Meat eating might have made us human, sorry peta/vegetarians. Not.
Offline Anthropologist Finds Evidence of Hominin Meat Eating 1.5 Million Years Ago: Eating Meat May Have 'Made Us Human'
ScienceDaily (Oct. 3, 2012) — A skull fragment unearthed by anthropologists in Tanzania shows that our ancient ancestors were eating meat at least 1.5 million years ago, shedding new light into the evolution of human physiology and brain development.
"Meat eating has always been considered one of the things that made us human, with the protein contributing to the growth of our brains," said Charles Musiba, Ph.D., associate professor of anthropology at the University of Colorado Denver, who helped make the discovery. "Our work shows that 1.5 million years ago we were not opportunistic meat eaters, we were actively hunting and eating meat."
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
The fragment belonged to a 2-year-old child and showed signs of porotic hyperostosis associated with anemia. According to the study, the condition was likely caused by a diet suddenly lacking in meat.
"The presence of anemia-induced porotic hyperostosis…indicates indirectly that by at least the early Pleistocene meat had become so essential to proper hominin functioning that its paucity or lack led to deleterious pathological conditions," the study said. "Because fossils of very young hominin children are so rare in the early Pleistocene fossil record of East Africa, the occurrence of porotic hyperostosis in one…suggests we have only scratched the surface in our understanding of nutrition and health in ancestral populations of the deep past."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121004093508.htm
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The fact meat eating was possibly important in the past does not make it vital today, and therefore torturing animals just as capable of suffering as you for no important reason still makes you a preposterous asshole. Sorry meat eating cunts. Not.
While it may be true that many people could not eat after spending time at a slaughter house, being a hypocrite doesn't make one a monster. If you are going to ask me to give up on stakes or burgers, blow me.
Humans have always eaten animals, I do not see that part of our evolution ending anytime soon. Especially with people like you acting just as utopian and fundy as a believer.
Your attitude is just as stupid as when other atheists think they can use force to end religion. Just as stupid as a Muslim threatening others to submit.
7 billion people, and we all eat different things including animals. That is reality so get over yourself and stop acting like a brat when other people don't conform to your ideals. The real world is not centered around your narcissism and delusions of grandure. People are not always going to do what you like or what you want. If someone were forcing you to eat animals, by gunpoint, then you'd have a case. Since they are not, do your own thing and STFU up and stop acting like a judgmental prick.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Paying people to torture animals for your petty taste pleasures is what makes you an asshole, or a monster as you put it. Whether you can personally stand the sight of the shit that happens because of you is irrelevant and I made no such argument.
Men have always raped women, I do not see that part of our evolution ending anytime soon. Especially with people like you acting just as utopian and fundy as a believer.
Right, because me making an argument on the internet is the same thing as some muslim blowing you up.
7 billion people and we all fuck different things including children.
How about you make an argument instead of just stating pointless facts?
I'm really not gonna stop arguing against fucking children or anything else I see as immoral just because some cunt on the internet calls me a brat.
Right, since no one's forcing me to rape women, I can't argue that it's wrong for others to do so. Grow a brain.
Ok there hypocrite who tortures plants. Go fuck yourself.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I was curious if there was a link to the rest of this particular article ?
I was curious as to how meat eating affected the development of our early brains and if these proteins are needed in the development of present day brains.
Just wondering, with the advent of more developed societies and the advent of agricultures and grainaries, if humans had evolved past that essential need, or if the article addresses that ? I know I could probably look it up. But I wouldn't know where to begin.
EDIT : The reason that I ask is because I know a few people that are vegetarian for what they call "health reasons" vs. people like my girlfriend ( not that she is a PETA member or anything) but does it out of a sense of ethics about animal welfare.
I just wondered about the health reasons of not eating meat and what those motivating factors are.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
The original release:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-10/uocd-afe100312.php
Journal Reference:
Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo, Travis Rayne Pickering, Fernando Diez-Martín, Audax Mabulla, Charles Musiba, Gonzalo Trancho, Enrique Baquedano, Henry T. Bunn, Doris Barboni, Manuel Santonja, David Uribelarrea, Gail M. Ashley, María del Sol Martínez-Ávila, Rebeca Barba, Agness Gidna, José Yravedra, Carmen Arriaza. Earliest Porotic Hyperostosis on a 1.5-Million-Year-Old Hominin, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. PLoS ONE, 2012; 7 (10): e46414 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046414
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I second that.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
You are a nut case and proof that not even atheists are exempt from the same level of delusions as theists.
We are not the only species or even mamal who eats other animals. And rape in mamals is reacted to the same way by the female of that species. So equating eating habbits to rape is a stupid and childish non sequitor.
We are omnivors. We eat both plants and animals. If you don't want to no one is forcing you to. But you are a fucking nut case if you think eating animals is always wrong. But good luck trying to convince humanity, I am sure you will have as much luck stopping that as a theist has in proving their god exists.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I stayed away from a certain thread, what is going on here ? This isnt one of the members of the FBIs watch list, the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the United States (their words). During the past several years, however, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), and related extremists, has emerged as a serious domestic terrorist threat. Special interest terrorism differs from traditional right-wing and left-wing terrorism in that extremist special interest groups seek to resolve specific issues, rather than effect widespread political change. Such extremists conduct acts of politically motivated violence to force segments of society, including the general public, to change attitudes about issues considered important to the extremists’ causes. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement only becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF and related groups have committed more than 1,100 criminal acts in the United States since 1976, resulting in damages conservatively estimated at approximately $110 million. The ALF, established in Great Britain in the mid-1970s, is a loosely organized extremist movement committed to ending the abuse and exploitation of animals. The American branch of the ALF began its operations in the late 1970s. Individuals become members of the ALF not by filing paperwork or paying dues, but simply by engaging in "direct action" against companies or individuals who, in their view, utilize animals for research or economic gain, or do some manner of business with those companies or individuals. "Direct action" generally occurs in the form of criminal activity designed to cause economic loss or to destroy the victims' company operations or property. The extremists’ efforts have broadened to include a multi-national campaign of harassment, intimidation and coercion against animal testing companies and any companies or individuals doing business with those targeted companies. Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is one such company. The “secondary” or “tertiary” targeting of companies which have business or financial relationships with the target company typically takes the form of fanatical harassment of employees and interference with normal business operations, under the threat of escalating tactics or even violence. The harassment is designed to inflict increasing economic damage until the company is forced to cancel its contracts or business relationship with the original target. Internationally, the best example of this trend involves Great Britain’s Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) organization, a more organized sub-group within the extremist animal rights movement. SHAC has targeted the animal testing company HLS and any companies with which HLS conducts business. While the SHAC organization attempts to portray itself as an information service or even a media outlet, it is closely aligned with the ALF and its pattern of criminal activities – many of which are taken against companies and individuals selected as targets by SHAC and posted on SHAC’s Internet website.
This is the law abiding type with an ax to grind, not the secret member of something you'd have to worry of ? Correct ?
"This is the law abiding type with an ax to grind, not the secret member of something you'd have to worry of ? Correct ?"
One would hope. The ridiculous statements make one wonder though.
For one thing, most animals raised for food are not tortured at all. When cases involving torture arise, the culprits are always punished.
For another, there is absolutely no correlation between rape and diet.
For another, vegan diets cause more damage to the environment than healthy, balanced diets.
And finally, there's never been an accurate or supported argument against eating meat, but plenty of supporting evidence to continue doing so.
I have to say all vegans are dangerous idealogues equivalent to evangelical religious people. Marginalising them is to the best interest of the species.
Which is not to say they are completely wrong. When peta first hit the stage they showed the world a brutal truth of common torture and inhumane practices. But that was decades ago, and the only supporting materials they show
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
today are the exact same clips filmed in the '80s. Hell, peta themselves uthanise more animals than many slaughterhouses. They've become a dangerous joke.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
How so ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I would agree on that one. Some of PETA's practices are just downright creepy.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Soy bean crops take up much more space and exhaust the soil exponentially faster than grasses for grazing animals (which I'll admit is no longer common practice to use, but it should be). Forests all over the place are being cut down for a crop that, for the most part, only vegans consume.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yeah, torturing nonsentient things is like totally possible and stuff. If this was my first time discussing this I might be surprised at how pathetic the arguments of you people are but this is the same drivel you get from all meat eaters so unfortunately it's not even entertaining anymore.
Funny how you're unable to point those delusions out if they're so glaring, ain't it?
And we should emulate other mammals? This is the argument? If monkeys throw shit then I can toss some into your window too? Pathetic.
The comparison between rape and "eating habits" (that really is a hilarious term to use, it's like calling gang violence socializing habits) is perfectly valid when both are essentially one asshole imposing great suffering on another for it's own trivial pleasures. If there's an ethically relevant difference between the two then it's your job to point out what that is instead of just declaring it's stupid because you said so.
Actually if you look at us physiologically we're pretty squarely in the herbivore category, but it doesn't really have a damn thing to do with ethics as long as we can survive on plants, which we can, no matter how inconvenient that little fact happens to be to you torture justifying scumbags.
We fuck both adults and children. If you don't want to no one is forcing you to. But you are a fucking nut case if you think fucking children is always wrong. But good luck trying to convince humanity, I am sure you will have as much luck stopping that as a theist has in proving their god exists.
Small addition real quick: Even if plants had a welfare to consider (as retarded as that idea is) meat eating would still be worse than the alternative because producing meat means feeding the animals a fuckton of plants.
"Yeah, torturing nonsentient things is like totally possible and stuff. "
Prove plants aren't sentient and animals are. You'll be the first.
Also, we are squarely in the omnivore category. Only ignorant people claim otherwise. Our entire digestive system is based on consumption of meat AND produce. So are our teeth, and liver, and pancreas, and brain.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Something they do anyway, making your argument irrelevant.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I had not heard about that before. Interesting.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Absolute nonsense, the biggest use of soy is FEEDING ANIMALS so congratulations on shooting yourself in the foot.
Yeah, cutting pigs testicles off isn't torture, no sirree.
This is absolutely hilarious. You think someone out there has the time to monitor the treatment of the BILLIONS of animals butchered annually? Not to mention the routine treatment and conditions themselves are worthy of being called torture ofc.
Who the fuck said anything about correlation between the behaviours? It's called an analogy, deal with it.
I'd sure love some proof on this.
I'd sure love to hear some of these arguments for eating meat too (specifically the ethical kind, though I doubt you'll be providing evidence of it being superior in any other way either).
Yeah it's so dangerous not to torture animals.
Lol, and you think something's changed significantly? Why don't you provide some footage of a big factory farm treating their animals ethically? Btw ain't it funny how they don't tend to let anyone film within their little torture chambers so we rely on hidden camera footage to see what's going on?
I don't know much about PETA but if anything's a joke it's calling what they do in slaughterhouses euthanasia, they don't kill the animals for the animals' benefit. If PETA euthanises animals rather than...well, I don't really even care what the alternative is exactly, propably shoving them in a shelter, then I'd say that's great.
We know what makes (certain) animals sentient and we know plants lack those parts. This is just as retarded as asking me to prove a rock isn't sentient. Btw it's hilarious a fucking atheist is asking me to prove something doesn't exist, I was wrong in thinking this discussion can't get entertaining.
Hello Manageri
You must have a hell of a time shopping, I mean, I have bought purely 'Vegan meals' and even in A NEAR BY TOWN that is an actual ex-hippy enclave, it is pure murder trying to buy vegan means, even there. It's not my all around diet but I do know shopping is made extra-difficult. You have to be reading every ingredient listed on the food labels (with your diet). I have two vegetarian meatloaf in my freezer I thought about bringing out tomorrow and I 'noticed' they used 'egg-whites' as binders, it was actual listed pretty high up in the list on the food label. So, What do you go by ?
"Absolute nonsense, the biggest use of soy is FEEDING ANIMALS so congratulations on shooting yourself in the foot."
Learn to read. If, as I stated, we still fed animals grasses, there wouldn't be any soy used for animals. Nor wheat or corn or anything else that is produced for humans. Unless you eat grass?
Ever see a lawn exhaust the soil? Didn't think so.
"Yeah, cutting pigs testicles off isn't torture, no sirree."
Actually it isn't. We even do it to people.
"You think someone out there has the time to monitor the treatment of the BILLIONS of animals butchered annually?"
More bullshit. As if only one person has to inspect every facility. Come back when you have an argument.
" It's called an analogy, deal with it."
It's called a failed analogy, deal with it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"I'd sure love some proof on this."
Whenever you decide to stop being willfully ignorant, google awaits you.
"I'd sure love to hear some of these arguments for eating meat too (specifically the ethical kind, though I doubt you'll be providing evidence of it being superior in any other way either)."
Ethics are subjective. And again, google awaits. Or you could ask a doctor. But it's quite apparent you have no interest in real information.
"Yeah it's so dangerous not to torture animals."
Not torturing animals isn't the goal of these terrorist organisations. They can do that without ever leaving their homes and spouting idiotic lies. Instead they leave their homes and spout idiotic lies.
"Why don't you provide some footage of a big factory farm treating their animals ethically? "
Why don't YOU show one that isn't treating them humanely, that isn't from the 80's, and didn't get shut down.
Otherwise shut your fool mouth.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"I don't know much about PETA"
All that mattered from that pointless and uninformed paragraph.
"We know what makes (certain) animals sentient and we know plants lack those parts. "
And you know they don't have analogous systems how? Just because a plant can't make audio communication or blink puppydog eyes at you, you assume it to be an unfeeling organism. Unfortunately for you, plants have been observed to flee predators and responsd to various other stimulae, so again you haven't the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about.
Typical vegan idiot.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You implied most soy is consumed by vegans. I merely pointed out that is absolute bullshit, so how about you learn to read, and while you're at it learn not to pull ridicilous claims outta your ass that a 10 second google search will prove to be nonsense.
Whether we don't actually need to feed animals soy is irrelevant to the fact we do, and that it's your meat eater diet causing the vast majority of that enviromental damage you were trying to dump on the lap of vegans because you don't actually have any fucking clue what you're talking about.
This is your honest argument? Cutting off body parts without anesthesia isn't torture? It really is pathetic the gymnastics you need to resort to in order to defend meat eating.
Right, as if I was literally implying one person has to do it all? Come back when you wanna have an argument rather than nitpick words (knowing you that ain't gonna happen).
Since you're such a pedantic cunt, fine, I'll rephrase: Do you think the PEOPLE in charge of monitoring that shit actually have time (or interest tbh) to ensure any kind of decent treatment for all those animals?
Your declaration of fail is fail. Is this how you wanna "argue". How about explaining WHY it fails? Radical, I know.
"The info is out there, trust me" is not an argument.
Ah yes, of course it's subjective when it comes to you having to sacrifice something, but when someone treats you badly then it's an outrage. The pain of the pig is irrelevant, but the inconvenience of you having to eat something else is just horrible. Gotcha. Typical convenient subjectivist assholery.
As for the health issue, if you have evidence that eating meat offers some health benefit that can't be done with a vegan diet, you're free to present it.
Yeah, equate all vegans with terrorists, bravo. You really an incredible little cunt of a weasel. Oh and since you conveniently (yet unsurprisingly) failed to address it, do explain how veganism is in fact dangerous, or were you just pulling stuff outta your ass again?
I can show you plenty but you'll just assert it's old and it doesn't happen anymore (even though the shit happening still isn't illegal), or that the place got shut down (like I'm supposed to find out where the footage is from exactly and whether it's still in business), or that it's an isolated incidence (even though no one in the industry denies that brutal practices like castration without any pain relief are routine), or yadayadayada.
You know god can't poop universes how? Since you conveniently left it out I'll say it again: You're asking me to prove a negative EXACTLY LIKE HOW THEISTS EXPECT US TO PROVE GOD CAN'T EXIST. We have evidence of exactly one kind of sentience and it involves a brain. Plants do not have such an apparatus, and therefore assuming they somehow still have sentience is nothing but a convenient bit of faith on your part. Except that it really isn't all that convenient since plant sentience would still support veganism as that way you don't have to feed a pig like ten times more food in plant form than the pig will produce for you as meat, but since you're such a clueless jackass who hasn't actually thought about or researched this subject seriously you kinda missed that.
As for plants "fleeing predators" or moving towards the light and such, none of that behaviour can't be explained by chemistry etc, it does not require sentience.
Well shopping really is the most annoying part of veganism, giving up the animal products wasn't that difficult for me once I knew how they're produced. There aren't a lot of ready meals for vegans (at least here in Finland, I'm sure there's a wider selection in big cities in the US etc) so basically being vegan means you gotta do a bit more actual cooking yourself. Reading labels is annoying but it gets easier over time as you'll start to remember what's vegan and what isn't. There are also helpful sites that list vegan products for you so you know what to look for when hunting a specific kinda product.
"You implied most soy is consumed by vegans"
In a specific context. You don't get points for removing that context. You lose points for being an idiot and making up strawmen.
"This is your honest argument? Cutting off body parts without anesthesia isn't torture? It really is pathetic the gymnastics you need to resort to in order to defend meat eating."
This is your argument? A practice that reduces overpopulation and makes animals less aggressive to themselves and to people, hence safer, is torture? Rofl. The mental gymnastics you vegans go through...
"Right, as if I was literally implying one person has to do it all? "
You didn't imply it, you stated it outright. Fucking idiot.
"Your declaration of fail is fail. Is this how you wanna "argue". How about explaining WHY it fails? Radical, I know."
Already did. Time to go back to alerting you about that reading problem you have.
"The info is out there, trust me" is not an argument."
Fortunately that wasn't my argument. Yet another strawman.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Ah yes, of course it's subjective when it comes to you having to sacrifice something"
No, ethics are subjective, PERIOD.
The rest of that particular paragraph was SURPRISE another strawman.
"Yeah, equate all vegans with terrorists, bravo. You really an incredible little cunt of a weasel"
Right back at ya loser. And I explained enough of it already. You've more than sufficiently proven your complete and willfull ignorance. I'm not going to waste my time digging up links you won't even read when google is at your fingertips.
" can show you plenty but you'll just assert it's old "
Translation: All I have to back up my arguments is video from the 80's.
"You're asking me to prove a negative "
By jove he kinda gets it. $20 says he'll continue torturing plants and asserting they can't feel shit despite this admission.
"As for plants "fleeing predators" or moving towards the light and such, none of that behaviour can't be explained by chemistry etc, it does not require sentience."
Reread the definitions of
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
sentience and see how stupid you are:
Definition of SENTIENT [Mirriam-Webster]
1
: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2
: aware
3
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling
By definitions 1, 2, and 3 (only possible exception being consciousness, which you cannot prove they don't have), plants are as sentient as we. Your stupid rebuttal on chemical reactions could as easily be applied to all life, and is hysterically funny.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yes, you got me. We should throw shit at each olther. Oh and while you are at it, since you don't believe in a god, that must mean there is nothing stopping you from murdering right?
Your moral absolutism is astoundingly childish and just as utopian as theist.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I've responded to everything remotely resembling an argument from you while you refuse to deal with mine, so I really have no more patience for your weasely deflections. I mean I've explained twice now why plant sentience would in fact be an argument for veganism and you refuse to touch that argument with the proverbial ten foot pole. Anyone with any intellectual honesty can see through your bullshit so I'm done with you.
EDIT: brian posted stuff while I was writing this so I gotta clarify that this was aimed at Vastet.
Yeah, having some standards is absolutism. Is throwing rapists in jail "absolutism" too? Do explain the significant ethical difference in detail please.
For someone in a prior post who objected to me using the word "moster" discribing your word usage and then say "I wasn't calling you a monster". You are the epitomy of hypocrite.
I do happen to think rapists are monsters. So if you think eating animals is eqivilent to rape which you seem to, be fucking consistant and call me a monster.
It is childish to equate eating animals to rape. Grow the fuck up, or put your money where your mouth is, and don't simply stop at calling me an asshole, call me a monster. If you are going to use moral absolutism then be consistant.
You have the same fucking problem theists do. You simply have a different superstition, the superstition that the world should conform to you in all contexts to be considered moral.
The reality you don't want to face is that where humans fuck up mentally in their logic, no matter what subject matter they get a boner for, is that morals CANNOT be absolute. If they were then women would not be able to vote and blacks would still be slaves.
Mamals of all species have a variety of eating habits, including humans. Not because of your personal desires or predilections, but because of EVOLUTION. Your mistake which is causing you to act like a foaming lunitic is trying to put yourself above nature, instead of accepting yourself as merely one species in nature and evolution.
When you talk about treatment of animals that can be talked about in case by case situtations. But your moral absolutism is a mundane utopian trap on par with religios delusions. Grow up, life does not revolve arround your personal desires.
Solutions are not born out of utopias. Solutions are not born out of throwing fits like a child when others don't conform to you. People eat animals, get the fuck over it. The only argument you can make is HOW we can treat them better, but you are not going to stop it as an outright ban.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Might as well aim that at me because his op IS stating a fact of evolution and I agree with him. And you will find on any subject many here, and I might argue most here are not moral absolutists and everything to most here is a case by case basis.
So you are not going to get far with most here. Our problem with you isn't your good intent, our problem is with you is the same as one word one solution wich is no different than political or religious cures being "one size fits all".
So run away kiddy, because burrying your head in a utopia solution that wont happen is much more cofmorting to you than actually dealing with the world the way it is. You make your pet issue the focus and that is where you make a mistake. Your moral absolitism is applied the same "my way or the highway" as any theist, you just merely have a boner for a differnt topic.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yes, torturing animals for your taste pleasure is essentially no different ethically than torturing women for your sexual pleasure (plus all that other crazy shit that goes on in the heads of some rapists), so if you want to apply the label monster to rapists then I have zero problem calling you a monster.
No problem, you're a monstrous asshole. Happy now?
Right, and you don't expect the world to conform to the idea that we shouldn't allow rape? If some muslim fucknut rapes your mother are you gonna respect his fucking opinion on the ethics of rape? Somehow I get the feeling you'll be throwing your subjectivism out the window real fucking quick at that point.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. The reason women got the right to vote is not because the nature of ethics changed, it's because people realized they're being assholes. The fact women did not always have that right does not mean it was ethical to deny them that right, it simply means people were, once again, assholes/idiots and didn't get it that it's wrong to deny them that right.
I'm the guy saying other species are just as important and I'M the guy putting myself on a pedestal? Please. What I won't do is use the other retarded species as a guidebook on how to behave, unlike you fuckers (not that you really believe that, you just grab at whatever ad hoc straw you can reach in your desperate effort to find something to justify your assholery).
When you talk about throwing acid on womens' faces that can be talked about in case by case situtations. But your moral absolutism is a mundane utopian trap on par with religios delusions. Grow up, life does not revolve arround your personal desires.
Men rape women, get the fuck over it. The only argument is how can we treat them better while raping them, but an all out ban on rape is just ludicrous.
So the fuck what? I already responded to the idiotic shit in the OP. The fact something might HAVE BEEN imporant IN THE PAST does not mean it's necessary ANYMORE.
Did I deny the fact meat eating might have played a role in the direction of our evolution? No, I didn't, because it's fucking irrelevant to modern life so I don't care if people in the past ate a horse a day, and you're not gonna be able to make any rational argument either as to why that shit has anything to do with modern day ethics.
Good thing I'm not stupid enough to let the popularity of ideas inform my judgement then.
Your problem is the fact I'm pointing out you're being preposterous selfish assholes, and changing that would mean sacrificing something you like doing, so you resort to idiotic mush like calling me an absolutist when I declare something is wrong even though you do the exact same thing with other issues (such as rape). The only reason I bother with you fuckers is the hope that someone who isn't as willing to sweep their cognitive dissonance under the rug will read this and see how pathetic your arguments are.
That's right, just like your stance on rape and slavery is "my way or the highway" so I guess that makes you like a theist too.
That's because Vastet is pulling stuff out of his ass. It takes roughly 2.5 acres to graze a single cow for a year (obviously there is a lot of variance due to weather, area etc. but 2.5 is the general rule of thumb). The reason why grazing isn't common practice anymore except in certain areas out west and I wouldn't be surprised if it is practiced in parts of Canada is because it takes massive amounts of land. Grass is very inefficient and cattle have to eat a lot of it. Grass fed cattle also end up being lower weight and a leaner meat due to the diet and the extra exercise and therefore, fewer calories for human consumption.
Soy beans on the other hand have really high protein so a cow can get the necessary nutrients on far less soy. Generally, soy (or any other grain- soy beans are most often used to feed dairy cows, corn is generally preferred for beef cattle) is mixed with hay and other roughage and a little bit goes a long way. It is perfectly possible to feed a cow for a year using roughly one acre of land combining grain and hay. IOW, less than half the land you would need to graze. Many farmers around here do a combination where they partially graze because land that is too rocky or has soil that is too poor for crops can provide a cheap supplemental food source for the cattle, but there is nowhere near enough land for the cattle to survive on grazing alone.
It is also true that the largest use of soy beans is livestock feed with over 30 million tons of soybeans used as livestock feed each year. And even the soy used for human consumption, products like tofu, soy milk and vegan stuff is pretty insignificant. Soybean oil is by far the most common oil used in the US and soybeans account for 56% of world oil production. When you buy "vegetable oil" chances are it is mostly soybean oil. Although, with the recent hyperventilating over transfats the popularity of soybean oil has dropped a little.
Vegan consumption of soybeans remains a miniscule part of soybean consumption, they are hardly destroying the environment. However, Vastet does have some point in that if everyone in the world started eating tofu it would at the very least be wasteful because humans do not consume all of the soybean. Much of what is used as animal feed is the leftovers from producing human food. It would be rather inefficient to throw away all the soybean hulls when you could feed them to cattle and then eat the cattle too. On the other hand, feeding cattle premium soybeans would also be very wasteful since you would be feeding cattle nutrient rich calories they don't need. So it isn't exactly a choice between feeding a soybean to a human or to an animal since most of the time we eat different parts of the same soybean. Eat what you want, whether you eat vegan, balanced or carnivorous it does not make a significant difference to the environment. The market will redistribute any waste from your diet to others who want it. And farmers will find the most efficient way to translate their land into calories for you because farmers are greedy sobs that want every penny they can squeeze out of the land.
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
Listen asshole. I don't eat lobster ir crab because they handcuff them and pile them up on each other. I also don't like hunting. But those are my personal predilections, not shit I dictate on others like the childish prick you are acting like.
If you want to make an argument for more human treatment, that is one thing. But you are a fucking fool if you think all 7 billion people are going to stop eating animals. The world does not revolve around you our your personal utopian delusions.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Are cosmetic and fragrance products on the list of Vegan things as well ?
Reason I am asking is because those two products seem to be the main target of a whole lot of animal rights activists here.
I am not sure how much animals play a part in the manufacture of these products, but there must be something to it, if it attracts that much attention here.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Tying little lobster claws together is unacceptable but removing teeth from pigs without any form of pain relief is fine. You can't pile crabs on top of each other but tossing live cows on top of each other in the back of the truck (to get as many of em to the slaughterhouse at once and save money) is totally fine. Brilliant logic there.
Oh and btw how often would you realistically eat shit like lobsters anyway? Kind of a convenient "sacrifice" ain't it?
If you want to make an argument for more humane rape , that is one thing. But you are a fucking fool if you think all 7 billion people are going to stop raping women. The world does not revolve around you or your personal utopian delusions.
It's funny how I've done that like three times already but you keep trying with the same silly argument. There's no need to get everyone to agree anyway, every person going vegan means less demand for meat. There isn't even a need to get everyone aboard to stop the practice altogether, all we need in a democracy is a majority.
Yes, luckily I don't need to worry about that shit as much as a dude. What's mostly been protested is the practise of testing cosmetics on animals (it's often even nonvegans doing the protesting), which has been succesful in getting some companies to stop that, but the vast majority of that stuff is also nonvegan on account of containing animal based ingredients.
There were several major companies that were targeted on the account of that. I can't remember which ones. But some of the vegans that I know of have put out a lot of protests against those practices.
Another major protest is laboratory testing and experiments on animals for medical research.
Some protestors state that some of this laboratory testing in the name of "medical research" has been abused and misused.
What is your opinion on any sort of laboratory testing for medical research ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I have responded to and completely refuted every single brainless and ignorant claim you've made. Feel free to continue to delude yourself while the rest of us laugh at your absolute stupidity.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
@ Beyond
You're the one pulling shit out of his ass. Grazing land is never exhausted, while soy exhausts the land within a few crops. So it really doesn't matter if grazing practices take up 5 times the space when the land can be used indefinitely, the feed costs absolutely nothing more than vitamin supplement, and the alternative is unused land incapable of growing a single bean within 2 - 5 years. Not to mention the pointlessness of feeding cows proteins just to get a bit more proteins from them, with a net loss of proteins.
Not to mention that lean meat is healthier for us.
You're also completely off on oil. Palm oil is literally 5 times more efficient a product, using far less space and providing far more oil per volume. The use of soy for oil is yet another pointless and flawed practice.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The only pragmatic argument people can make about animals is not stoping humans from eating them, they always have and that wont stop. You can only argue for more humane raising and more humane killing. You are NOT going to stop all 7 billion humans from eating animals.
Your childish guilt by association crap wont wash here. You are typing on a computer made by people who eat meat. You live in a country full of people who eat meat. The only 2 ways you are going to seperate yourself from things you don't like(ON ANY ISSUE) is to move to a deserted island or commit sucide(I wouldn't recomend either). So the only other option is to grow the fuck up and accept that reality includes things in life you don't like.
You have the same stupid and chidish view that the world should conform to you and it will not. Deal with life the way it is not the way you wish it could be. In a utopia Anjolina Jolie would be sucking my dick right now, but I'm not stalking her because the idea sounds nice.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well you can justify imposing those kindsa experiments on animals if it means curing some disease or whatever and hence preventing more suffering then you caused. Of course it's still disgusting that this is part of the price of life and a damn good thing to point to in the context of antinatalism but I won't go into that further here. Since I'm not a speciecist my position is that with the same logic it would also be justifiable to do the same testing on humans, which in many cases would mean less suffering imposed and hence be the more ethical choise since results produced on other species don't tend to work exactly the same way for humans (plus a human could actually communicate to the researchers about what's going on in their body and stuff).
The obvious problem is deciding who to test stuff on. I guess you can do stuff like let people reduce a prison sentence by volunteering for testing in some cases but obviously a ton of this kind of research is something no one will ever agree to so I dunno, pull people outta death row for starters? Being an antinatalist this really isn't my problem to solve since I'd say don't create the diseased person and you don't have to torture cures outta others either, so let the non-AN non-speciecists like Peter Singer wrestle with their cognitive dissonance trying to find an answer.
Actually that is something that I have thought about on a number of occasions.
Do the experiments on death row inmates.
I have also thought of it in these terms. Let's just say, I have terminal cancer, a cancer that is going to be fatal and nothing will stop it. I might consider volunteering for experimentation if I thought that it would cure all cancer. ( I would just want some kind of paperwork signed that if the experiment fucked up, that I would be euthanized on the spot).
I wonder if other people that were diagnosed would consider the same option. If the medical community thought that they might have a cure.
I too, have pondered whether or not the biology of a rabbit or ape is applicable to experimentation. Their bodies being much different than ours.
Plus I actually agree that a human being can report how they feel, can report the side effects that may not be observable to a rat in a cage.
I think the crux of a lot of the people that protested medical experimentation, was the argument that some of it was pointless ( i.e. like giving a rat access to pushing a button and doing heroin. Then letting it do heroin until it died. Or a case I heard of, where chemicals were sprayed in the eyes of certain creatures to see what would happen)
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
The pragmatism of something has nothing to do with whether it's ethical or not.
I'm pretty sure I stopped doing that.
I'm also pretty sure I've been able to argue for not doing it at all but who knows, maybe I'm just insane and the laws of physics really don't allow that and I've actually been writing about riding ponies this whole time.
Pretty sure no one's made such a preposterous claim. No one. Ever.
I don't know where you pulled this association thing from, you're pretty damn directly ordering the torture of more animals when you buy meat and you know it.
It's my fault they do that because I own this computer? I guess you can say I'm indirectly funding someone's meat eating by a miniscule amount by buying shit they make, but you can make that argument about anything, so if someone involved in the process of building your computer is a child molestor (which is statistically very much possible if you think about it) then you're now responsible for supporting raping children, congratulations.
You live in a country where countless poor morons vote republican and think that'll help them out economically, the question is so the fuck what?
Then why are you arguing politics with right wingers instead of fucking off to a desert island? Maybe to like possibly change shit for the better? Nooooo, that's just too silly, why would anyone wanna do that?
I hereby officially accept the fact assholes exist and I don't like it. Unfortunately for you this does nothing to change the fact I'm still gonna argue for veganism. Worth a try though I guess.
Well if I dealt with life pretending it's the way I want it to be then there wouldn't be any meat eating assholes around so why the fuck would I still be arguing for veganism then?
Luckily the fact she's not sucking your cock is not the cause for billions of creatures being tortured annually, or any other massive bunch of assholery, so I hope you'll excuse me if I don't email her demanding she gets her ass over to your house asap.
The problem is that our idiotic society won't allow it no matter how hard you volunteer, just like they won't euthanize you. Doctors in particular tend to be preposterous assholes if it's true what I heard a while back about most of them still being against euthanasia (by a higher margin than the general population even) despite the fact they witness all the horror stories themselves.
Yes, a lot of "medical" experimentation is fucking disgusting. If they did the same shit to humans people would wanna hang them by their balls. Dying from heroin might not actually suck though but I don't know the details.
LOL @ hypocrites condemning the practice of experimentation on animals only to suggest experimentation on animals.
Fucking terrorist scum.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.