way right out the window. 2) The richer land in the valleys that can be used for human crops would still require a lot of tilling and soil treatment, as well as the introduction of non-native plant species that would result in a great deal of ecosystem destruction.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Though I'm a meat eater and a leather car seat fan, I recently argued the opposite side of this issue against my boss because of just such an attitude. IMO, its more common on the veggie side, but my it can just as easily come down to self evident beliefs on the meat-eating side: itself evident to my boss that animals have no soul(or, if you prefer, consciousness), therefore they are just food. The argument was short though, for the reason you point out: if that's all that an argument is based on, there really isn't anything to debate. And I refuse to do all the work in a debate: both sides need to substantiate their positions.

I don't necessarily expect this to go anywhere but if it did it would be nice. I think I have just been in a very argumentative mood lately.

On the subject of PETA, which I have ignored (sorry...). I've heard bad things and I have heard good things. I'm sure there are plenty of good things to be done in regards to animal rights, even if I don't think it is wrong to eat them. The bad articles I have read have been obviously biased, so it's hard to tell what all exactly is true, and they themselves are obviously not going to come forth with the evidence that they have been assisting eco-terrorists.

 

[Skyhunter]

If we could somehow eliminate all cruelty to animals, thatd be great by itself. But if we have the choice of curing heart disease or stopping cruelty, i think ill choose the heart disease cure.

Why can we not do both?

Since heast disease is caused by eating animals, perhaps if we stopped eating them we would not only be healthier, there would be no need to mass produce them for food.

The benefits of eliminating heart disease, on the cost of health care alone would be temendous.

Think before you eat!

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Moonbear, the killing of cows isn't required for the recycling process you're mentioning. If, in fact, using cows does benefit the growing of crops, it would be better to keep them alive, correct? After all, it would allow us to easier provide more manure to grow the crops. However, if cows do not benefit the growing of crops, we don't need them. If you want to eat the meat after the cow dies on its own terms, I don't see why not. The problem is with killing something. In fact, while I wouldn't do it myself, if people wanted to eat humans after they have already died, I wouldn't have a problem with it, although I would probably find it digusting.

Your argument doesn't really advocate the eating of meat; in my opinion, it just supports the captivity of cows for human benefit. I drink milk and eat eggs so I have no problem with that. Also, I believe some statistics claim that a widespread vegetarian diet would stop world hunger.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Why can we not do both?

Since heast disease is caused by eating animals, perhaps if we stopped eating them we would not only be healthier, there would be no need to mass produce them for food.

The benefits of eliminating heart disease, on the cost of health care alone would be temendous.

Think before you eat!

That last line right there is really your best point. I don't believe eating meat causes health problems. I believe a bad diet causes health problems. Statistics will say meat eaters have more health problems than vegetarians but is that really because of the fact that they eat meat? Do you think it could be because your average omnivore pays little attention to his/her dietary intake while your average vegetarian is much more mindful of such things?

Also, I believe some statistics claim that a widespread vegetarian diet would stop world hunger.

I don't really see how that works out logically. Do you have any sources?

 

[Jelfish]

This thread could go on forever and the arguments are completely irrelevant.

Apologies to the original topic of PETA, let's consider the argument for vegetarianism versus a meat-eating/omnivorous diet. If the argument is about morality, than without a doubt, the vegetarians win. Why is this? It is because vegetarians base their ideas on moral absolutes and omnivores base their ideas on moral relativism. Not convinced that plants are fundamentally different from animals? Fine - consider fruitarians - people who only eat fruit, which plants intentionally produce for the sake of consumption by animals. Face it - omnivores are grasping for straws when it comes to this argument. It is morally relative to say that the killing of your pet is more immoral than a cow, just because you haven't grown attached to it. It's a living being either way. Is it the natural order of things to eat meat - maybe. But that doesn't make it 'moral.' And the arguments about environmental sustainablility based on farming and such is just changing the subject, because a vegetarian doesn't necessarily require his/her food from a commercial farm. It's an attempt to punch holes into a moral absolutist's argument instead of justifying his/her own relativistic argument.

That said, I am not a vegetarian. I tried it for about 6 months, mostly for health benefits, and came to the conclusion that being a college student, I don't have the ability to get a proper healthful and complete vegetarian diet.

What really irks me is that only one person (juvenal, I believe) has actually given the true moral standpoint for omnivores, specifically people who live in urban/suburban locations that buy their pre-packaged meat from grocery stores - and that's purposeful moral-negligence. That's right - as much as I realize that the cow I just ate a few hours ago was a living being that I would never be able to kill with my bare hands, I just don't care. I didn't even think about it. And I'm willing to bet that most people who eat meat feel the same way. I don't know anyone who, before eating meat, convinces themselves that what they are doing is moral. The great thing about amorality is that it is in itself a moral absolute. Maybe someday when I'm capable, I'll switch back to vegetarianism, but for now, I can proudly say that I am eating meat and don't need to convince myself that I'm not a hypocrite. You should try it - it feels great.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If the argument is about morality, than without a doubt, the vegetarians win. Why is this? It is because vegetarians base their ideas on moral absolutes and omnivores base their ideas on moral relativism.

These absolutes don't exist though unless you believe in some supreme being or cosmic order which has decreed these are absolute. In that case we would simply have to agree to disagree. If you do not believe in a supreme being then your absolutes become arbitrary and there for relative since they have no absolute measure on which they are based. Ofcourse this discussion would take a whole thread in itself.

Not convinced that plants are fundamentally different from animals? Fine - consider fruitarians - people who only eat fruit, which plants intentionally produce for the sake of consumption by animals.

While I agree that fruitarians and other sorts of vegan diets do take into account the plants welfare this last bit of your statement which I have bolded is wrong. Fruits are a part of the animals reproduction process, they are not "meant" to be eaten. Even just assigning the attribute of intent to the plants you begin to make a plant on par with an animal. You are perhaps partially right though in that evolutionarily speaking a plant with fruit that is apealing to an animal may "utilize" the vehicle of these animals in their reproductive process. There is no intent there though, again unless you believe in a supreme creator of something or the sort.

It is your opinion that the vegetarians win.

 

[Pengwuino]

How is vegetarianism anymore moral then eating meat? There is no moral statement that says you can't eat meat. People are simply making it up. I could just as well say that shampooing your hair is immoral and have the exact same moral structure as vegetarians. If there is any way that you can use a moral argument that has a basis in reality and nature that ISNT made up, you may have a point. I could use the exact same argument in an uninitiated environment against eating vegetables and it is the exact same. There are many health problems associated with eating nothing but vegetables such as various bone disorders.

 

[Jelfish]

The reason I state a moral absolute is not because I believe in a supreme being - it is because there are people in this argument believe that animal cruelty is wrong but that eating meat is somehow justifiable despite that. It is that 'gray area' that I define as the moral relative. It is an established moral standpoint from this thread that I am arguing from, not one established by religion. Like I said later in my post, my realization that eating meat goes against this (my) moral standpoint and yet knowingly going against it by not creating gray areas in my moral standpoint but by acknowledging the fact that I am being negligent alleviates the need for justification.

 

[Pengwuino]

wait wait... so just because you go against your blelieves, that means you don't have to justify your beliefs? I am confused... i think i misread you...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There is no conflict unless you believe it is cruel to kill an animal for food.

 

[Jelfish]

Fruits are a part of the animals reproduction process, they are not "meant" to be eaten. Even just assigning the attribute of intent to the plants you begin to make a plant on par with an animal. You are perhaps partially right though in that evolutionarily speaking a plant with fruit that is apealing to an animal may "utilize" the vehicle of these animals in their reproductive process. There is no intent there though, again unless you believe in a supreme creator of something or the sort.

Perhaps my wording was poor. I did not mean to imply that plants have intentions. However, it is to the plant's interets that the seeds be spread and by creating a fruit that is desirable to animals that can relocate the seeds, the plant's best interest is carried out. It is an interpretion of evolution and that was what I meant to imply.

It is your opinion that the vegetarians win.

I would think that any statement like that to which you are responding would be implied as opinion on my part, but if you feel that my statement was too strong as to convey a stubborn arrogance, then I apologize. I feel strongly about my stance because I've been in several discussions of this sort and always come to the same conclusion based on people's arguments.

 

[Jelfish]

wait wait... so just because you go against your blelieves, that means you don't have to justify your beliefs? I am confused... i think i misread you...

If you want to know my personal belief - it is that I don't think it is moral for me to eat meat unless I am willing to kill it myself. I personally don't think I could kill a cow/pig/chicken if given the option (perhaps because of respect for the animal or maybe dislike of blood and guts) , so I consider it immoral to eat it knowing that such a process had to have occured. Now, realizing this, there is a complete desensitization when buying meat from a grocery store because you don't really get to see all the blood and gore of the actual animal being killed and cut up. Yet, I can take that package of meat and cook it and not feel any remorse even though I know that it came from the animal. I place the blame completely on my own negligence. It's like knowing that lying is wrong and yet doing it anyway. It's not honorable at all, but it's the truth.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Perhaps my wording was poor. I did not mean to imply that plants have intentions. However, it is to the plant's interets that the seeds be spread and by creating a fruit that is desirable to animals that can relocate the seeds, the plant's best interest is carried out. It is an interpretion of evolution and that was what I meant to imply.

I apreciate your willingness to concede an error in your wording, thank you.
Now, this particular matter of the fruit. Do humans, when they eat these fruit, spread about the seeds? In a number of cases we do not. Though you could say that they spread about some of the seeds when humans farm and plant more and that not all of these seeds need to be planted. You could make the same argument for eggs could you not?

 

[Jelfish]

There is no conflict unless you believe it is cruel to kill an animal for food.

Do you feel factory farming of pigs is similarly not-cruel as killing a wild boar? If so, then this argument is irrelavant to you. There's a difference between believing that your standpoint is moral and that the notion of morality is not involved. That is the argument at hand, isn't it?

 

[Pengwuino]

If you want to know my personal belief - it is that I don't think it is moral for me to eat meat unless I am willing to kill it myself. I personally don't think I could kill a cow/pig/chicken if given the option (perhaps because of respect for the animal or maybe dislike of blood and guts) , so I consider it immoral to eat it knowing that such a process had to have occured. Now, realizing this, there is a complete desensitization when buying meat from a grocery store because you don't really get to see all the blood and gore of the actual animal being killed and cut up. Yet, I can take that package of meat and cook it and not feel any remorse even though I know that it came from the animal. I place the blame completely on my own negligence. It's like knowing that lying is wrong and yet doing it anyway. It's not honorable at all, but it's the truth.

Well although the last 2 sentences don't make sense with waht you say before that, i understand what your saying. Its wrong to you to kill an animal but since your not actually doing the killing, you don't think its wrong because your not being exposed to the misdeed. I think that's what a lot o fpeople feel.

 

[Jelfish]

Do humans, when they eat these fruit, spread about the seeds? In a number of cases we do not. Though you could say that they spread about some of the seeds when humans farm and plant more and that not all of these seeds need to be planted. You could make the same argument for eggs could you not?

Ok this point is being taken way beyond its original intension. The point I was trying to make in my original post was that plants generally benefit from their fruits being taken; furthermore taking the fruit from the plant usually does not kill the plant and therefore evades the argument that the plants are killed similarly to animals. Although I know that very few people are fruitarians (usually because of health issues), I use them to point to a group of people that can uphold such a moral standpoint to a great extent of their ability. Most of my posts refer to vegetarianism (perhaps veganism would be more appropriate) because I personally believe that the point of including the killing of plants as a gray area in a vegetarian's moral standpoint against killing animals doesn't really take into account the reason for the vegetarian's standpoint. For me, (and I've given my reason earlier), it's a non-issue. I have no qualms about ripping leaves off a stalk.

 

[Jelfish]

Well although the last 2 sentences don't make sense with waht you say before that, i understand what your saying. Its wrong to you to kill an animal but since your not actually doing the killing, you don't think its wrong because your not being exposed to the misdeed. I think that's what a lot o fpeople feel.

That's not quite what I mean. I don't think it's ok to eat meat just because I don't do the killing. The fact is, I feel it's wrong but I don't care. It's a conscious disregard to my morals. That's what I think most people feel. This is of course assuming that most people would rather not have to butcher up a live animal and this is probably due to the fact that people (like me) have never had to do such a thing. If it's not a matter of morals, then it's a non-issue anyway.

 

[Skyhunter]

2 points I would like to make.

Plants are the "standing ones." They stand there and make themselves available as food for animals. Animals eat them, digest them, and in doing so begin the process of composting the nutrients necessary for the next generation of plants to feed on. Animals also spread the seeds of the plants thereby increasing the chance for the DNA of the plants to spread, diversify, and ultimately enhance the opportunity or those plants to survive genetically.

Plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Is it just coincidence that animals breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide?

Life lives on life. Humans under the age of fifty have the ability to produce enough HCL in their stomach to digest meat. This makes us perfectly suited to survive in an environment of scarcity. We can eat almost any thing organic especially at a young age. This does not mean that it is the best fuel, only one of many that will provide nutrition.

I follow 2 simple rules for what I eat.

1) Does it look like it grew that way?

2) If it runs away, it doesn't want to be eaten.

Coronary heart disease is the result of the circulatory system building up plaques in the heart and arteries. The source of these plaques is dietary fat and cholesterol. The only source of dietary cholesterol is animal protein.

If you have lung cancer stop smoking. Liver disease stop drinking. If you have heart disease stop eating animal protein


If you would like to learn more read these studies and watch Dr. Esselstyn's video.

http://www.vegsource.com/esselstyn/

 

[Pengwuino]

Whoa whoa whoa skyhunter... plants WANT to be eaten? There FOOD is CO2?

Some plants will certainly kill an animal if they are eaten. Many others have natural defenses against animals. Are we to now assume plants don't want to be eaten so we shouldn't eat htem?

 

[Jelfish]

If it runs away, it doesn't want to be eaten.

Assuming that organisms (attempt to) act in their own best interest, I would imagine that if plants had the option, they would run away as well. Though regardless of anyone's moral standpoint, I've always felt that going vegetarian for health reasons is usually a more rational reason than for animal welfare. If one were truly devoted to animal welfare, it would be far more beneficial to actively protest (read: not firebomb) animal cruelty than to declare something so passive as vegetarianism as an animal welfare act.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't know why I even bother responding to you Penquino since your argument is absurd and you seem to miss the point of my argument.

There is a balance to nature. Plants provide food and shelter for animals, produce oxygen for them to breath, and are the food staple for most species. Carnivores in nature kill of the sick weak and injured herbivores to regulate the population, thereby keeping the plant eaters from overgrazing.

Humans do not need meat to live in an environment of plenty. When you eat meat the fat and cholesterol is absorbed into the blood and must be cleansed. It takes 5 hours for the liver to scrub the blood, by then most people who eat meat will have dosed the blood again, so their blood is never clean, leading to a buildup in the heart and arteries which leads to heart disease.

Please visit the site watch Dr. Esselstyn's video and then offer me an intelligent argument based on real information not some wild reasoning you come up with off the top of your head.

Argument for the sake of argument is a waste of my time and yours.

 

[Skyhunter]

Jelfish,

I was simply stating how I choose my food.

I grew up on a farm. I learned to kill when I was very young. I had to first supress my compassion for the animal before I could do it, but I wanted to "be a man" so I murdered an innocent animal that had grown to trust me. I also killed the seed of compassion with in me and it took me 30 years to realize it.

I quit eating meat at 42, became vegan at 43. At 45 I am now the same weight I was in high school, I eat less, have twice the energy, and I don't even catch a cold anymore. My motivation for posting this information is that maybe one othere person out there will start researching, like I did and perhaps discover the tremendous benefits of a well balanced vegan diet.

Bears are true omnivores. If they come upon an injured animal they start salivating. When a human comes upon an injured animal, we feel compassion for it.

 

[Pengwuino]

Please visit the site watch Dr. Esselstyn's video and then offer me an intelligent argument based on real information not some wild reasoning you come up with off the top of your head.

Argument for the sake of argument is a waste of my time and yours.

Look at the name of the website before you tell people to "watch a video".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Do you feel factory farming of pigs is similarly not-cruel as killing a wild boar? If so, then this argument is irrelavant to you. There's a difference between believing that your standpoint is moral and that the notion of morality is not involved. That is the argument at hand, isn't it?

I'll repeat that I'm not making my arguments based off of "morals". I call this "ethics" as opposed to "morals" though I know my definitions aren't necessarily dictionary accurate so I haven't used these words in that context.
As for your example I don't think pig farming is any less "ethical" than hunting. I think either can be practiced both ethically and unethically.

Though regardless of anyone's moral standpoint, I've always felt that going vegetarian for health reasons is usually a more rational reason than for animal welfare.

This I completely agree with though I'm sure you could have figured that out on your own.
Personally I have no problems with vegetarians and I would not say that I have moral/ethical superiority over them, my only problem is when a vegetarian believes that they are morally superior to me. It's similar, in my mind at least, to speaking with a Christian who believes you are going to hell because you are not Christian.

I would respond to your other response, in regards to the fruit, but I'm afraid that it would decend into a long tedious discussion. If your up for it I'll go ahead but it doesn't seem like it's a line of discussion your terribly interested in.

There is a balance to nature. Plants provide food and shelter for animals, produce oxygen for them to breath, and are the food staple for most species. Carnivores in nature kill of the sick weak and injured herbivores to regulate the population, thereby keeping the plant eaters from overgrazing.

So do you believe that this balance is intentional? That it was set up that way on "purpose"? Or do you believe that it just happened that way because it works? By your statements I'm thinking that we may have a difference in opinion on some fundamentals that would keep us from really understanding each other.

Argument for the sake of argument is a waste of my time and yours.

Any argument is useful as long as you mean to listen to what the other person is saying and learn from it regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

 

[Jelfish]

Bears are true omnivores. If they come upon an injured animal they start salivating. When a human comes upon an injured animal, we feel compassion for it.

I have a feeling that such a human response is due to our culture. Of course, that's where many morals come from (which is why I'm glad we don't legislate accordingly).

I have several friends who successfully maintain a healthy vegan diet and I'm willing to believe from knowing them that their good health is at least partially due to their diet.

 

[Jelfish]

Personally I have no problems with vegetarians and I would not say that I have moral/ethical superiority over them, my only problem is when a vegetarian believes that they are morally superior to me. It's similar, in my mind at least, to speaking with a Christian who believes you are going to hell because you are not Christian.

I find these people very annoying as well. Although I do think that it occurs on both sides. Scenario I've experienced:

Omnivore: Why aren't you eating meat? Aren't you hungry?
Vegetarian: No, I'm a vegetarian.
Omnivore: Oh - so you think you're better than me because you don't kill animals? I can't stand people like you. Vegetarians are so arrogant!

Preemptive defensiveness? Whatever - it doesn't bother me. I won't get started on debates I've had with some rather adamant Christians I've disagreed with.

I would respond to your other response, in regards to the fruit, but I'm afraid that it would decend into a long tedious discussion. If your up for it I'll go ahead but it doesn't seem like it's a line of discussion your terribly interested in.

If you have a point you want to share, then I'm up for a discussion since it seems this topic has perhaps diverged too from its original topic for recovery.

 

[Skyhunter]

What is it you are trying to say Penqino?

Because the site has the prefix "veg" that it is somehow suspect?

Do you believe that you will find someone like Dr. Esselstyn sponsered by the beef or dairy industries?

If you are a critical thinker, you must be willing to look at the supporting evidence for an opposing argument.

Otherwise you can not offer intelligent rebuttal?

Here are Dr. Esselstyn's credentials

BIOGRAPHY
Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., MD

· Yale University, 1956 AB
· Gold Medal, 1956 Olympic Games - 8-oared rowing event
· Western Reserve University, 1961, MD
· Surgical Training - The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
· St. George's Hospital, London, England

Cleveland Clinic:

· President of Medical Staff, 1977-1978
· Member, Board of Governors, 1977-1982
· Past Chairman, Breast Cancer Task Force
· Head, Section of Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery

Other:

· President, American Association of Endocrine Surgeons 1991
· "Best Doctors in America", 1994-1995
· Scientific Publications - Beyond 150 in Peer Review Journals
· Director and Program Chairman, "1" National Conference on the Elimination & Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease", Tucson, AZ, 1991
· Arresting and Reversing Coronary Artery Disease - A 5-Year Study. The Journal of Family Practice, Vol. 41,No. 6(Dec)1995.
· Director and Program Chairman, "Summit on Cholesterol & Coronary Disease", Orlando, FL, 1997
· Editor, "Proceedings on Summit on Cholesterol & Coronary Disease Supplement The American Journal of cardiology, Vol. 82(1OB),
November 26, 1998
· Updating a 12-Year Experience with Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease, The American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 84, August 1, 1999.

If we could somehow eliminate all cruelty to animals, thatd be great by itself. But if we have the choice of curing heart disease or stopping cruelty, i think ill choose the heart disease cure.

I responded to your post because I found your words so ironic. If you truly care about ending heart disease you will look at the work that Dr. Esselstyn has done.

If you said it insincerely simply for the sake of argument then you will offer up another immature response.

My response to which will be to ignore any of your further posts.

 

[Skyhunter]

So do you believe that this balance is intentional? That it was set up that way on "purpose"? Or do you believe that it just happened that way because it works? By your statements I'm thinking that we may have a difference in opinion on some fundamentals that would keep us from really understanding each other.

Any argument is useful as long as you mean to listen to what the other person is saying and learn from it regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

Now that is a question that is harder to prove either way.

I believe that if we have eternity in which to do it we might answer that question.

Which begs the next question are we eternal?

Does the consciencness that we identify as uniquely us survive this physical existence?

Only way I know to find out is to die and I am not through living. So I will seek the answer, knowing that it will probably take an eternity to discover it and have faith that "eternal life is the endless quest for infinite value".

When I say "faith", I mean the ability of humans to believe more than they can know. I have belief's based on faith, yet I remain open-minded enough to discard obsolete knowledge, so as to allow for a greater conceptual capacity.

You, me, and all of us exist in a linear space/time cause/effect universe.

What is beyond the end of the universe?
Is there a beyond?
What is beyond that?
Where did it start?
When did it start?
Did it start or has it always been?
What was/is the uncaused cause?

We don't exist outside space and time, yet we can contemplate existence outside of space and time.

I am all the evidence I need for my personal beliefs.

[edited]

I certainly agree with your quote about argument. I was looking for a similar one by Einstien and found this:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Albert Einstien


Here is the one I was looking for:

"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgements. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds. But if there is agreement on certain goals and values, one can argue rationally about the means by which these objectives may be obtained." —Albert Einstein