Eating meat.
Offline I struggle with this issue, it is difficult for me to land firmly on any side of the fence. On the one hand eating meat seems very natural, and some animals do seem like they came about specifically for that reason, to eat grass and feed the predators. But predators have no choice, and are not morally aware, we do and are. On the other hand life is life, what really gives us the right to take the life of "lesser" species. Where is the line??? Somewhere in between dolphins and dragonflies is where we most draw it and it is different for everyone. There are so many variables involved in this tuff question and so instead of going on and on I would like to here what others have to say. All I know is I look at my dog and he is my best friend, he is innocent and I would face great danger to make sure he was ok. When I see people hacking up and eating dogs I instinctively think it is wrong (but is it?), it sure feels like it is. But then I think that pigs have been shown to be just as smart and just as loving pets as dogs. If it is wrong to eat a dog, then isn't it wrong to eat a pig. What about octopus, apparently their bloody brilliant like parrots. Is it the way it was killed, or the way that it lived a factor? Where do you stand?
- Login to post comments
Blake converted me on this. Not to being a vegan, because I'm not, but that if you are striving for a system of morality that is consistent and practical, being a meat eater really doesn't fly at any level. I can't think of any excuses for it without using a system of morality that gets into even more trouble when you carry it to the inevitable end.
Every time I eat a piece of meat I have a little bit of dissonance because I know I can't justify it based on the morality I espouse.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
On this issue, I definitely feel more connection with BobSpence's perspective than Blake's. In fact, while BobSpence does not care much for eating meat, I personally enjoy it quite a bit. Say, if I do not eat meat for two days, I will find myself craving for a burger or a good bowl of Pho.
Lol, I don't remember disagreeing with you on anything....ever, Mel, so I'm actually quite surprised that Blake convinced you that it is morally inconsistent to eat meat. If you are a moral subjectivist, then your moral choices should simply reflect your values; none of it is justifiable to begin with. So, I don't see it as an inconsistency; you simply value the welfare of the animal and your desire to eat the meat. The only question then is 'which do you value more?'
For me, I value my taste for a chicken or a cow significantly more than the welfare of the chicken or cow. Ergo, I have no absolutely no problems with eating them in general. Of course, I would support making some effort to reduce their suffering before their death, but overall, I am pretty egoistic about this. So, if you become a vegan, I hope you do so because this is what you really want and not because you're logically compelled to or something.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Certainly it isn't immoral in some objective sense, but if the basis of your morality is trying not to cause harm/suffering and increase wellbeing then it can't be justified when you follow the logic of it, or at least not that I could manage.
It isn't morally inconsistent if your morality isn't based on that idea though, but the problem is basing my morality on other things leads to other problems I consider to be 'larger'.
For example, by your reasoning if I really wanted to eat an infant that would be OK as long as I really, really wanted it, or was truly apathetic about the child.
It isn't that I'd become a vegan...that seems unlikely, more than I have to give up any moral high ground on certain issues because I know I'm not being moral myself.
Essentially, before those debates if asked about my morality I'd tell you it was social contract for the most part and I thought I had answers to most problems and animals didn't have a place in that contract, so fuck'em.
Now I'd say it is based on using pain and suffering as an objective metric to gauge choices, but I'd have to acknowledge that I'm not a terribly moral person based on my own ideals. Even more to the point, I am extremely speciest and I know I can't justify being so without resorting to something like hedonism which is more or less what you're talking about with the oh-so-tasty chicken.
So, somewhat of a moral quandry. I was talking to my wife about it a few nights ago and explained to her, as I was eating some chicken, that every time I ate a piece I had a little dissonant spike because I knew it was't a justifiable moral act. With every bite, I knew I was 'doing wrong'. She looked fairly horrified. It isn't that I felt bad for the chicken, I have almost zero empathy for it, it is just dissonance caused by knowing I'm not morally consistent.
Bob's response is fine, but the root of the judgement is based on how he feels about something, which is fine, unless he happens to feel something that society decides is horrific, like the baby eating.
Summary: It is only inconsistent if it is inconsistent with your basic structure. I'd like to think it is possible to create a system of morality that a total psychopath, or perhaps a computer, could follow and come to a 'correct' conclusion in any concievable case. So far the closest thing I've seen is the suffering/wellbeing idea and by that metric it is hard to justify most animal consumption, especially for a comfortable westerner. It is not impossible, there are plenty of ways you could accomplish it, like creating an equal measure of wellbeing for every unit of suffering you are responsible for. That's a lot of work though.
The question about converting to veganism or vegetarianism (I think you could be morally neutral as a vegetarian without too much work) is whether that dissonance is enough to effect a change in my behavior, or if I just live with it. Alternately I could find a different set of morality that suited my needs, but I've not seen one that wouldn't cause more dissonance. Or, I guess, I could just justify and rationalize it somehow but I think I've been too open to lie to myself at this point. The horse is out of the barn, so to speak.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I agree though, we're usually singing Kumbaya
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Morality is overrated.
After reading that for some reason I thought of this guy.....
Actually, I would go so far as to say I don't have a problem with cannibalism. I do have a problem with murder, but if a person volunteers their body to be eaten that is fine by me. In some cultures it is traditional to consume the bodies of deceased relatives. I don't think it is particularly healthy and am not interested in trying it myself but don't see why it should be illegal.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I see where you're going with this. On the same note though, wouldn't you cause indirect suffering by simply living in our western society? And that is in a sense what's being debated here. If this were a developing society the choice would simply not be there for you to go vegan.
Using pain and suffering as an objective metric to gauge choices, human pain and suffering has to take priority over an animal's. Take something like buying a diamond ring that originates in Africa. Most of those diamonds are mined by exploiting women and children. Putting gas in your car, wearing the relatively cheap clothes (relative to your income) are all at the expense of someone being exploited. I'm simply arguing that by using your logic you should give away all your possessions and volunteer as a nurse for a leper colony, in which case you won't have the option to be vegan anymore
I think of morality as a pool of water, it has a net value of zero. If you do good, you send a positive ripple in the pool, if you do bad you send a negative ripple. Good and bad here are relative to the influence you have on everything around you. In this sense it could be considered an objective morality. One could argue that you can inadvertently cause a major negative ripple by lets say adopting and raising the next Hitler. You would however only be responsible for your own actions. I try to keep the net value of the pool positive for the simple egotistical reason that it makes my life easier.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Yea, you should read some of the threads with Blake, you'd find it interesting.
Yes, with that metric you have to take into account a lot of things, I sort of argued what you're arguing now, actually. I thought you'd just need to kill yourself.
The goal can either be to wind up, 'net positive' or 'net negative'. For your ring example, if you had not bought the ring, what would the impact be? Specifically? I imagine if you really think about it it isn't as simple as you think. Considering the way the diamond market works I imagine buying a diamond wouldn't actually attach much, if any, moral cost to the buyer. If that example is important we could discuss it, but you can probably do it yourself.
The same with the others. What impact do your choices actually have? I think you'd find your impact is minimal, arguably even positive since at least you're potentially providing another penny or two to a worker who might otherwise be doing subsistence farming. Naturally, if you wanted maximal moral impact though you would buy from the best sources you could and you'd have to figure out what that is.
Why would human suffering be valued more than animal? Possibly an individual human might be able to suffer more than an individual animal, but that doesn't mean the suffering is worthless. Is a two year old able to suffer more than a dog? Really? How does the suffering of a cow equal to the possible inconvenience of buying soy over hamburger? Meat also has a higher environmental cost overall.
Actually, I'm confused as to how your pool example differs from my own example.
I'm tired though and it is late. I might need to re-write a better response tomorrow.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Think of it in terms of evolution. There may have been other species of Homo-erectus who put other species ahead of their own, but they're no longer around. An analogy would be a family unit. If I had to choose between your suffering and my brother's suffering... let's just say your immediate future sucks. Of course I would consider the suffering of animals, but not before a human's. Blame it on evolution. My primitive brain rationalizes this as my brother helping me ensure my geans survive.
My pool example relates mostly to people. I'm on my third glass of wine and I'm also tired. More on this tomorrow also for me.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
The thing with dairy is that you must keep the animals captive if you want it to be viable for a solution. Thus I would still have a moral issue with it.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Natural yes, but so is everything else that I know of (natural). Just because something is natural does not mean it is right.
How did you decide that a brain is more important than how a plant functions? Please define what you mean by consciousness.
Evolution is not a goal orientated system.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
That is a bad example though, because if we were arguing from pure evolutionary utility we would immediately abandon almost all meat and animal product. It is more expensive to society and the individual in every way. Economically, environmentally and medically. Especially in nations with mechanized farming.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I'm afraid that my thoughts on this topic aren't quite as well developed as I'd want them to be, but I absolutely can't pass up an opportunity to potentially disagree with you on something, so.............en garde!
I do respect utilitarianism for it's intuitiveness, and I enjoy using it as a tool, but I do not really subscribe to it in principle. The only rule that I strictly follow is that I do what maximizes my happiness. This is my most basic axiom. I do want to increase utility in general, but just by making this statement, I can observe that I want to increase other people's happiness simply because it makes me happy.
So, I value my own happiness significantly more than the happiness of other people, and I value my happiness exponentially more than a chicken. Since I enjoy eating meat quite a lot, as far as I know, it is more valuable to me than the animals that had to suffer and die before they reached my plate and whatever other bad things I may have contributed to.
Oh?
Well, there is no "OK" or not "OK" about it. That's what it means to be a moral subjectivist, right? There are no reasons that could ever be given to objectively establish whether eating a child is acceptable or unacceptable. There are only preferences.
But, even pain and suffering, as intuitively obvious as it is, is no more an objective metric than anything else. It is still just a preference.
Is there something wrong with being speciest? Animals feel the same pain and suffer just like we do, so it seems inconsistent to give less weight to their woes. What exactly is the inconsistency though? We are making the claim that because both groups feel the same pain, that pain should be addressed to the same extent. But, this is just another preference that we've assumed. Why should we treat all pain the same? There is no justification for that either.
There are no 'real' justifiable moral acts. If you have no empathy for the chicken, then I do not see any inconsistency.
But, what other "root of the judgment" is there then? Our values don't come from our moral systems; our moral systems come from our values.
You created a system around suffering and well-being because that is what you cared about. If you really loved eating babies, thought it was morally acceptable, and it was legal, then you would probably have formed a moral system that allowed you to eat babies.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Another thought:
Imagine a society that had got to the stage that it had accepted sacrificing woman and children to keep peace with its Gods.
If a few individuals found this practice revolting, how do they justify any action against it? Majority view won't work. Appeal to the God's won't work.
Just how do such established practices get overturned?
How do we get traditional Islamic societies to respect women as we do?
I don't think there is an easy answer.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Define "traditional Islamic societies"...
The whole moral bit about consuming animal is something that I have no issues with, it's sustaining myself, it's food really. My only thing I have is I don't particularly like torturing animals, that to me is unnecessary suffering, but straight out killing to consume the animal I have no issues with, unless of course it's done in an unnecessary way. I prefer either slit the throat, break it's neck. That could also have something to do that my family owns a ranch and we still take good care of the animals, but don't kid ourselves either, we understand they are food. However they are allowed to roam free, chicken for eggs are not confined in some small space. I personally do not like factory farming which involves confining animals to a small space. But that's it, the actual consuming of animals I have no issues, i do not see it as a suffering issue. In the whole chain of nature they are food to something, if not me, then another animal.
@Butter: None of it has to do with objective justification, I acknowledge that the initial decision about what system to adopt is arbitrary and there is no appeal to external authority. One system is not objectively "True" in a universal sense. What it does have to do with is consistency and whether or not you can create a moral system an entire society can live with, that you can use science to judge choices and find a moral 'truth'. So one system can certainly be more consistent and useful than others.
If the basis is hedonism there is no objective (and I mean objective in the science sense, not the religious "Objective" sense) way to resolve moral conflict if two parties disagree. If person A thinks something is bad and person B thinks it is good, the only way to resolve that conflict is through coercion because the alternate viewpoints are equally valid.
With a system based on pain/wellbeing you could actually make an objective judgement. You could actually use the scientific method to find the most objectively moral choice and then the conflict between person A and person B can be resolved (assuming they both accept the moral system).
Really, that is what the whole thing comes down to: Creating a system that can objectively find the most moral solution to a problem.
So, if you accept that idea and analyze animal use for food you find that nearly everything about it is a moral negative. The only 'good' thing about it is the pleasure it brings the consumer, but matters of taste are largely cultural and we can change those. For example, I'd probably be able to find something I enjoyed just as much as bacon, given enough time. And boy, I love bacon. So the main justification is not very powerful when weighed against the probable suffering of the critter, damage to the environment, inefficiency of the system and potentially the damage to health (Like how much moral weight do we give the bacon flavored heart disease that shaves five healthy years off my life, damaging my happiness and that of my family and friends, compared to the pleasure I took at breakfast?).
Now, it isn't all doom and gloom. A 'happy' cow raised in good conditions with a quick and fairly painless death at the end, which then brings some small pleasure to 100 people...I'm not sure how to weigh that, but the point is we *could* weigh it objectively if we wanted to.
A 'happy' chicken that produces eggs probably isn't much of a net negative at all. The main concern would probably be sustainability and efficiency, not pain and pleasure. A suffering miserable chicken living in a 2z2 cage is might be a moral negative.
You could also 'make up' for moral negatives with moral positives. Eat some dog? Donate to a dog shelter. Like carbon credits.
We could even make a science out of it, turn ethics into a real discipline. "OK class, for this weekends assignments I want a five page paper explaining the methodology for assigning a moral weight to Hitler. Use baby chickens horribly murdered as the unit of measure."
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Maybe the standard positive unit of measure could be hugs. Or guilt free hand-jobs. Or establish a mean-orgasm value, that's less sexist. Or maybe a new scale, something like 'happies', defined as the mean energy output of certain brain regions in content humans whilst dreaming about guilt free orgasms.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I love the handjob idea...
Sorry about last night I was a little tipsy and incoherent, I'll come back to it tonight after work. But you really have something here with the handjobs, can you word that in a medical context so I can show it to my wife? perhaps blowjobs can count as two handjobs? I'm all for this 
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
And I agree with you on this. I fail to find a moral imperative in deciding what I shall eat. As silly as the idea may be, I would not have a problem with someone who eats vegetarian not only for love of animals but also because he hates plants.
Well, I am not interested in disputing the apparent correlations between eating meat and getting cancer.
In other news, mesothelioma is a cancer which is caused by rocks.
The thing that I am getting at is that there is not a lot of research being done AFAIK on the bad effects of eating vegetables. Some vegetables can be bad for you, of that there is little question.
A few years ago, there was a Japanese couple in town and they found some delicious looking mushrooms while walking in the woods. Now you would think that people would just know not to mess with mushrooms that they were not familiar with. Yet they chowed down on a species where the onset of any symptoms only happens after the liver and kidneys have been destroyed.
So do some vegetables have anti-cancer stuff going on? Probably. Tomatoes are on the list. Perhaps they offset the risks from pork. Well, in that case, then Bolognese sauce may not be bad for you. I don't know. The research is lacking. Yet the anti-cancer crowd is all over the deal, which, to my mind, is not at all responsible.
OK, I did not see that as over-reacting. Rather, I was trying to point out that there are some gaps in what we know about food science. Yah, bacon is kind of gross. However, I only eat it like a few times a year. Pretty much only when I travel and that is mainly because the free breakfast at hotels seems to always assume bacon as the default meat. Then too, the free breakfast at hotels is pretty much all about nasty food.
Well, if you do not already have gout, then a test is unlikely to show it. When you are in pain on standing up and the painful joints are bright red, then you may have gout. A blood test will confirm the matter. However, according to my doctor, the blood test is not that big of a deal. It will not predict anything but it can confirm what is already pretty sure.
That much being said, I have a genetic time bomb on both sides of my family. Mom comes from a line of people who get cancer and dad come from a line of people who get CV diseases. I am not going to dwell on the matter. I am old enough that I have to confront the fact that I will be dead one day. Something will take me out. Against that, I might as well have some fun while the time lasts.
Don't get me wrong here. I eat lots of vegan food. It can be delicious. Pasta with pesto sauce is vegan. Hummus with fresh herbs is vegan. The list is, of course, much longer but the general idea remains. Still, I see no moral imperative to consider only plants as food sources when we are clearly evolved to eat meat.
=
Consider that we live on the flesh, tissue of plants and plant eaters. While we don't live inside the bodies of our hosts we sort of seem like parasites.
Also, do we have an obligation to eat certain food groups in order to keep our stomach's bacteria populations alive?
Perhaps bathing is murder??
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Well, then say hello to a really carnivorous German dude who made just such culinary arrangements and even filmed it as it happened. Sorry, that's totally weird to me. And remember ..... Meat Is Murder !!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
I do follow several science podcasts, including ones from Nature, Scientific American, Science Magazine, AAAS, among others, and these include latest findings in health and nutrition, so I am pretty much aware of all these issues. If anything sounds significant, I will usually follow up on the web-site, chasing any references where appropriate.
My Mom went out with a heart-attack, no doubt aggravated by being over-weight and diabetic. I and and my brother and sister all share a tendency to obesity if we don't work at it. I am definitely over what I should be, although no worse, and I think better, than my younger brother. My younger sister has lost a significant amount of weight since recovering from burst vessel leading to bleeding in the brain, but that is not the way I would like to do it.
Both myself and my brother have been a lot fitter in the past when we had more time to exercise more regularly, esp. bike riding. I have been trying to find more time to get more exercise, and keep the food intake down, with my mother's history in mind. I am way fitter than she was, and than most people my age, so I am at least on the right side of things.
It seems my family has to really watch the food intake AND keep up the exercise., more so than others.
it was your response
That I saw as a bit of an over-reaction.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Ah, a step in the right direction (save for germs/bathing)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Oh don't get me wrong. I agree it is totally weird. But I support the right of people to be weird. There is a ton of shit people do that I think is weird. Like using meth, body modification, playing quidditch etc. Just because it is weird is not enough reason for it to be illegal. And eating meat is only murder if you actually kill the person, if they are already dead then it isn't murder.
As for murdering the poor little animals, well I don't need to get along with a society of cows so see no rational reason why murdering them would be wrong. Despite Blakes best efforts I still don't see why a rational social contract can't include (and from my point of view rationally should include) solely humans. It is to our best interest to get along with humans who can greatly improve our lives and it is clearly in our best interest to live in a society where we more or less get along with other humans. A cow or pig on the other hand has nothing to offer us except as a food source or perhaps an emotional attachment as a pet.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I applaud your libertarian view in regard to personal autonomy even to the point of supporting behavior that you find unappealing. My "meat is murder" quip was thrown out more as sarcasm, not being serious.
Mr Meiwes actually did kill his willing victim. Total consensus between both parties. The killing was an extended process ( penis removed first, sampled by both ) and the victim functioned as an active participant until he succumbed to blood loss, shock.... Murder ? I'm not sure since the victim or "victim" willingly forfeited his life. The lethal outcome was in accordance with his wishes. Like I said, Weird.
Anyway, Meiwes was criminally charged for his peculiar eating disorder. In one regard Meiwes simply fulfilled a contract between himself and the person he partially consumed. I'm just wondering how many violent crimes are predicated upon mutal consent between the perpetrator and his victim ?
Lastly, speaking as a person who acknowledges to have a very misanthropic perspective toward humanity in general, I paradoxically still find the practice of human cannibalism to be repugnant. My reasons, sufficient or insufficient, are that it reduces a human to the most basic, elemental , pedestrian function. The flesh of a former companion is now nothing more than a tool. A tool in the sense that toilet paper is also a tool used to clean your ass.
So we don't disagree at all...........dang.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
We are not omnivores actually. There is proof to back this up.. I am going to go into detail and i know i am coming in late on this forum but the real facts are
1. We can not eat raw or rotting flesh like carnivores
2. our intestinal track is not as short as a carnivores, making the meat sit in our small intestines much longer causing problems
3. our teeth are not like carnivore's in the least bit. we do have k9s but as you can obviously see not the ones tigers have to rip into flesh.
nothing about us says carnivorous it was a survival technique that stuck around but we born to munch the veggies...
Are you @#*%#% kidding me?? OF COURSE the animal cares if you want to kill him or not!!
If you pick up an axe and go after an animal with the intent to kill him the animal is going to either run away or fight back. By trying to get away from the axe and save its life he's making his feelings VERY clear. He wants you to put down the axe and he doesn't want to die so the animal does care VERY MUCH how you feel i.e. that you don't want to kill him!!
Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com
Websters: 1 : feeding on both animal and vegetable substances
We eat plants and animals. Ergo, we are omnivores.
We don't eat raw flesh for the main reason that the bacteria etc. will make us sick. That is why we don't eat it. Other animals eat it from the time they're born, so they develop a resistance to the bacteria, but they still get sick.
Many if not most carnivores do not eat rotting flesh. They eat it right after they kill it so it is fresh. Less bacteria. Lower chance of getting sick
Never heard of sushi?
You are grossly overgeneralizing.
Our teeth are not like carnivores' because we're not carnivores. Our teeth are like omnivores.
We have incisors, canines, and molars. That is not unexpected of an omnivore.
Having larger canines doesn't necessarily mean that you're a carnivore. Gorillas have some of the largest canines of any primate, and they are essentially herbivores because canines aren't used just for eating.
"Nothing about us says carnivorous?" What does that even mean? How about the fact that we eat meat? Does that say carnivorous?
We are not "born to" do anything. You are implying a naturalistic fallacy.
Why do carnivores eat meat? Because it was a survival technique that stuck around. It's called natural selection.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Steak tartare and carpaccio are also examples of raw meat dishes that many of us consume. I actually prefer my meat raw in many cases but because of bacteria concerns you do want to be careful of how the meat is handled. The reason we get sick is few people eat their meat fresh, it is usually stored for a period of time. Many animals you could eat it raw on the spot at a fresh kill with little fear of getting sick. When eating old meat you run a danger of getting sick, but so does any other predator.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The best argument against us being herbivores is the stomach anatomy. We have simple stomachs like all the other omnivores and carnivores. The reason why we "pass" plants faster is because we're not equipped to break down fiber like a cow is for example (ruminant stomachs have microbes specifically for breaking down fiber). We don't have complex stomachs like cows, sheep, goats etc.
Oh and we eat meat and plants.... that's another good argument against us being herbivores.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Sigh. In the Swedish Chef accent:
"Here is the duck and here is the duck pressor!"
Okay, ducks are not Muppets. I have raised ducks, geese, chickens and turkeys. They will run from you. They will run even if you have nothing in your hands. They will run away if you walk down the opposite side of the fence. And no, I didn't mistreat them and I only ate the duck eggs - which they laid any old where and completely ignored. They only come to you if they see food in your hands. It is called survival - running is safer than hanging around to see what that giant animal intends to do. "If it is bigger than you - run. If it is smaller than you - eat it. If it is the same size - mate with it." Some animal brains are pretty simple. Try not to anthropormophize.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
What? I'm guessing you mis-read what I wrote.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
And at the same time, if something shows the outward signs of fear, the brain reactions of fear, and isn't biologically different from human, there isn't any reason to think what they are experiencing is any different from what we do, is there?
Although I will agree I doubt chickens are smart enough to tell an axe equals bad news. If you came in with an axe half the time and killed a chicken, and the other half you brought food...well, bad example, they'd just be terrified all the time but I'd be terrified all the time too in their situation.
I *doubt* they are smart enough to understand the significance of an axe though. They do understand the body-language of pursuit though.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yea we do!!!
Do not!
Do to!
Do not!
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
During my tour in France, I had really trouble explaining French people that we Czechs fry the meat before eating. They even misled me, said that cooked steak is said á point, which I did and the thing was far from being done. (maybe for them) The correct word, which nobody in France ever uses, is bien cuite, repeated at least three times loudly.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I had to hunt through a lot of stuff to find anything remotely like a valid source. Most people romantisize and anthropomorphize other creatures. I am not saying these creatures do not have feelings, can not feel fear, or anger, or some other emotion. What I am saying is they do not feel like a human does. They simply don't have the brain capacity to have the complex and long lasting emotions people have.
When an animal - chicken, duck, whatever - runs from you, it is because they are not habituated to you. They don't know you and you might be a threat. Better to run and be safe than to not run and be dead. They can discriminate between a person with food and a person without food. I fed the same ducks twice or three times a day for two years. As I said, I never tried to grab them or make any threatening moves any time I was in their yard. They still ran away if I didn't have food in my hands.
The geese were more intelligent than the ducks and chickens. Turkeys - the domesticated ones anyway - were way less intelligent than the other birds. I tried to make pets of the geese, hand feeding them, holding them when young, and so on. No dice. If you want a pet of a bird, they have to imprint on you right when they hatch. Otherwise, you are always a big predator to them.
Which says a lot about their capacity to form attachments. They form attachments for their own kind. Geese stay with the same mate for many seasons unless that mate dies and then they find another mate. Do they mourn? Not like you or I mourn. They have a brain not much larger than a peanut. They just don't have enough neurons to get there from here.
Do I eat goose? Very rarely - it is darn expensive around here. And never one that I have known. Turkeys, chickens - no problem. They don't have enough personality to tell one identical bird from another. The only way humans can tell them apart is if they are different colors. If a person thinks they can tell two Barred Rock chickens apart, I would be interested in some sort of blind test. And I would bet the results would be no better than flipping a coin.
Now parrots - that is very different.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
See my response to Luminon. They run from you even if you have never made a threatening move around them, even if you feed them 2-3 times a day.
It isn't exactly fear but more like panic. Blind, unreasoning, panic.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
That almost makes it worse, doesn't it? Lol. Poor chickens.
Story time:
I'm a clumsy bastard. When I was a kid I was even worse, I couldn't hit a barn with a baseball from ten feet. One time, when I was maybe six years old I had some cousins over and we were running around like hellions. I asked my mom what was for dinner and she didn't have anything on yet, and I asked her if I could go kill a chicken. She said, sarcastically, sure, why don't you go do that. Now, I didn't hear that as sarcasm, I heard that as, "Go kill a chicken, young mighty hunter!"
So, the three of us run outside looking for chickens. We spot one, clucking around minding it's own business, maybe forty feet away. I pick up a rock and, without any hope of hitting the chicken, take a toss at it. BAM, right in the head. I was terribly impressed with myself. The chicken, less so.
Now, the chicken isn't dead, it is just stunned. So the three of us grab this poor chicken flopping around in the field and grab the wood axe and whack it's head off. Again, terribly impressed, and again, not so much for the chicken. Mind you, we're 5-6 years old here. Axes. Throwing rocks. Blood everywhere. The humanity.
So, chicken finishes the running around spraying blood everywhere and I run in to the house, proudly shouting to my mom that we killed a chicken for dinner. She was not pleased. She said she didn't really mean for me to kill a chicken but I didn't believe her (not understanding sarcasm, I was very insistent that she had, indeed, told me to kill a chicken). I was very upset that I was in trouble for being such a good boy.
So fast forward a few hours. We're eating the toughest chicken I've had in my life (I did not, unfortunately, kill a young and tender beast but waste not, want not, right?) and I'm sitting at the table weeping wildly at the injustice of life.
Good times.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I am now 5 IQ points dumber for reading the latest posts here...
Didn't know IQ could go negative...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Ha! Neither did I...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Lol, it reminds me of the movie 'Billy Madison' with Adam Sandler trying to answer "Mr. Madison, the Industrial Revolution changed the face of the modern novel forever. Discuss, citing specific examples." And he goes on a rant about "The puppy who lost his way"
The answer to his rant was :
"Mr. Madison, what you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. "
Lol
That answer should be the token response to most theist's posts BTW.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc