Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[lilboy]

This post is most probably irrelevant.
However I felt the necessity to slap those who are so obsessed with their "superiority complex" - that humans are the only ones conscious, capable of feelings and emotions.
The link below is dedicated to those who are still incapable of understanding animal consciousness.

Dog Rescues 7-Year-Old in India
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1104&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050102%2F2223269085.htm&sc=1104

 

[sheepdog]

not a chimp

Sure, why not?

Are you asking (I query, incredulous) why should we not practice the sexual practices of chimpanzees, and why should my wife not agree to such practices? Is that really the question?

This is not some stupid game we are playing. Life is not just some stupid game, you know. This is for real. No redos. No instant replays.

Of course I do not want to behave sexually as a chimpanzee. And I know for sure that my wife would not want me to do so either. That is the answer. Because I do not want to. I choose not to. I could. But it is obvious to me that the consequences would not be to my liking. So I choose not to.

But you do. Ok, fine. You are certainly correct that there are direct parallels between this question and eating meat. I choose to not behave sexually as a chimpanzee because of the consequences. You choose to do so. Fine. Let the consequences follow. Whether your practices or mine prevail will determine the condition of life for all future generations.

This is precisely why I do not eat meat. Were I to eat meat I would be placing myself in the category of those who do not even have the sense to behave sexually better than a chimpanzee. Now why would anyone want to associate themselves with such as that?

 

[sheepdog]

resolution

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I put it to you that it is not for vegetarians to justify our diet, but it is for the meat eaters to justify meat eating. And I further put it to you that anyone who has a choice about his diet and chooses to eat meat can only justify it with reasons all of which fall into one category, the "Because I want to screw like a chimp" category. Look:

• "Because I want to (and I want to screw like a chimp)"
• "Because it tastes good (and it feels good to screw like a chimp)"
• "Because my ancestors ate meat (and they were chimps and I want to screw like a chimp)"
• "Because it's natural (and chimps naturally screw a lot and I want to screw like a chimp)"

And if someone insists that you tell them why you do not eat meat, it is enough to say, "Because I do NOT want to screw like a chimp. We can do better than that."

A simple, clear, ethical choice. And therein lies the paradigm shift.

 

[Seafang]

since we are not omnivorous via comparative anatomy (see last link, for instance, in post #900 which refers to the Mills article), we can only claim to be omnivorous via action which is a bit like saying because we can be airborne on a plane, we can fly.

so given that we are not omnivorous as the articles and explanations explain, i probably for that reason didn't bother to address that particular point of yours. however, in certain areas where it is very difficult to access suitable plant foods, humans do eat creatures that can process the existing vegetation (but the anatomy of these humans really doesn't change because of doing so).


considering it takes a lot less energy to grow crops than cattle, it would be far easier to feed the planet on a veg diet. one of the 3 main arguments for vegness is the environmental factor.

in friendship,
prad

Well the cited articles don't prove MAN is not omnivorous. Cows are not carnivorous; yet if they happen to chomp a fly or grasshopper that is sitting on that last bunch of grass they grabbed, it will certainly provide them with food energy. Likewise dogs are not herbivores, at least not in the wild they are not. I haven't ever seen a coyote climb a tree to eat an apple or orange from my yard, but they certainly do eat the birds, and lizards and ground squirrels and anything else zoological they can catch.

But neither cows nor dogs are omnivores, although humans have invested a lot of effort in trying to convince dogs to eat soy products and other plant materials. But don't ever give them a choice of plant of meat and expect them to choose the plant.

No other living species is as omnivorous as humans. We literally eat anything that does not poison us, and even some things that do such as certain mushrooms and fugu.

Our ability to eat such a great range of foods, whether our digestive tract is optimised for it or not is one reason we rose to dominance in the animal kingdom.

Vegetarianism or Vegan (I thought that was witchcraft) is a life style choice; just like some other socially weird lifestyle choices. My niece chooses to be a vegetarian, because her husband has several major food allergy problems that relate to certain specifically animal food products. He is not by choice opposed to eating zoo-food, it is just safer for him when dining out to be a vegetarian so she accommodates him in their joint lifestyle. Yes she does also have a concern for eating Bambi, but it is her husband's medical problem that primarily motivates her. So the family has to accommodate them whenever we meet for the holiday season festivities. They don't complain when the rest of us chow down on the ham and turkey or fish.

Since mother nature makes ALL food for ALL species, out of plain rocks and water and solar energy, there is no fundamental reason why we couldn't do the same. Then vegans wouldn't have to ask themselves whether the apple tree screams when they tear one of its children from the nursery and devours it without a thought for the grieving parent tree.

 

[OneEye]

Humans are not herbivores

Biochemically speaking, humans cannot possibly be herbivores.

Humans lack the capacity to digest cellulose. True herbivores either produce the enzyme cellulase (which breaks down cellulose), or have a rumen or cumen populated with symbiotic bacteria which produce this enzyme.

This ability to break down cellulose is characteristic of an herbivore - an ability which humans do not have.

Sorry.

 

[OneEye]

Are you asking (I query, incredulous) why should we not practice the sexual practices of chimpanzees, and why should my wife not agree to such practices? Is that really the question?

Yes.

This is not some stupid game we are playing. Life is not just some stupid game, you know. This is for real. No redos. No instant replays.

Believe me: I am not playing a game. I am quite in earnest. And you, apparently, hoped to make your argument on the grounds of an ad hominem appeal to "common sense", I guess.

But your response to my question rests on a merely emotional appeal. You believe that people shouldn't behave like chimpanzees, sexually. I happen to agree. I believe that sexuality is a matter of moral concern, and that humans are uniquely burdened to behave according to a strict sexual ethic.

But you also believe that people shouldn't eat meat. You cast this as a moral (ethical) statement. However, I disagree that this is a moral issue at all. Or, put another way, I subscribe to a moral system different from yours, in which the eating of meat is not wrong.

Of course I do not want to behave sexually as a chimpanzee. And I know for sure that my wife would not want me to do so either. That is the answer. Because I do not want to. I choose not to. I could. But it is obvious to me that the consequences would not be to my liking. So I choose not to.

Well, while I don't want to behave sexually like a chimpanzee, I do want to eat meat. I choose to. I could be a vegetarian - would get along fine with it, and have sometimes considered it. But it is obvious to me that there are no particular moral consequences to my eating meat. And I like it. So I choose to. There. Now we are even.

Whether your practices or mine prevail will determine the condition of life for all future generations.

Dire. I suppose that eternal damnation rests on it, what with the gravity of your writing and all.

This is precisely why I do not eat meat. Were I to eat meat I would be placing myself in the category of those who do not even have the sense to behave sexually better than a chimpanzee. Now why would anyone want to associate themselves with such as that?

Thanks, again, for the ad hominem argument and the false correlation (eating meat=chimpanzee sex). Unfortunately, you are not doing much to advance the debate.

You know, this sounds a lot like the Wilberforce/Huxley debate - with you on the harrumphing and humbugging Wilberforce side. Bummer that I have ended up in Huxley's shoes, as I am not an evolutionist. But it makes for great theater!

 

[OneEye]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I put it to you that it is not for vegetarians to justify our diet, but it is for the meat eaters to justify meat eating.

News flash, sheepdog: No-one is asking vegetarians to justify their diet. As far as us omnivores and carnivores are concerned, you can stick to strict veggies all you like. We don't care - that's just one more hamburger for us in the barbeque line.

What you are expected to justify is why you think that vegetarianism is the "simple, clear, ethical choice" (emphasis added). You are not just promoting vegetarianism, you are condemning meat eating on the grounds that it is "unethical". You can't just go blustering about like a Victorian clergyman and expect people to admire your superior ethics. You have to make an ethical case.

FYI, as a meat-eater, I think that I have done a fine job of justifying the meat-eater's position - post #970.

 

[OneEye]

This post is most probably irrelevant.
However I felt the necessity to slap those who are so obsessed with their "superiority complex" - that humans are the only ones conscious, capable of feelings and emotions.
The link below is dedicated to those who are still incapable of understanding animal consciousness.

Dog Rescues 7-Year-Old in India
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1104&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050102%2F2223269085.htm&sc=1104

Thanks. I feel slapped. Very wooing.

So, a human-imprinted pack animal responds in a pack-oriented way to one of its imprintors.

Yes, I can see how that makes the case for animal consciousness.

The fact that we could program a robot to do the same probably didn't cross your mind, did it?

 

[OneEye]

And if someone insists that you tell them why you do not eat meat, it is enough to say, "Because I do NOT want to screw like a chimp. We can do better than that."

A simple, clear, ethical choice. And therein lies the paradigm shift.

Ooh! Ooh! I almost missed this one!

Thanks for the speciesist statement, sheepdog. Apparently, you are "better than" a chimp!

And your ethics are better than a chimp's, too! How chauvinistic!

I suppose you're more "evolved" as well!

Sounds like lilboy's "superiority complex" to me!

 

[sheepdog]

moral consequences

Well, while I don't want to behave sexually like a chimpanzee, I do want to eat meat. I choose to.

That you want to, that you choose to, eat meat, implies that you might want to screw like a chimp, and, without sufficient "moral consequences" as you say, you would.

The difference here is that I cannot find a sufficient reason to eat meat and you cannot find a sufficient reason not to. For me, wanting to do something is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to do it. For you it is. You do reflect the prevalent view, and meat eating is only one manifestation of such a position. But it does make a very significant difference in all aspects of life as to whether one reacts strictly to one's wants, restrained only by perceived "moral consequences" perhaps, or whether one acts on the basis of something other than merely one's desires even when one could. This is a divide that cannot be straddled.

 

[OneEye]

That you want to, that you choose to, eat meat, implies that you might want to screw like a chimp, and, without sufficient "moral consequences" as you say, you would.

I borrowed the term "consequences" from you. That was your word. I do admit that my libido is broader than my morality - as, I think, it is with any human. Perhaps you are different - perhaps you never experience the desire to engage in inappropriate sexual activity. Amaze me, and say that this is so.

Further, we are both agreed that we abstain from certain actions - me from chimpanzee sex, and you from eating chimpanzees - because we have moral objections to these actions, and so we (hopefully) restrain ourselves from what we consider to be wrong.

(By the way, you have again falsely equated meat eating with chimpanzee sex. Nonsense, but apparently appealing nonsense to you.)

For me, wanting to do something is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to do it.

I totally agree with this statement. The fact is that I believe that I am morally justified in eating meat.

I am not, as you paint me, a libertine. I am an intensely moral creature. May I recommend that you actually read some of my other posts before jumping to conclusions? Post #970 is a good example.

But it does make a very significant difference in all aspects of life as to whether one reacts strictly to one's wants, restrained only by perceived "moral consequences" perhaps, or whether one acts on the basis of something other than merely one's desires even when one could.

Which, again, completely misconstrues what I am saying. But I wouldn't let that bother me if I were you, since if you actually dealt with my position, you would have to stop your highfalutin pontification.

As far as I can tell, you seem to think yourself a paragon of virtue because you do not eat meat. Indeed, this posture does make you a paragon - an ideal example of the "ugly vegetarian" - that critter that judges all others as unworthy based upon their own veggie values.

For a little more to chew on: If one wishes to engage in an action, and that action is not inherently wrong, then there is no moral objection to engaging in the action. Thus, if I want to eat meat, and it is not morally wrong to eat meat, then I may eat meat without moral objection.

You would have to prove that it is, in fact, wrong to eat meat in order to be justified in such righteous condescension toward me.

But you haven't tried to do this. Instead, you have just assumed your moral superiority, and then judged me on that basis. And, to boot, you have falsely represented my position - all the while attacking me for doing what you, yourself do! Quite the feat in such a brief series of messages. You are to be commended!

P.S. physicsisphirst, cogito, Dooga Blackrazor, and Dissident Dan have been making the argument that eating meat is wrong. You might want to apply to them for help. Then, go deal with "The Ethical Argument" in my post #970.

 

[Be Happy!]

...yeah, politics is wonderful, ain't it? About as balanced as the APA.

This dogma - though developed in response to real health problems - was just a grasping at a straw. The real culprit in American diets is not animal products, it's sugar, sweeteners, and white flour. Dr. Atkins' work is helping to make this clear.

I don't understand what politics has to do with the American Dietetic Association?

Are you suggesting that the dieticians of the American Dietetic Association are propogating dogma and that Dr. Atkins' people are preaching the "gospel"?


Sangeeta

 

[Be Happy!]

However, I am scandalized and offended by crusading veggies who constantly make claims with no experiential basis whatsoever - just a lot of web links to veggie sites, with no reference to balancing information...

I'm not going to do a lot more reading on this. I think that I understand the issue well enough - I know how these things work, and further reading and investigation cannot help my understanding of the matter.

Hi,

I am not sure that you understand the issues well at all. You have claimed fact in many posts, but I have yet to see references from you. If you want references, many people who have posted on this forum have provided references which you seem to want to ignore. derek1 for example, mentioned a great site www.ChooseVegetarian.com[/url] which is fully referenced (provides over 60 references i believe and at the bottom of each page is a list of credible references). If you have a problem with their references, I suggest you can take it up with the universities or authors they site or even with the USDA as they are referenced numerous times throughout the site. derek1 even provided experiential evidence (with numerous photos and videos)that you say was lacking...and he provided the [url]www.AtkinsExposed.com[/URL] site (which has over 400 references) and even quoted the American Dietic Association (the position paper he quoted cited hundreds of studies)...as you can see there are plenty of facts backing our stance.



Sangeeta

 

[OneEye]

I don't understand what politics has to do with the American Dietetic Association?

Are you suggesting that the dieticians of the American Dietetic Association are propogating dogma and that Dr. Atkins' people are preaching the "gospel"?


Sangeeta

Not really, but I like your poetic turn of phrase!

Here's my thesis: The AMA, the APA, the ADA, ABA, etc., are political organizations which pay a lot too much attention to current thought trends and very little attention to factual data. They are more concerned with being "politically correct" than they are with actually sifting for truth.

At the same time, a health crisis (obesity, adult onset diabetes, etc) is clearly happening in America today. (That this is the result of meat consumption is patently ridiculous, but you'll probably want to argue that. Nolo contendre.)

Again at the same time, fear over Amazon deforestation has led to a blot on the reputation of beef farming. And, the realization that the avearge American's standard of living is bound to decrease over the coming decades has led to a politically-motivated rearrangement of the basic dietary guidelines. Meat was an easy target, since it is expensive and politically disadvantaged.

But also at the same time, Dr. Atkins made the startling proposal that a high-fat, low-carb diet could be as healthy as - or healthier than - a low-fat, high carb diet. Contrary to intuition, his method seems to work for many people (myself included).

I disagree with the Atkins crowd that carbohydrates are necessarily unhealthy. As far as I can tell, one can have either high fats or high carbs, but not both. The former corresponds to a meat-heavy diet (a la the Inuits, Bedouins, etc.); the latter to a vegetarian diet (a la the Hindus). In my opinion, either can be healthy - but the average American diet is high-fat, high carb - a deadly combination. I choose the low-carb diet, because I have trouble with serum sugar - probably my own fault, but here I am, stuck with very few options.

What the ADA is not condemning - irresponsibly, I think - is the high sugar and natural sweetener level in the American diet. They should go after this before they go after fats. But, since sugar is cheap and Coke and Pepsi are powerful, I don't expect the ADA to do that.

It would be tempting to draw a line between "white hat" Atkinsites and "black hat" everybody else - but, as usual, the picture is more complex than that. Anyway, I hope this clears up my position.

 

[OneEye]

I am not sure that you understand the issues well at all. You have claimed fact in many posts, but I have yet to see references from you.What else do you want references for?

You are wrong to think that I don't understand the issues. I could easily come on the board with and assumed pro-veggie, anti-meat persona, and do as good a job of it as anyone here. You are falling into the trap of believing another poster's hype about me. I do not make vain claims, and I make it my business to know the facts. I have not disputed that the information provided is well-cited. But you seem to think that well-cited and true are the same thing. If you wanted to, you could come up with counter-cites for every cite you make. Just as derek1, for instance, referred to the Agriprocessor case but left out crucial information, so propapganda is usually constructed with true information - but peculiarly arranged or carefully selected to show only one side of the issue. Which is what I am saying: There are many pro-meat, pro-agriculture sources out there - but you never cite them, even for balance. Why not?

Second,

As for free-range meat...sorry, but the animals don't have it as good as you think. Here is an article that you might find interesting...at the bottom you will notice 19 references backing up this information.

Sorry to say this, but I think that you are being evasive. Let me put my question a different way:

Is there any possible ranching scenario which makes it moral to eat meat?

My point in asking this should be obvious: I strongly suspect that most pro-veg. posters on this thread are so extremely anti-meat that they would not countenance eating meat under any circumstances - not even if every effort was made to raise animals according to the highest humane standards and to kill them with the utmost care. "No meat, period," is what I expect the pro-vegetarians on this thread will say.

And if this is the case, then there is no real point in discussing ranching practices, since there is no conceivable method of animal husbandry which will satisfy the anti-meat crowd. Thus, such discussions are only a red herring. The real aim is (I believe) to completely remove meat from the human diet, period - and so discussions about farming methods are vain time-wasters.

I'll be happy to have you (or any pro-vegetarian) say, "No, really, if the ranchers would just raise them this way and kill them that way, I would be okay with it."

But I don't think that's going to happen.

Any takers?

 

[physicsisphirst]

Well the cited articles don't prove MAN is not omnivorous.

and just because MAN eats meat doesn't make MAN an omnivore - certainly not via comparative anatomy. if you look at the Mills article in particular you will see that based on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
colon
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
mouth opening vs headsize
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
liver
kidney
nails

that the human anatomy lines up nicely with that of the herbivores and not omnivores such as the bear (which was used for comparison).

(nice to see you back after your absence btw)

 

[physicsisphirst]

oneeye! you've certainly been busy!

The slavery and genocide arguments only work because they were done to humans. This is the substantial difference that you are repeatedly ignoring.

like i said you are missing the point of the argument - it is the action of those 'doing' it that is being compared.

and chimps are, undisputedly, omnivores.

well not really for the reasons you'd like to think, oneeye. the chimpanzee can be said to be an omnivore because it eats fruit, leaves, seeds, buds, bark, stems, and insects (occasionally). chimpanzees are considered to be in the middle of the food chain because it mostly eats plants (does that mean they can digest cellulose?). chimps may eat meat rarely and only as a 'delicacy' no doubt a nasty habit they learned from certain humans - you know the 'monkey see monkey do' bit.

2) You define "prey" as something stalked and pounced on.

i did not - read post #1040 again! not that it really matters.
however, you seem to be suggesting that animals in factory farms are prey. that is really very strange!

If humans are a fundamentally different kind of creature than animalia, then it's quite appropriate for them to eat animals - for the same reason that humans may appropriately eat carrots.

there's that incogency again. your consequent doesn't follow from your antecedent. the "eh what's up doc" justification you provide doesn't make it any better.

 

[physicsisphirst]

This post is most probably irrelevant.
However I felt the necessity to slap those who are so obsessed with their "superiority complex" - that humans are the only ones conscious, capable of feelings and emotions.
The link below is dedicated to those who are still incapable of understanding animal consciousness.

Dog Rescues 7-Year-Old in India
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1104&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050102%2F2223269085.htm&sc=1104

your post is very relevant, lilboy - a great story too.

it is stories like these that some of those exceptionally 'conscious' and 'capable of feelings and emotions' humans like to ignore and thereby manage to keep themselves convinced that they are "the only ones conscious, capable of feelings and emotions".

it is a convenient arrangement by which they don't have to examine links, research, eyewitness reports etc. and they can simply dismiss it all as being not there: "as long as i don't look, it can't exist"

 

[physicsisphirst]

I could easily come on the board with and assumed pro-veggie, anti-meat persona, and do as good a job of it as anyone here.

no, please don't do this.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I put it to you that it is not for vegetarians to justify our diet, but it is for the meat eaters to justify meat eating. And I further put it to you that anyone who has a choice about his diet and chooses to eat meat can only justify it with reasons all of which fall into one category, the "Because I want to screw like a chimp" category. Look:

• "Because I want to (and I want to screw like a chimp)"
• "Because it tastes good (and it feels good to screw like a chimp)"
• "Because my ancestors ate meat (and they were chimps and I want to screw like a chimp)"
• "Because it's natural (and chimps naturally screw a lot and I want to screw like a chimp)"

And if someone insists that you tell them why you do not eat meat, it is enough to say, "Because I do NOT want to screw like a chimp. We can do better than that."

A simple, clear, ethical choice. And therein lies the paradigm shift.

great post sheepdog! you've really put this whole discussion into proper perspective!

why should a veg have to 'justify' the diet when it
- is extremely well-documented and demonstrated to be healthy (none of this heart disease, cancer, impotence, osterporosis, impotence, madcow, impotence etc etc etc);
- doesn't ravage the environment (none of this pollution, deforestation, water depletion etc etc etc);
- is wonderfully ethical (none of this hoard, hoard, hoard then kill, kill, kill etc etc etc)

you have also summarized quite delightfully the 'justification' for the meaters' side - only a few are straight-forward enough to admit that they eat it because "they like the taste". the rest bring on bizarre arguments without backing (or validity) as well as provide remarkable excuses, and, burying their heads in the sand, refuse to look at the realities (be happy! and derek1 have provided extensive and excellent references #995, #1013, #1015, #1039, #1041, #1042) even when they are just a click away.

 

[learningphysics]

Is there any possible ranching scenario which makes it moral to eat meat?

My position is, anyone can eat anything, human, animal, vegetable, as long as we are reducing pain and suffering. Raising of humans for consumption is fine with me, as is raising of animals for consumption, if this condition can be satisfied.

So I grant that there is a possible ranching scenario which makes it moral to eat meat. Whether or not this can be practically done, I don't know.

Would you grant that there is a similar ranching scenario that makes it moral to eat a human?

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Wow, amazing that this thread is still going. My mom had to start eating fish (are the anti-meat people against this too?) because she had cancer treatments, etc and needed to supplement her diet with meat. She was a strict vegetarian before. Are there exceptions that the veggies make?

 

[sheepdog]

credit where credit is due

great post sheepdog! you've really put this whole discussion into proper perspective!

So glad you appreciated it, prad. But we really owe it all to OneEye. It is amazing how much one can learn from even the most bizarre of encounters. The whole idea that someone would consider behaving, in any way, like a chimpanzee never even occurred to me. But look how revealing it was!

By the way, OneEye claims that I made all of this up. That he had nothing to do with it:

(By the way, you have again falsely equated meat eating with chimpanzee sex. Nonsense, but apparently appealing nonsense to you.)

But I think he is being too modest since I got the idea from him in post #1044:

Sure, why not?

That may sound flippant, but the fact is that you will have an extraordinarily hard time answering that question.

And it's basically the same question - and founded in the same rationale - as the question, "Should humans eat meat?"

I challenge you to do so.

Don't you think? He is a slippery devil!

OneEye has stimulated another idea which I offer as another statement of the "Because I don't want to screw like a chimp" principle.

We are the sum of our choices. Any particular choice can be made in one of two ways. Either it serves the interests of the self. Or it serves the interests of other-than-self. To the extent our choices serve other-than-self we also choose the brighter alternative future. To the extent our choices serve self we are choosing the darker alternative future. I believe this is a law of nature, true fractally at all levels. Whether to eat meat or not is one of those choices, which determine our future.

Thank you, OneEye.

My best,
-- Michael

 

[sheepdog]

mistaken

But you haven't tried to do this. Instead, you have just assumed your moral superiority, and then judged me on that basis. And, to boot, you have falsely represented my position - all the while attacking me for doing what you, yourself do! Quite the feat in such a brief series of messages. You are to be commended!

If you feel attacked you flatter yourself too much. I don't know who you are and do not care to. You are just words on a page, some of which have been most amusing and others most enlightening. Whether that was intentional or accidental I really don't know and it doesn't matter. I'm not going to waste my time attacking you or judging you or anybody else. Surely we all have more important things to do?

 

[theriddler876]

another thing is that when we eat starch, or sucrose/glucose/galactose you know veggies and grains our body takes them breaks them down into glucose, then the body absorbs them and releases insulin, which is a growth hormone, which makes people fat, it's the whole concept behind atkins. anywhoo the receptors for glucose are close to the opiate receptors, so glucose makes us happy, so taking away veggies from the vegetarians would be like taking pot from a pot head, they will start craving it and go through withrdawal. Glucose is a minor addictive drug, and it shouln't consist most of our diets

 

[OneEye]

and just because MAN eats meat doesn't make MAN an omnivore - certainly not via comparative anatomy. if you look at the Mills article in particular you will see that based on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
*
*
*
nails

that the human anatomy lines up nicely with that of the herbivores and not omnivores such as the bear (which was used for comparison).

1) Repeatedly posting the same material is generally considered rude.
2) Repeatedly posting the same material without answering serious objections to the material is generally considered obtuse and rude.
3) Diet is not determined by any set of physical characteristics. Diet is determined by what the creature eats. Consider the many creatues which seem to have carnivorous characteristics (the panda, gorilla, and fruit bat - which all have horribly carnivorous dentition, among other carnivorous features - come most readily to mind) which taxonomically might seem to be carnivorores, and yet which are vegetarian.

Until recently, it was assumed that the South American kinkajou was a carnivore - based on skull structure and dentition. Researchers were surprised when they couldn't trap the kinkajou with a piece of chicken - but it went for a banana!

So, one doesn't determine a creature's dietary role by comparing it with other creatures. One determines its dietary role by examining what it eats. Biologically, this is the only important arbiter of a creature's gastronomic classification. Scientific fact. And, as you admit, man eats meat. So, by any scientific definition, man is an omnivore. You can play peekaboo by carefully arranging facts to fit your predetermined conclusion all you want - but if there is a real biologist around here, she is laughing her omnivorous head off at this "analysis" you are posting.

I really wish that you would stop posting biased material like the above. Or, at least, that you would allow yourself to be corrected by factual responses.

 

[OneEye]

oneeye! you've certainly been busy!

Yeah, I'm about done here.

like i said you are missing the point of the argument - it is the action of those 'doing' it that is being compared.

But of course, I'm not missing the point at all, am I? It's you who are persistently missing the point. My point is that actions which are not comparable are not comparable. In order for the "doing" comparison to work, the actions of herders and meat packers have to be the same kind of actions as those of slavers and Nazis. Since the former actions were perpetrated against non-humans and the latter against humans, the sets of actions are not comparable. It doesn't matter what else you say, since you are not making a true comparison.

I say (and this is the point that you persistently miss) that herding is no less moral than planting, slaughtering is no less moral than harvesting - because in both cases, it is people acting on non-humans.

well not really for the reasons you'd like to think, oneeye. the chimpanzee can be said to be an omnivore because it eats fruit, leaves, seeds, buds, bark, stems, and insects (occasionally). chimpanzees are considered to be in the middle of the food chain because it mostly eats plants (does that mean they can digest cellulose?). chimps may eat meat rarely and only as a 'delicacy' no doubt a nasty habit they learned from certain humans - you know the 'monkey see monkey do' bit.

Wow! Factual error and a conspiracy theory thrown into boot!

You are quite wrong about the chimpanzee diet. Although they are "opportunistic carnivores", they will eat anything they can kill - up to and including other monkeys. Chimpanzees are opportunistic omnivores. Humans are cultivating omnivores. But both are omnivores.

i did not - read post #1040 again! not that it really matters.
however, you seem to be suggesting that animals in factory farms are prey. that is really very strange!

Only if you want to define prey as "a wild creature hunted and caught". If prey is defined as "an animal killed and eaten", then it is not strange at all. The fact that humans manage and raise their own prey does not change the fact that they are prey for humans. You are drawing a false distinction.

there's that incogency again. your consequent doesn't follow from your antecedent.

It's one thing for you to be wrong. But this is downright offensive - and you do it all the time. You seem to think that just by saying "the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent", you have provided a rational critique - and that your mask of logical terminology makes this a logical process. If you are going to say that "the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent," you must explain why not - either by demonstrating the formal, structural flaw in the argument, or by critiquing the premisses. You do neither - you just say "Oh, there you go again with your incogency!" As if saying it makes it so.

I guess if that's the way you want to "argue", that's your business. But for those of us who have bothered to learn how to demonstrate how a consequent might or might not follow from an antecedent, your pseudological terminology ranges from humorous to offensive (as in this case). You should either make your method match your language, or just switch back to "Is not!"

 

[OneEye]

My position is, anyone can eat anything, human, animal, vegetable, as long as we are reducing pain and suffering.

This would really be an excellent concession except for what follows - which leads me to doubt your sincerity.

Would you grant that there is a similar ranching scenario that makes it moral to eat a human?

No, because it would require killing a human for personal gain - murder. One can murder a human. One cannot murder a cow. Important distinction, apparently lost on many thread participants.

 

[OneEye]

You are just words on a page...

Yeah, I consider you a non-person, too. I'll be over your house to eat you this afternoon.

 

[learningphysics]

This would really be an excellent concession except for what follows - which leads me to doubt your sincerity.

No, because it would require killing a human for personal gain - murder. One can murder a human. One cannot murder a cow. Important distinction, apparently lost on many thread participants.

I think we get to the crux of the issue here. Why exactly is killing a human for personal gain (when utilitarian principles don't forbid it) wrong, whereas killing a cow for personal gain (when utilitarian principles don't forbid it) alright?

 

[OneEye]

another thing is that when we eat starch, or sucrose/glucose/galactose you know veggies and grains our body takes them breaks them down into glucose, then the body absorbs them and releases insulin, which is a growth hormone, which makes people fat, it's the whole concept behind atkins. anywhoo the receptors for glucose are close to the opiate receptors, so glucose makes us happy, so taking away veggies from the vegetarians would be like taking pot from a pot head, they will start craving it and go through withrdawal. Glucose is a minor addictive drug, and it shouln't consist most of our diets

Close, but not quite right: Flour does turn into glucose in the bloodstream, which provokes an insulin/insulinase cycle. Insulin is not a growth hormone, but provokes the liver to store glucose in the form of glycogen. The problem comes because the human body is so very well-designed: A high-serum-sugar diet (high sugar/high carbohydrate) causes the body to "recalibrate" to a higher insulin level - thus, the liver is less responsive to insulin, and so does not do its job in cleaning the sugar out of the bloodstream. This is Type II diabetes mellitus - also know as adult onset diabetes: Adequate insulin is produced, but the body is "not listening" to it.

This is a major health crisis in America today. And unfortunately, there is no known way to recalibrate the insulin receptors, and so Type II diabetics must stay well away from serum sugar inducing carbohydrates. A vegetarian diet - usually carb-heavy - is probably not a good idea for a diabetic or pre-diabetic.

I strongly suspect, based on a number of observations, that I am pre-type-II-diabetic. I have been looking at changing my diet for some time, and (as I have often said) have seriously considered a vegetarian diet for health reasons. As it turns out, this is probably a very bad idea, since it would exacerbate my condition. So, I chose a low-carbohydrate diet. (Epileptics, by the way, need a low-carb diet as well.) The easiest way to achieve a low-carb diet is the Atkins method. The alternative is to switch to an almost-completely soy diet, which can have serious health effects as well (soy is known to depress the thyroid).

Hope this info is helpful!

 

[Seafang]

and just because MAN eats meat doesn't make MAN an omnivore - certainly not via comparative anatomy. if you look at the Mills article in particular you will see that based on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
colon
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
mouth opening vs headsize
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
liver
kidney
nails

that the human anatomy lines up nicely with that of the herbivores and not omnivores such as the bear (which was used for comparison).

(nice to see you back after your absence btw)

An impressive list of anatomical characteristics to be sure; but not one of them DEFINES either herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore.

Herbivores are animals that eat plants; not animals that are equipped to eat plants.

Carnivores are animals or plants that eat animals; not animals or plants that are equipped to eat animals.

Omnivores are animals (or plants) that eat anything, or most anything whether plant or animal (or something else like rocks or dirt)

You cite the bear as the perfect omnivore, that eats (and is equipped to eat) almost anything, including plastics; so then what about the giant panda that is as close to a bear as you can get yet it eats and is equipped to eat only one kind of one kind of plant (bamboo grass).

Humans eat and are equipped to eat both plants and animals, including insects and bugs, not to mention snails and anything else which does not immediately poison us. We eat grass but only the seed part of the grass as in wheat/rice/barley etc. Eating ruminants and other animals allows us to use the rest of the grass.

To argue that humans are not omnivores because of some completely arbitrary list of anatomical characteristics is simply silly. By definition, omnivores eat plants and animals (and rocks (dirt)). That your list of human anatomical characteristics does not describe an optimum set of characteristics for eating anything, does not change the fact that humans are omnivores; the premier omnivore in fact; it simply proves that your list does not define an omnivore. Eating plants and animals does.

As for the morality of it, remove humans from the universe and you remove morality. Good and evil exist only in our minds.

Animals (and some plants) consume each other for food without any pangs of impropriety; they simply do it for survival of themselves and their progeny and their species. There is no morality about it.

We invented morality; and we aren't at all universal about what it means.

So while I have no comlaint with the person who decides to be strictly herbivorous for whatever reason they make that choice; it is simply none of their business what I choose to eat.

Society as a whole has decided we shouldn't eat each other; but mother nature would tell us that anyway; it does not lead to species survival improvement, although it has on rare occasion led to the survival of certain specific human individuals.

If the PETA folks were to extend their philosophy to the animals, and decree that the big fish shouldn't eat the little fish, the whole balance of life on Earth would be disrupted with disastrous consequences.

As I said before, we could manufacture all the nutritional necessities of sustenance out of rocks and water and sunlight, and stop eating anything else that is alive (or was).

That would be silly and also not necessarily moral; and it would be a total misuse of our intelligence (whatever that is).

 

[OneEye]

It is amazing how much one can learn from even the most bizarre of encounters. The whole idea that someone would consider behaving, in any way, like a chimpanzee never even occurred to me. But look how revealing it was!

There are an untold number of correlations between chimpanzee and human behavior - the vast majority of which have no moral weight. Which is the distinction which I make, and which you are deftly and deviously dodging.

By the way, OneEye claims that I made all of this up. That he had nothing to do with it:
But I think he is being too modest since I got the idea from him in post #1044:Don't you think? He is a slippery devil!

What I am claiming that you made up - what you did make up - was the idea that human engagement in chimpanzee sexual practice is morally equivalent to human engagement in chimpanzee gastronomic practice. This is entirely an invention of your own mind - one which you proudly parade over your pavilion (though others may not share your pride and joy). My point in bringing the subject up was to demonstrate this distinction - a distinction which you seem to be philosophically immune to.

We are the sum of our choices. Any particular choice can be made in one of two ways. Either it serves the interests of the self. Or it serves the interests of other-than-self. To the extent our choices serve other-than-self we also choose the brighter alternative future. To the extent our choices serve self we are choosing the darker alternative future. I believe this is a law of nature, true fractally at all levels. Whether to eat meat or not is one of those choices, which determine our future.

Thanks for the bizarre moral ramblings ("true fractally"?). I don't know why anyone would sign on to your inchoate and practically incoherent moral proclamations. But I'll go ahead and plug something into it:

Meat eating is the best way for humanity to serve self+others.

Thank you, OneEye.

You're welcome.

 

[learningphysics]

Society as a whole has decided we shouldn't eat each other; but mother nature would tell us that anyway; it does not lead to species survival improvement, although it has on rare occasion led to the survival of certain specific human individuals.

If society decided cannibalism was acceptable in the future, is that alright to you?

 

[OneEye]

I think we get to the crux of the issue here. Why exactly is killing a human for personal gain (when utilitarian principles don't forbid it) wrong, whereas killing a cow for personal gain (when utilitarian principles don't forbid it) alright?

You are quite right. The moral question is exactly the crux of the issue. Thank you for spotlighting this.

This will be my last post in this thread - I'm putting way too much time into this - so all of my correspondents are granted the luxury of getting the last word against me. Make it a good one! "Shoot straight... and don't make a mess of it!"

The hidden part of this discussion all along has had to do with defining morality with regard to diet - and so, defining morality at all. I'll get to that question in a minute, after recapitulating a few problems with the animal rights position.

Problems with the Animal Rights position
The ethical vegetarian/animal rights position accords animals the same "right to be free from inflicted pain" as humans (supposedly) have. (Some people like to complain that I am not representing the ethical vegetarian/animal rights position correctly. In order to disarm this complaint, I quoted the above statement from the words of an ethical vegetarian/animal rights advocate on the board - Dissident Dan, if I recall correctly, but maybe cogito - and which most AV/ER people on the thread endorsed.)

As far as I can tell, no ethical vegetarian/animal rights person has yet ponied up and gone on record to answer the question: "Do non-human animals have the right to be free from pain inflicted by other, non-human animals?" - or the consequent question, "Should humans intervene to stop non-human animals from inflicting pain on other, non-human animals?". So I will have to deal with both sides of that question.

Case A: Non-human animals have the right to be free from human-inflicted pain, but do not have the right to be free from pain inflicted by other, non-human animals.
1) Non-human animals have the same rights as humans.
2a) Non-human animals have the right to inflict pain on each other, but
2b) Humans do not have the right to inflict pain on non-human animals.
3) Therefore, non-human animals have inherently more rights than humans.
(Which explicitly disagrees with A1, but we pass this over as a refinement of position rather than an actual contradiction.)

Case 1B: Non-human animals have the right to be free from human-inflicted pain, and do have the right to be free from pain inflicted by other animals, but humans should not interfere in non-human relationships.
1) Non-human animals have the same rights as humans.
2a) Non-human animals should not be stopped from inflicting pain on each other.
2b) Humans should be stopped from inflicting pain on each other.
2c) Humans should be stopped from inflicting pain on non-human animals.
3) Therefore, practically speaking, the right of others to be free from inflicted pain restricts only humans - and therefore, again, non-human animals have greater rights than humans.

Case 2B: Non-human animals have the right to be free from human-inflicted pain, and have the right to be free from pain inflicted by other animals, and humans should intervene to prevent non-human animals from inflicting pain on other, non-human animals.
1) Animals have the same rights as humans.
2a) Animals don't share the human value system - do not concern themselves about inflicting pain on others.
2b) Animals do not have the right to enforce their value system (their expressed right to inflict pain) on humans or other, non-human animals.
2c) Humans have the right to enforce their value system (the right to be free from inflicted pain) on non-human animals.
3) Therefore, humans have more rights than non-human animals.
(Which cannot be called anything but a contradiction of 2B1 - and speciesist - since the aim of this series of considerations was to elevate non-human animal rights to the status of human rights, so intending to controvert the "speciesist" tendency to subordinate non-human animal rights to human rights.)

So, as we see, there is no equation of human and (non-human) animal rights which actually ends up with a parity of rights between humans and non-humans. In two cases, humans end up with fewer rights than non-human animals; in the third, humans end up with more.

(I apologize about inserting "non-human" in front of "animals" throughout, but there are a few people in this thread whose niggling complaints have made it necessary.)

(And finally, the above consideration will not benefit those who cannot recognize or process logical considerations of a position. Sorry. No help, there.)

The Moral Question
But what is really at stake here is the basis of moral evaluation. It may sound all righteous and good to say, "Animals have the same right to be free of inflicted pain as humans do," but the obvious question is, "Why?", "Who says?" On what grounds can one make such a statement? If this is an overarching moral truth, what makes it so? Why are not other moral statements valid? For example, why cannot I say, "Humans may kill and eat non-human animals, but may not torture them for pleasure"? Or why is it wrong to say, "Anything which I may morally do to a tree, I may morally do to a (non-human) animal"?

What is actually going on here - pretty much unremarked - is a clash of moral systems. Meat eaters believe that they are well within their rights to eat meat - and, based on their moral system, they are right. Ethical vegetarians may well believe that "Meat is Murder" (as Morrissey sings) - and within their value system, they are right.

So the real question is, Which value system (if any) is right?

This question has really been at the foundation of the disagreement here - and without facing and resolving this question, there can be no resolution on the matter. Or, put another way, unless the ethical vegetarian or animal rights activist is able to show that my value system is wrong and theirs is right, they have no business condemning me for eating meat - they are wrong to do so.

But that, it turns out, is probably the subject of another thread. At least.