Vegans and Vegetarians

willthescaryatheist
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-02-16
User is offlineOffline
Vegans and Vegetarians

I am vegan and I've seen a lot of support for being vegan. The problem is that almost the support I've seen is based on reasons like "god loves all his creations". But i want to know what some rational people choose to eat and why they choose that. So what are your opinions?


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Named wrote: Vegetarian

Named wrote:

Vegetarian out of compassion? Ha!
Be vegetarian for any number of reasons, and I will have no objection. You may simply not like the taste of meat - or perhaps your body has difficulty digesting it. So what? But COMPASSION? That is a fucking ridiculous reason not to eat meat.

Why are plants not entitled to the same "right to live" as animals? It's childish and naive, in my opinion. Life cannot exist without death. Being ALIVE is selfish, because it cannot be done without killing other organisms, directly or by the mere chance of you being alive in another potential being's prospective place.

The capacity to feel pain or be aware of one's existence are arbitrary excuses to value life. It's by no stretch of the imagination a RATIONAL justification to preserve one species yet mercilessly slay another. What it falls down to is that humans can relate more closely to an animal than to a plant. What it is is a primal form of discrimination and I truly believe it's pathetic.

Life is death and death is life. You can't defy that cycle.

Compassion in this sense of the word is an evolutionary weakness. If one is unwilling to survive by any means necessary, one is INFERIOR to the lifeforms which are. By this reasoning, vegetarians are inferior people and inferior living beings =)

Do you have compassion for humans?  Why?  Everything you've stated here would dismiss any claim that we should show compassion toward humans.

Yes, vegan/vegetarian morality is arbitrary to some degree, but in case you haven't noticed, the is-ought problem is a problem for ALL moral systems, not just vegan/vegetarianism.  And until it's resolved, ALL moral systems will be arbitrary to some degree.  Yes, that would include the just-as-arbitrary claim that only human suffering matters from a moral standpoint.

So in defense of veganism/vegetarianism, there is nothing wrong with holding to the principle that beings capable of suffering should not be made to unnecessarily suffer.  One can hold this view, and practice it consistently, and that is all you can ask out of any moral system.

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


TheAtheistPaladin
TheAtheistPaladin's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-16
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Quote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

 

Here's my standard diatribe:

Rights, liberties, freedoms, civility, etc. - are for the most part human domain. I will not claim, for example, that chimps do not exhibit empathetic behavior, they certainly do, and I use research and lines of evidence along such lines all the time in my own arguments with creationists. There is a demaracation line though.

 

The real question is "should we include animals in our moral sphere and how much? " And "what methods should we use in determining moral behavior?"

Quote:
To give animals equal rights or really any rights at all though, to me, seems unthinkable - for no animal is capable of understanding the responsibility and reciprocation involved in such an entity. A lion will not refrain from eating you if you grant it rights, and chimp won't refrain from ripping you limb from limb if you step between him and his mate or offspring, because you have rights.

It would be absurd to give animals the right to vote, for that would be equal rights. I do not think equal rights is the way to go but rather an equal consideration of interests. All animals that have a brain have an interest in avoiding pain and suffering.

Well, I don't think you're quite getting my point, but I'm going roll with what you've said for now. I, for the most part, agree that we should consider animals and their suffering - but I wouldn't say animals have "interests" per se or that we are obligated to treat animals as such by anything other than our own empathy.

I understood what you said. I just don't believe they have "rights". Only that we should consider their interest in avoiding pain. 

 

As I said earlier, its a Catch-22; we either say we're equal to animals and in such respect it is truly dog eat dog, or we must say that we have some sort of ethical obiligation to protect animals from ourselves.

 

Certainly we should protect them from us. If you knew only half of what is done to livestock, you should be appauled.

Personally, I think we fall in line with the latter, and I think we should be honest about that. Animals have the priveledges and clemency we grant them, and this is a subjective thing that changes as circumstances change. 

 

I would have no problem eating animal if it was NECESSARY to survive. I would argue its no longer necessary, there for no justification to do so.

Why do we feel more empathy toward chimps and sea otters vs. chickens and cows? The former tend to remind us of ourselves, the latter were bred for the table.

A sea otter is cute, a cow is baseball gloves and hamburgers. 

 

A dog, chimp, cow, otter.... their all the same to me. Maybe this based of your view. Well I do not share it.

Quote:
Quote:

Rights are a two way street. Rights cannot exist without the capacity to reciprocate them.

You can bring up exceptions like mentally handicapped humans. The simple fact of the matter is, if such people are not capable of responsibility and reciprocation of rights, they DON'T have the same rights as you and I may have. Clinically diagnosed pyromanics are not permitted to roam the streets at will, nor are people who would obviously be a danger to others or themselves. Rights are proportionate to the ability of the organism, human or otherwise, to respect them, understand them, and reciprocate them.

 

Moral behavior is along similar lines but empathy is the key. If you don't want other to inflict pain on you, then you don't do it to others. Why doesn't this sort of empathy apply to animals?

Because animals are incapable of granting us the same empathy. I've already pointed this out. 

Quote:
Regardless of werther or not they can reciprocate, I don't harm them unless in the context of self-defense.

 That's fine, but does little in the context of the argument. I have no problem with your personal views, it's your choice, only with your personal views as policy or moral edict.

Isn't all morallity a tool to avoid causing unnecessary pain? I find that factory farming does just that. If not eleminated, then it should most deffinetly change. Preferably, the test tube meat link I showed you.

Quote:
Quote:
Now, I do expect some sort of counter along the lines of "well we don't kill the retarded, simply because of this lack of understanding, so why are we entitled to kill animals who also do not understand." The thing is, I think it is simply natural to grant exceptions and clemency to one's own kind and own species - we've been conditioned to do so by billions of years of evolution. This is not an ethical argument (nor a naturualistic fallacy - I claim no "ought" here) it is a animalistic one, for after all, we are animals - and as the only animals who understand the concept of rights, we're simply the only animals who have them. I would think to argue against this, you would have to say that humans are superior in some capacity to other animals, which would probably lead you down a road you don't want to go. Either we're all animals and equal, so anything goes as far as survival goes, or we're somehow better than the other animals and have some sort of ambiguous moral obligation to save them from ourselves.

Quote:

Either avenue upholds the status quo.

Actually human beings are the only once to show empathy or clemency as you call it to there own injuired or disabled.

Actually, no we are not.

 

It would have been nice if you provided examples. So its not my word agaisnt yours issue. 

Quote:
However, holding your (our) own species above others is called specieism. It is as form of discrimination just like sexism or racism is. It is easy to use specieism against animals for they can not defend them-selfs. "Either we're all animals and equal, so anything goes as far as survival goes," Yes we're all are animals but I assert that we do not need meat for survival. I would go as far as that factory farming is harming the planet and making our meat unheathy by puting polutants in it.

And when a lion eats a human, it that specism?

No, it's nature.

That's the point.

And? This make it some how justifed for our actions? That we should up hold the "tradition".

We are conditioned evolutionarily to empathize MORE with our own than with other species. This carries over to other organisms, but it is a ONE WAY street. Moralistic arguements will always fail in this sense.

Yes, this is how we survived. Again, this doesn't justify the way it is today.

You could argue on utilitarian lines that eating meat may not be necessary (persoanlly, I think it is the only valid line of argumentation availabel), but humans do a LOT of things that are not necessary or utilitarian; and we'll have to look at any such argument in the scope of such. 

That may be, but I doubt that the other non-utilitarian actions has the same effect of pain for animals or effect on the evironment or health.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not claiming eating another animal is moral or immoral - I think it is A-moral.

If I were to expound personally, I honestly do not see any problem placing our species above others, that is exactly WHY we are still here. All species do it. It prompts the question that if there were a rodent or primate or insect species that threatened human survival, would we be justified in exterminating it? I think if you answer yes to that question, then you do understand where I'm coming from, at least in part.

 

It is not morally justifible to cause the suffering of animals just because we want to eat meat.

 Why not? Is it justifiable to use antibacterial soap? Is it justifiable to swat a fly? Is it justifiable to use a worm a bait? Is it justifiable to put out a mouse trap? Where is the demarcation line, and why? Is there any other justification than your "gut", than individual perceptions of empathy?

*chuckels under breath* Bacteria don't feel pain and they can negatively effect our health. Flys and the like pest also can effect negatively on our health. Worms as bait? No it is not justifible. LOL, I do not know of any fishing vegans... There are methods that can catch the rat alive but none the less they can effect negatively on health. You see a pattern? All the above is justifible (execpt the worm) for reasons of preserving health and survivel.

 

Quote:
Seeing that eating meat now is more luxury than nessesity, why contintue? Specially under the banner of specieism.

Why not continue? I find nothing wrong with "specieism" and have stated as such. All species are "specieist". That is simply the way of the world. I do not see how simply consuming another organism has any moral prediliclictions at alll.

This is more or less "lets keep the status quo" argument. However, when we consume meat it is a luxury. A luxury that causes alot of pain and suffering on animals that we eat.

Quote:
Quote:
We must also look at facts like; domestic cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, horses, etc, exist for the sole reason that we eat them or use them in other capacities and use their hides - same goes for domesticated pets. These animals were bred for the table or for our entertainment, they probably would have gone extinct or have been hunted to extinction (by us probably) long ago without us.

 

You more or less are comparing hunting vs. farming. But why is specieism are justification for such things?

It isn't. No moral justification is necessary. 

Quote:
Quote:
Then there is medical research. I've been involved personally with that myself in the past, and the blunt fact of the matter is that animals are excellent models to work on. The strides in medicine and drug development due to animal research is hard to deny (I've got a great story about being harrassed by animal rights protestors, btw if you want it) - this sort of goes back to my last point. Also, don't forget that this research also benefits animals in the end.

 

Indeed, animal research has done many great things. I find it as an necessary evil. But at the advent of new techonology I no longer see the need for animal testing.

 There will be a need for it for the conceivable future. Testing new drugs and surgical techniques on humans first is not something the majority of us are ready for.

Quote:
Quote:
I do think we should endeavor to avoid needless cruelty and suffering. I don't think any living thing should be subject to abject torture for our whims; the cat that toyed and tortured with a mouse on my porch for two hours last week doesn't share that sentiment.

The simple fact of the matter is, there IS a difference between humans and animals, regardless of how closely we are related.

Any sort of animal rights policy needs to start by acknowledging that first.

 

Indeed. But I find you final words as kinda contradictory for everything you been saying. We should end needless cruelty... the only difference is that you probly don't see factory farming as that.

I fail to see where I have contradicted myself.  

 

To support the eating of meat, you are undoubtely promoting the pain of main animals. However, you say that we should endeavor to end needless cruelty and suffering. Thats my point. Animal farming is needless cruelty and suffering.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
ChosenByPasta

ChosenByPasta wrote:
Vastet wrote:
To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on.

No, I don't think so. As others have said, it is best to have very little or no meat in your diet at all.

A load of unproven assertions.

ChosenByPasta wrote:
Everyone knows that "cholesterol" is the dirtiest of dirty words when it comes to diet.

Also untrue. Excess cholesterol is a problem, not cholesterol itself.

ChosenByPasta wrote:
As a joke sometimes I'll say: "If you were meant to eat meat then how come you werent born with an oven in your stomach?

That makes no sense. We need to cook meat because we've eaten it cooked for hundreds of generations. If we were made to eat vegetables why don't you have a garden in your hair? How does it explain eggs and fish?

ChosenByPasta wrote:
But yes, little meat and plenty of exercise will do you fine.

An all meat diet can be just as healthy as an all vegetarian diet if you want to eat a lot of pills and plan it right. Only a balanced diet of both, which we have evolved to subside from, is truly natural.

ChosenByPasta wrote:

The argument that vegetarians are hypocrites for eating plants is a cop out.

It is nothing of the kind. Preferring plants over animals is bigotry, plain and simple.

ChosenByPasta wrote:
Plants don't have a nervous system, can't feel pain, etc.

Unproven assertion regarding pain, and also irrelevant. Animals feel pain whether we inflict it or not. And killing is possible without inflicting pain.

ChosenByPasta wrote:
But oh, even better than that, if you actually cared about plants being a vegetarian is one of the best things you can do for the environment on an individual level. Think about it. Accept it, move on.

No, it isn't. Just to your moral standards that I find hopelessly racist. Accept it, move on.

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:

Vastet wrote:
To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on.

They're not hypocrits; they're just doing what they want to do.

They are hypocrites when they suggest killing plants is somehow more morally acceptable than animals. Life is life.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Vastet wrote:
To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on.

http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

 

Nice try.

 

That's a bunch of horse manure. We are designed to eat meat. We have an organ that used to process it raw. Our teeth are designed specifically for tearing meat. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.

AL wrote:

You are commiting the is-ought fallacy. "We have evolved to be omnivorous" is a statement of what is; it does not follow that it is something we ought to do.

It follows that it is something we ought to do if there isn't a better option. And there isn't. Beyond that, "Something we ought" to do in this scenario is based on emotion and subjective morality. Not on fact. So this fallacy does not apply.

AL wrote:
The moral vegans and vegetarians I know do not clam that life is intrinsically valuable. If that were the case, then yes, they would be hypocrites for killing plants. However, it's not the case. What's morally relevant to them is the capacity to hold interests, to be happy, to suffer, and to feel pain. There is currently no evidence that plants possess these things, but undeniably true that many mammals, birds, and other vertebrates with sophisticated CNSs do.

There was once no evidence that the earth and moon revolved around a barypoint, yet it still happened. The suffering/happy/pain bit is assuming human responsibility for every life on this planet. They have their own food chains to follow. As do we. If you want to say that unnecessary infliction of pain is bad I'll agree. But we have no responsibility to make every life form on this planet happy or pain free. Even trying is foolish, when we haven't even accomplished it for ourselves. It can also be counter productive, leading to overpopulation of species.

AL wrote:

And again "every life form on this planet exists to be eaten" is a statement of what is. If we derived values from that, I could cite the fact that all things die anyway and use that to justify indiscriminate murder.

Indiscriminate murder won't feed or clothe you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, You're missing the

Vastet,

You're missing the point on a lot of what you said. You're still claiming that moral vegs are hypocrites because they would kill a plant over an animal when we've already told you that moral vegs never claimed life was intrinsically valuable for being life. It's been repeated numerous times. They can't be hypocrites if that's not what they believe!

Vastet wrote:

AL wrote:

You are commiting the is-ought fallacy. "We have evolved to be omnivorous" is a statement of what is; it does not follow that it is something we ought to do.

It follows that it is something we ought to do if there isn't a better option. And there isn't.

First of all, it does not follow, and it NEVER does. The is-ought problem is a problem for ALL moral systems. I've pointed this out already. If you don't know what the is-ought problem is, google it. It is well known amongst philosophers of ethics, and is actually common sense to anyone who has given their ethics a thought. It is also known as the fact-value distinction.

Please note that I never claimed I could justify moral vegism (vegism = short for veganism/vegetarianism) in keeping with my acknowledgement of the reality of the is-ought problem. I am only noting that YOUR OBJECTIONS to moral vegism succumb to the fallacy, so you can do no more than respect vegs for being vegs rather than argue that they're crazy for not following a descriptive Food Chain prescriptively.

Second, you're begging the question when you say there isn't another option. There are lots of vegs out there and they live their lives just fine. Again, I'm not saying you ought to do it too, merely pointing out that your attacks on vegs do not work.

Vastet wrote:
But we have no responsibility to make every life form on this planet happy or pain free. Even trying is foolish, when we haven't even accomplished it for ourselves. It can also be counter productive, leading to overpopulation of species.

I really don't know where you're trying to go with this, but most vegs, much like other non-vegs who claim to practice morality, do not have any delusions that they are going to save the world. They are simply doing what they feel is their moral part, which is that if it isn't necessary for them to eat meat, then they won't.

Vastet wrote:
Indiscriminate murder won't feed or clothe you.
Considering that murderers often murder for money, which does, in fact, feed and clothe them, I'd beg to differ. But this is neither here nor there. I brought up that example to show that you cannot derive "we should eat meat" from "this is a Food Chain." Again, read up on the is-ought problem. This is what I was trying to drive home, since your whole premise seems to be that moral vegs are out-of-whack because they can't follow a Food Chain, which is a fallacious argument against moral vegism.

 

 

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


TheAtheistPaladin
TheAtheistPaladin's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-16
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:
TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Vastet wrote:
To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on.

http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

Nice try.

That's a bunch of horse manure. We are designed to eat meat. We have an organ that used to process it raw. Our teeth are designed specifically for tearing meat. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.
You didn't read the link....*tisk *tisk. You should know better.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AL wrote: Vastet, You're

AL wrote:
Vastet, You're missing the point on a lot of what you said.

I am not missing anything from what I said. Though you must realize I'm arguing multiple persons on multiple points, and have to arrange my tactics to fit the scenario per post. My standard tactic to being shown a fallacy is to throw it right back in the same form yet modified to assist from my side of the debate instead of theirs.

AL wrote:
You're still claiming that moral vegs are hypocrites because they would kill a plant over an animal when we've already told you that moral vegs never claimed life was intrinsically valuable for being life.

And you conveniently ignore how I tore that apart regardless.

AL wrote:
It's been repeated numerous times. They can't be hypocrites if that's not what they believe!

This is a discriminatory point of view in this scenario. When I used the term hypocrite I was more thinking of those who whine about cute seals. All the rest are worse. Anyone who applies more value to one life form than another, when there is no intrinsic value to be applied, is a racist.

AL wrote:
First of all, it does not follow, and it NEVER does.

First of all, it can and does. We have evolved to be unable to fly unassited. It therefore follows that you should not jump off a tall building unassited. Perfect example for my argument.

AL wrote:

The is-ought problem is a problem for ALL moral systems. I've pointed this out already. If you don't know what the is-ought problem is, google it. It is well known amongst philosophers of ethics, and is actually common sense to anyone who has given their ethics a thought.

Dealt with.

AL wrote:
It is also known as the fact-value distinction. Please note that I never claimed I could justify moral vegism (vegism = short for veganism/vegetarianism) in keeping with my acknowledgement of the reality of the is-ought problem. I am only noting that YOUR OBJECTIONS to moral vegism succumb to the fallacy, so you can do no more than respect vegs for being vegs rather than argue that they're crazy for not following a descriptive Food Chain prescriptively.

You misunderstand where I am coming from, and assume I do so morally or through ethics. I merely respond to moral or ethical approaches in this way. Perhaps this is why you fail to realize the fallacy is not applicable as a fallacy in this context.

AL wrote:
Second, you're begging the question when you say there isn't another option.

Strawman. I never said there isn't another option, I said there isn't a better option. And there isn't one that I'm aware of. If there's one I'm not aware of feel free to educate me.

AL wrote:
There are lots of vegs out there and they live their lives just fine.

I'm a carnivore and I live my life just fine too.

AL wrote:
Again, I'm not saying you ought to do it too, merely pointing out that your attacks on vegs do not work.

And yet they work perfectly, exposing bigotry and racism against plant life.

AL wrote:
I really don't know where you're trying to go with this, but most vegs, much like other non-vegs who claim to practice morality, do not have any delusions that they are going to save the world. They are simply doing what they feel is their moral part, which is that if it isn't necessary for them to eat meat, then they won't.

Which is the whole problem. They are racist by preferring one form of life over another for emotional reasons.

AL wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Indiscriminate murder won't feed or clothe you.
Considering that murderers often murder for money, which does, in fact, feed and clothe them, I'd beg to differ.

Said murders are NOT indiscriminate, by definition. Refutation refuted.

AL wrote:
But this is neither here nor there.

I disagree.

AL wrote:
I brought up that example to show that you cannot derive "we should eat meat" from "this is a Food Chain."

And I showed you how it's inapplicable.

AL wrote:
Again, read up on the is-ought problem. This is what I was trying to drive home, since your whole premise seems to be that moral vegs are out-of-whack because they can't follow a Food Chain, which is a fallacious argument against moral vegism.

All you've done to try and refute me is bring up subjective morality and inapplicable emotion. You'll have to do a lot better than that.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TheAtheistPaladin

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Vastet wrote:
TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Vastet wrote:
To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on.

http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

Nice try.

That's a bunch of horse manure. We are designed to eat meat. We have an organ that used to process it raw. Our teeth are designed specifically for tearing meat. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.
You didn't read the link....*tisk *tisk. You should know better.

Yes I did. It didn't say anything of scientific value. Too many factors were left out of comparisons they made for anything in that to be valid. They also lied. Bald faced.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: AL wrote:

Vastet wrote:
AL wrote:
You're still claiming that moral vegs are hypocrites because they would kill a plant over an animal when we've already told you that moral vegs never claimed life was intrinsically valuable for being life.

And you conveniently ignore how I tore that apart regardless.

It's ironic that you used the word regardless, because that's exactly what you did. You've failed to give regard to the actual position adopted by moral vegs and torn apart a strawman.

Vastet wrote:
This is a discriminatory point of view in this scenario. When I used the term hypocrite I was more thinking of those who whine about cute seals. All the rest are worse. Anyone who applies more value to one life form than another, when there is no intrinsic value to be applied, is a racist.

Then I guess you are a "racist" [sic] too, since you eat other creatures but not humans? This is an absurd argument, and again, you are dodging the point that moral vegs never claimed life is of intrinsic value, so you are still arguing a strawman.

Vastet wrote:

AL wrote:
First of all, it does not follow, and it NEVER does.

First of all, it can and does. We have evolved to be unable to fly unassited. It therefore follows that you should not jump off a tall building unassited. Perfect example for my argument.

You claimed to have "dealt with" the is-ought problem, but if you think the normative, prescriptive claim "I shouldn't jump off a building" follows from the positive, descriptive claim "I cannot fly," then you haven't "dealt with" the problem at all. You are blatantly committing it. I would think someone who wants to dive into an ethical debate would understand some of the more basic issues in philosophy of ethics.

 

Vastet wrote:

AL wrote:
There are lots of vegs out there and they live their lives just fine.

I'm a carnivore and I live my life just fine too.

I didn't say you couldn't live your life just fine. I am not telling you to stop eating meat or preaching vegism to you either. I've made that abundantly clear, and yet by the way you responded here, you make it clear you think otherwise. I am targetting only your specific attacks against moral vegs, since you came into this thread claiming that moral vegism is an untenable position and you invoked naturalistic and is-ought fallacies through and through to this end. You stated that there are no better options and that we were "designed" to be omnivores. I pointed out that vegs live their life just fine, so the argument that we were "designed" to be omnivores and that there are no better options doesn't work. I did NOT claim that carnivores cannot live their life just fine, so you are bringing up an irrelevancy.

Vastet, please understand that I am not attacking your meat-eating. I am attacking your arguments against moral vegs. There is a world of difference between the two, and you came in here firing the salvos against moral vegs, and I felt the need to respond.

Vastet wrote:

AL wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Indiscriminate murder won't feed or clothe you.

Considering that murderers often murder for money, which does, in fact, feed and clothe them, I'd beg to differ.

Said murders are NOT indiscriminate, by definition. Refutation refuted.

Again, you are missing the point. OK, so if instead of saying the descriptive claim "we need to eat and have clothes" entails "it's OK to indiscriminately murder," I say rather it entails "it's OK to murder a human for his money discriminately for that reason," you are still left with the simple fact that descriptions are not prescriptions, and you are still committing the is-ought fallacy.

 

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AL wrote:I's ironic that

AL wrote:
I's ironic that you used the word regardless, because that's exactly what you did. You've failed to give regard to the actual position adopted by moral vegs and torn apart a strawman.

Nope. I tore apart that which was levelled against me, and that which I have observed. I did not make a strawman to destroy.

AL wrote:
Vastet wrote:
This is a discriminatory point of view in this scenario. When I used the term hypocrite I was more thinking of those who whine about cute seals. All the rest are worse. Anyone who applies more value to one life form than another, when there is no intrinsic value to be applied, is a racist.
Then I guess you are a "racist" [sic] too, since you eat other creatures but not humans?

Yes, I am racist. I have reason for not eating other humans that directly impacts me however, from imprisonment to the notion that they supposedly don't taste all that good. My racism has logical justification. Theirs does not.

AL wrote:
This is an absurd argument, and again, you are dodging the point that moral vegs never claimed life is of intrinsic value, so you are still arguing a strawman.

If you wish to continue to ignore what I said and posit a strawman of me making a strawman than I'm going to consider this a waste of my time and cease participation in this segment of the debate with you. If you want to give me something to argue then give me something to argue. Don't dodge and then say I'm the one dodging when I have nothing to dodge. I deliberately did not make generalizations that apply to all vegans, so this is beyond pointless.

AL wrote:
You claimed to have "dealt with" the is-ought problem, but if you think the normative, prescriptive claim "I shouldn't jump off a building" follows from the positive, descriptive claim "I cannot fly," then you haven't "dealt with" the problem at all. You are blatantly committing it. I would think someone who wants to dive into an ethical debate would understand some of the more basic issues in philosophy of ethics.

Ethics have nothing to do with eating habits, which is my whole thrust of argument in the first place. You're committing a fallacy of applying an invalid fallacy.
And you've done nothing to show my analogy as invalid.

AL wrote:
I didn't say you couldn't live your life just fine.

You implied it.

AL wrote:
I am not telling you to stop eating meat or preaching vegism to you either. I've made that abundantly clear, and yet by the way you responded here, you make it clear you think otherwise.

Nope. You made it clear that you don't want to get into the debate itself, which just makes your comments that much less relevant, since my comments are almost always tactically made and tailoured to those I'm responding to.

AL wrote:
I am targetting only your specific attacks against moral vegs, since you came into this thread claiming that moral vegism is an untenable position and you invoked naturalistic and is-ought fallacies through and through to this end.

Nonsense.

AL wrote:
You stated that there are no better options and that we were "designed" to be omnivores.

Again, no. We EVOLVED to be omnivores. How many of my comments are you going to innaccurately quote?

AL wrote:
I pointed out that vegs live their life just fine, so the argument that we were "designed" to be omnivores and that there are no better options doesn't work.

I'm not sure what fallacy to label this, but I'm sure there is one. Herbivores living fine doesn't prove that it's a better option than omnivores that also live fine. Not by any stretch.

AL wrote:
I did NOT claim that carnivores cannot live their life just fine, so you are bringing up an irrelevancy.

No, I was countering a statement with a statement of equal value.

AL wrote:
Vastet, please understand that I am not attacking your meat-eating. I am attacking your arguments against moral vegs. There is a world of difference between the two, and you came in here firing the salvos against moral vegs, and I felt the need to respond.

That's fine. But your response is tailoured to arguments that were tailoured to other arguments, and may not have been arguments in and of themselves. Your disputing of my argument is barking up the wrong tree. Leave me to my tactics. Trying to refute them will get you nowhere.

AL wrote:
Again, you are missing the point.

No, you are.

AL wrote:
OK, so if instead of saying the descriptive claim "we need to eat and have clothes" entails "it's OK to indiscriminately murder," I say rather it entails "it's OK to murder a human for his money discriminately for that reason," you are still left with the simple fact that descriptions are not prescriptions, and you are still committing the is-ought fallacy.

How does "we need to eat and have clothes" entail "it's ok to indiscriminately/descriminately murder? You're making your own fallacies now.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Well then, I guess we're

Well then, I guess we're done Vastet. You are talking past me. A lot of what you "addressed" is irrelevant, and they were not even points I was trying to make. At least you conceded that in calling moral vegs "racist," that you are a "racist" too (as if that's the proper term). So at least you are consistent there, although I'd challenge the assertion that your "racism" is justified while the moral vegs' is not.

One thing though:

Vastet wrote:

AL wrote:
You stated that there are no better options and that we were "designed" to be omnivores.

Again, no. We EVOLVED to be omnivores. How many of my comments are you going to innaccurately quote?

This isn't really relevant to the stance I'm taking in defense of moral vegs, but since I don't like be accused of deliberate and dishonest debate tactics, I will quote you verbatim:

Vastet wrote:
That's a bunch of horse manure. We are designed to eat meat. We have an organ that used to process it raw. Our teeth are designed specifically for tearing meat. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.

 

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


chazk
chazk's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-02-23
User is offlineOffline
believers

and the believers are meat eaters.  I thought they consider life precious.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AL wrote: Well then, I

AL wrote:
Well then, I guess we're done Vastet. You are talking past me. A lot of what you "addressed" is irrelevant, and they were not even points I was trying to make.

I believe this is a two way street.

AL wrote:
At least you conceded that in calling moral vegs "racist," that you are a "racist" too (as if that's the proper term). So at least you are consistent there, although I'd challenge the assertion that your "racism" is justified while the moral vegs' is not.

I would welcome such a challenge. I don't welcome attacks on comments made for a specific purpose by someone they weren't meant for. I believe you would find if we were to debate the matter from scratch that there would not be an issue.

AL wrote:
One thing though: ~~~ This isn't really relevant to the stance I'm taking in defense of moral vegs, but since I don't like be accused of deliberate and dishonest debate tactics, I will quote you verbatim:~~~~~

Ah, I see at least part of the problem. When I make a statement in a topic, that statement stands until refuted or clarified, whether by myself or another. I may make later claims using different terminology that is less or more applicable than the original terminology I used for time constraints(I don't necessarily have time to review every previous post in the topic, and make sure my comments are universally organized). In this case, my original statement was "We have evolved to be omnivorous.". My later comment of design was in the context of evolution. To make it more clear, my first post(that wasn't intended as humourous at least) went as such:

"To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
TheAtheistPaladin

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Isn't all morallity a tool to avoid causing unnecessary pain?

No. Pain (of the non-human variety) has very little to do with it in fact.

Quote:
I find that factory farming does just that. If not eleminated, then it should most deffinetly change. Preferably, the test tube meat link I showed you.

Make it economic and you'll have it. 

Quote:
It would have been nice if you provided examples. So its not my word agaisnt yours issue.

It is not difficult to find. You can find plenty of examples of kin selective behavior and reciprocal altruism in primates and other mammals with a simple google search - better yet, go to PubMed and look at some scientific journal articles. 

Quote:
Quote:
However, holding your (our) own species above others is called specieism. It is as form of discrimination just like sexism or racism is. It is easy to use specieism against animals for they can not defend them-selfs. "Either we're all animals and equal, so anything goes as far as survival goes," Yes we're all are animals but I assert that we do not need meat for survival. I would go as far as that factory farming is harming the planet and making our meat unheathy by puting polutants in it.

And when a lion eats a human, it that specism?

No, it's nature.

That's the point.

Quote:
And? This make it some how justifed for our actions? That we should up hold the "tradition".

And, nothing. Should we protect yeasts from the beer making process? What about making cheese? Eating insects? Eating small reptiles? Eating rats? Dogs? Cats? Cows? Where is the demarcation line? Everything I just mentioned is eaten in our culture or in others. So what? Animals eat other animals - there is nothing moral or immoral about i.

Quote:
Quote:
We are conditioned evolutionarily to empathize MORE with our own than with other species. This carries over to other organisms, but it is a ONE WAY street. Moralistic arguements will always fail in this sense.

Yes, this is how we survived. Again, this doesn't justify the way it is today.

Nor does it make it wrong or give us a reason to change. 

Quote:
Quote:
You could argue on utilitarian lines that eating meat may not be necessary (persoanlly, I think it is the only valid line of argumentation availabel), but humans do a LOT of things that are not necessary or utilitarian; and we'll have to look at any such argument in the scope of such.

That may be, but I doubt that the other non-utilitarian actions has the same effect of pain for animals or effect on the evironment or health.

You say that like it makes a difference. 

 

Quote:
*chuckels under breath* Bacteria don't feel pain and they can negatively effect our health. Flys and the like pest also can effect negatively on our health. Worms as bait? No it is not justifible. LOL, I do not know of any fishing vegans... There are methods that can catch the rat alive but none the less they can effect negatively on health. You see a pattern? All the above is justifible (execpt the worm) for reasons of preserving health and survivel.

Frankly, no, I don't see a pattern. I see an arbitrary line drawn at the ability to feel pain. Nothing more. I don't see anything justifying why that line is important - other than the empathy we CHOOSE to apply to it. 

Quote:
To support the eating of meat, you are undoubtely promoting the pain of main animals. However, you say that we should endeavor to end needless cruelty and suffering. Thats my point. Animal farming is needless cruelty and suffering.

Like I said, define needless and suffering. Then tell me why we're obliged to do something about it. 

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Intersting thought - if I

Intersting thought - if I could breed cows and pigs and minks that could NOT feel pain, could I slaughter them for food and cloth without objection?

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Intersting thought - if I could breed cows and pigs and minks that could NOT feel pain, could I slaughter them for food and cloth without objection?

Add in that the animals had no capacity to hold an interest in continued living and being happy, then certainly. You'd definitely get no objection from me at least. In fact, this is exactly the reason why I supported the euthanizing of Terri Schiavo -- her brain had so severely degenerated she was basically what most would call a "vegetable." (I don't mean this as a joke on the poor woman, only that people really do use the term "vegetable" to describe those with degenerated nervous systems).

On another note, I remember reading a story not too long ago about NASA growing chunks of fish meat in a lab, without the actual fish. If you can get over the "ew" factor of eating lab-grown hunks of fish flesh, I'd have no problem with anyone eating that.  If they could do the same for bacon and steak, that'd be pretty neat.  I wouldn't eat it, but it'd certainly be neat.

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm just wondering why

I'm just wondering why aren't we just poping pills with all the goodies we need and just stop eating all together?

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


MarthaSplatterhead (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: I'm just

Ophios wrote:
I'm just wondering why aren't we just poping pills with all the goodies we need and just stop eating all together?

Because the Oompa Loompas can't quite get it right.  It all goes bad when you get to the dessert part. 


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
MarthaSplatterhead

MarthaSplatterhead wrote:

Ophios wrote:
I'm just wondering why aren't we just poping pills with all the goodies we need and just stop eating all together?

Because the Oompa Loompas can't quite get it right. It all goes bad when you get to the dessert part.

>:3 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


TheAtheistPaladin
TheAtheistPaladin's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-16
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:
TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Vastet wrote:
TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Vastet wrote:
To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on.

http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

Nice try.

That's a bunch of horse manure. We are designed to eat meat. We have an organ that used to process it raw. Our teeth are designed specifically for tearing meat. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.
You didn't read the link....*tisk *tisk. You should know better.
Yes I did. It didn't say anything of scientific value. Too many factors were left out of comparisons they made for anything in that to be valid. They also lied. Bald faced.

 

Oh now they are lieing... Nice. Any more unproven and obviously false claims you like to make?

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I have to start off with an

I have to start off with an apology to AL. I made some rather large errors in both communication and comprehension. I didn't have or take the time to think about what either of us were saying, and made some critical errors as a result. I was distracted and not paying nearly as much attention as I should have and completely flew through what you were saying without thinking about it. I apologize.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Vastet wrote:
TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Vastet wrote:
TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Vastet wrote:
To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on.

http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

Nice try.

That's a bunch of horse manure. We are designed to eat meat. We have an organ that used to process it raw. Our teeth are designed specifically for tearing meat. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.
You didn't read the link....*tisk *tisk. You should know better.
Yes I did. It didn't say anything of scientific value. Too many factors were left out of comparisons they made for anything in that to be valid. They also lied. Bald faced.

 

Oh now they are lieing... Nice. Any more unproven and obviously false claims you like to make?

The first 9 paragraphs are wasted space comparing herbivores to carnivores directly(with us in the middle), when we know conclusively that we are not carnivorous. They make absolute determinations of carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores that are provably false. Example:

Chewing
Carnivore None; swallows food whole
Omnivore Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
Herbivore Extensive chewing necessary
Human Extensive chewing necessary

Since when did we need to extensively chew our food? I've never had to. I swallow most of it after biting a piece off.

Not all herbivores have flat hooves or flattened nails. I give you the fruit bat. Long sharp claws, eats only plant matter.

Not all carnivores have claws at all, and some don't even have teeth. I give you the whale, which uses a filter instead of chewing materials.

They don't take into consideration the fact that humans haven't eaten raw meat for millenia. Why would our stomachs remain so acidic if there was no biological need for it? Why would our bodies not evolve with our eating preparations? There's nothing on that page of any value whatsoever. I'm just scratching the surface on it's flaws.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


FreeThoughtMake...
Superfan
FreeThoughtMakesMeTingle's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
I'm surprised this got so

I'm surprised this got so deep......meat......is good, tasty.


willthescaryatheist
Posts: 18
Joined: 2007-02-16
User is offlineOffline
I'm sure puppies, kittens,

I'm sure puppies, kittens, and even people are tasty, probably would make some delicious burgers, yet we don't do that do we? Who's to say one animal has less of a right to live than another. And off the subject of animal cruelty, it is beneficial to the environment, even more beneficial than switching to a hybrid car. It is even healthier too, feel free to debate the health issue again if you find it nessicary.


TheAtheistPaladin
TheAtheistPaladin's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-16
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: The first 9

Vastet wrote:
The first 9 paragraphs are wasted space comparing herbivores to carnivores directly(with us in the middle), when we know conclusively that we are not carnivorous. They make absolute determinations of carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores that are provably false. Example: Chewing Carnivore None; swallows food whole Omnivore Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing Herbivore Extensive chewing necessary Human Extensive chewing necessary Since when did we need to extensively chew our food? I've never had to. I swallow most of it after biting a piece off. Not all herbivores have flat hooves or flattened nails. I give you the fruit bat. Long sharp claws, eats only plant matter. Not all carnivores have claws at all, and some don't even have teeth. I give you the whale, which uses a filter instead of chewing materials. They don't take into consideration the fact that humans haven't eaten raw meat for millenia. Why would our stomachs remain so acidic if there was no biological need for it? Why would our bodies not evolve with our eating preparations? There's nothing on that page of any value whatsoever. I'm just scratching the surface on it's flaws.

 

Sorry for the extrem delay. After RRS site crashed my discussions where no longer in my discussion tab. It took me till now to find another way here. Plus I was distracted for awhile.

 

The link I previously provided gives general rules of thumb. To find execptions here and there doesn't really harm the argument. Specially when one examens the fruit bat. Its claws are not used for its food but to help hang on trees or cave walls ect.

 

Point being humans share very little with carnivores. The only thing that I think we have in common is foward facing eyes. Beyond that there is nothing physically to suggest that man is a meat eater. It is only to due to our advance ments in techonology and group hunting skills that allowed meat eating in the past and today.

 

I wish to degress from the moral stand point. I don't really hold to the moral point of veiw but I don't see anything wrong with it either. So I played devil's advocate.

 

However if you wish to contintue along the lines of heath benfits or environmental benfits. Then I am all game.

 

Since its earth day lets contintue with the environmental.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbKPH4x-Gyg

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TheAtheistPaladin

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
The link I previously provided gives general rules of thumb.

General rules of thumb? No such thing.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
To find execptions here and there doesn't really harm the argument.

Yes it does.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Specially when one examens the fruit bat. Its claws are not used for its food but to help hang on trees or cave walls ect.

So? A cats claws are for climbing. A dogs claws are for maintaining grip on ground. Neither are used for the kill. Both are carnivores.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Point being humans share very little with carnivores.

Because we aren't carnivores. We're omnivores. Your argument collapses on itself. We don't share much with herbivores either.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
The only thing that I think we have in common is foward facing eyes.

Birds see sideways, yet are mostly carnivorous. You really have no idea what babble you're speaking.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Beyond that there is nothing physically to suggest that man is a meat eater.

There's plenty. Our teeth, our organs. You're arguing nonsense.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
It is only to due to our advance ments in techonology and group hunting skills that allowed meat eating in the past and today.

That's part of who we are. For thousands of years. We've evolved to be that way. Your argument collapses.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
I wish to degress from the moral stand point. I don't really hold to the moral point of veiw but I don't see anything wrong with it either. So I played devil's advocate.

I can tear the moral argument apart even easier than this fiction.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
However if you wish to contintue along the lines of heath benfits or environmental benfits. Then I am all game.

You will lose.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Since its earth day lets contintue with the environmental.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbKPH4x-Gyg

Since you've been away for awhile you probably won't be aware that I am unable to access video sites. I can't watch this.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TheAtheistPaladin
TheAtheistPaladin's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2007-02-16
User is offlineOffline
Most of your argument is

Most of your argument is going "nah-ah". Then you said our teeth suggested meat eating. You got to be fucking kidding me. Below are pics of each type of teeth and human teeth. For whatever reason the html code doesn't work here.

http://whyfiles.org/shorties/147tooth/images/teeth.jpg

http://www.americazoo.com/kids/graphics/tiger2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Raccoon_skull_Pengo.jpg

http://www.nicksnowden.net/images/cow_skull.jpg

Carnivores have proment canines and molars that sheer meat. Omnivores have proment canines but molars more stuited to grinding plants. Herbivores have incisoral and/or molars. That ocourse are well stuited for plant grinding.

Human do not have well developed canines. What we do have would be insult to call them "canines". We have good incisors and molars. By the study of teeth alone, you would have to say that humans are herbivores.

The only way you can demonstrate that humans are omnivores is to compare all omnivores and find the commonalities.  Then demonstrate that humans have these same traits.

So what will it be? Contintue to be a nay sayer or show the commonalities between humans and omnivores?

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
TheAtheistPaladin

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Carnivores have proment canines and molars that sheer meat. Omnivores have proment canines but molars more stuited to grinding plants. Herbivores have incisoral and/or molars. That ocourse are well stuited for plant grinding.

Human do not have well developed canines. What we do have would be insult to call them "canines". We have good incisors and molars. By the study of teeth alone, you would have to say that humans are herbivores.

  Actually, our molars are what are considered to be Y5 molars, decended fromthe african great apes.  As you recall most great apes are omnivorous.  Now the thing that everybody seems to be forgeting is that between us and apes lie a couple dozen species of hominids a few of which (our direct ancestors) could utilize fire.  Fire usage will cause an eventual decline in dentin accumulation, that's why our more robust cousins have heavier dentition, most of them also lacked fire usage.  we are the cumulative process of eating prepared foods.  Our dental pattern no longer directly reflects our wating habits due to this.

As for our conspicous lack of prominent canines, that has been answered in evolutionary terms based on the sexual practices of lesser primates.  Males that were physically imposing could fight, and in most species ended up with a "harem" (the exception of bonobos springs to mind, but I digress).  Now the other evolutionarily stable strategy in this system is to develop consortships, in which lower ranked males and females would pair off.  Harems produced more offspring in numbers, but consortship produced more sucessful mating as a percentage.  this developed into a selective pressure for less physically imposing males (les likely to be challenged and face physical injury) and females with altered reproductive cycles (non-lactational breast enlargement and ovulatory cryptsis).  Over time, this would eventually lead to males with smaller canines (harder to show aggression if you don't have the right gear).

Quote:
The only way you can demonstrate that humans are omnivores is to compare all omnivores and find the commonalities. Then demonstrate that humans have these same traits.

So what will it be? Contintue to be a nay sayer or show the commonalities between humans and omnivores?

see above.

I say we're animals, but we can decide what to eat. Personally, I love the taste of a good steak cooked to a nice medium rare, but I realize that not all people like that.  I've also helped to kill and butcher animals (I live in the country and worked in a butchers shop for a year).  I not only have eaten the hamburger, I've met the cow.

Don't come at this from some kind of misguided moral superiority stand point.  I agree with who said it earlier, this is an amoral issure.  We will always rely on some other form of life to provide us sustanance.   

 

P.S.-I can dig out my Human Origins textbook and provide sources if this is doubted. (Being an Anthropology minor finally paid off for something). 

No Gods, Know Peace.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Has anyone else looked at

Has anyone else looked at entomophagy? The idea appeals to me environmentally, since raising bugs can be performed even in a small apartment. IIRC, creation of grazing land for cattle is a substantial factor in rain forest destruction. I haven't been able to get past the unpleasantness of the idea yet, but I may ease myself into it by creating something unrecognizable: like bread made with meal worm flour. I'm an omnivore currently, subsisting on the American mixture of homemade food and processed garbage. I object to factory farming on an aesthetic level, if not an ethical one, but also because they're ruthless corporations that will cut corners that we're not aware of until major problems manifest. Mad cow disease being an example. I used to eat a lot of tofu and drink soy milk until I found out that soybeans contain phytoestrogens that fuck with your hormones, and that soybeans are added as filler to a huge segment of processed foods already.

I'm still on the fence as to what the right way for me to eat is.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Actually by weight bugs are

Actually by weight bugs are some of the most nutrition things around...though the legs tend to get stuck in your teeth...

No Gods, Know Peace.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TheAtheistPaladin

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Most of your argument is going "nah-ah".

That's all your argument deserves.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Then you said our teeth suggested meat eating.

They do.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
You got to be fucking kidding me.

Right back at you.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
Below are pics of each type of teeth and human teeth. For whatever reason the html code doesn't work here.Carnivores have proment canines and molars that sheer meat. Omnivores have proment canines but molars more stuited to grinding plants. Herbivores have incisoral and/or molars. That ocourse are well stuited for plant grinding. Human do not have well developed canines. What we do have would be insult to call them "canines". We have good incisors and molars. By the study of teeth alone, you would have to say that humans are herbivores.

Liar. We have canines. Ask your local dentist. Irrefutable evidence we are at least partially carnivorous.

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:
The only way you can demonstrate that humans are omnivores is to compare all omnivores and find the commonalities.  Then demonstrate that humans have these same traits. So what will it be? Contintue to be a nay sayer or show the commonalities between humans and omnivores?

Burden of proof is on you. You're claiming bullshit is fact, and I'm calling your bullshit the bullshit that it is.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


DeeLock
DeeLock's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-03-01
User is offlineOffline
I'm a vegetarian.   Why

I'm a vegetarian.

 

Why should animals be confined to cages for years, have a hammer pound them in the head, then (still living of course) be strung up on chains to be skinned and gutted.

 

It's ridiculous the extent of barbarity that slaughterhouses and cattle farmers commit on a day to day, minute by minute schedule.

 

In response to yellow number five's thought that if animals could be engineered to not feel pain would that be ok?

 

i say no. there are people that don't feel pain, should we be allowed to punch them whenever we feel like it, stab them, use them for target practice? just because there is no apparent consequence dosen't make it any less disgusting.

 

Has anyone ever noticed that cultures that eat relatively low amounts of meat like europeans, asians, and latinos are relatively slim, and when you look at american and soul food, which is basically all meat, the eaters are undeniably fatter than anyone else.

Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.

-Woody Allen


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If it's not morally ok to

If it's not morally ok to kill an animal for food even when it cannot experience pain, then you are either a hypocrite or immoral for killing anything for food even if it cannot experience pain.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
I don't eat meat because I

I don't eat meat because I don't like the taste.

Yes, Im completely serious. Even as a child, I would do silly things like 'accidentally dump milk' onto my plate so I didn't have to eat the porkchops or meatloaf or whatever else my mom had cooked.

 I've never liked redmeat whatsoever; and back before I was a vegetarian, the most I would eat was an occasional hamburger(cooked to all hell, Smiling ) or some breaded chicken. And this was at my parents insistance.

 After I moved out on my own, I just eventually stopped eating meat all together, it wasn't a conscious descision as much as I just chose things I DID like to eat over meat.

So, when I say I don't like the taste this extends to things like 'tofurky' or fake bacon or whatever. I don't eat anything that 'tastes' like meat, whether it's real, or made of soy.

 

But hey, I'm weird, Smiling 


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
DeeLock wrote: Has anyone

DeeLock wrote:

Has anyone ever noticed that cultures that eat relatively low amounts of meat like europeans, asians, and latinos are relatively slim, and when you look at american and soul food, which is basically all meat, the eaters are undeniably fatter than anyone else.

I'm intentionally not responding to the rest of the post...I have my diginity...And your making sweeping generalizations here that don't hold up...Europeans eat meat, asians eat meat, latinos eat meat....it's more to the point that they eat less meat and they also don't have as much artificial shit floating around in the food supply....Americans are fat b/c we invented the trans-fat and fell the fuck in love with it.  It's not meat that's bad it's our (generalized here, nobody get offended) diet as a whole that's bad.  We do nothing in moderation.  If we would be more moderate in our food comsumption, well, then we wouldn't be american...shit I guess we'll just have to be fat then.... 

No Gods, Know Peace.


DeeLock
DeeLock's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Well of course it's a

Well of course it's a generalization, but, it's what the numbers show. 

When you think of mexican food you think of tortillas, beans, rice right?  i'm not saying that they dont eat meat, just not as much as most americans.  This goes for italian (pasta), greek (bread), chinese (noodles, rice) and a bunch of others.

 The American and Soul culture is meat.

That's why we're is fat. 

 

Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.

-Woody Allen


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
As an ex-vegetarian, and

As an ex-vegetarian, and current meat-eater, I can definately say I enjoy eating meat. My reasons for going veggie were purely out of the guilty feeling I got from eating a fellow living being's flesh. Also, I did lose weight and felt healthier overall, more energetic. I didn't get that weird "weighted down by rocks" sensation in my tummy after eating.

But I just like the taste of meat too much. It's easy, it's good, and I don't have to panic over my protein intake.

I still eat a lot of veggie foods, tofu, vegetarian ground "beef", but damn if I don't love a big bleeding steak.

Also, in regards to the fat/"soul food" thing, I knew quite a few fat vegetarians.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
DeeLock wrote: Well of

DeeLock wrote:

Well of course it's a generalization, but, it's what the numbers show. 

When you think of mexican food you think of tortillas, beans, rice right?  i'm not saying that they dont eat meat, just not as much as most americans.  This goes for italian (pasta), greek (bread), chinese (noodles, rice) and a bunch of others.

 The American and Soul culture is meat.

That's why we're is fat. 

 

You didn't touch his refutation, and therefore lack any substance within your own.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm vegetarian, have been

I'm vegetarian, have been for 15 years now (I'm 20) since I first discovered what meat actually was: dead animal. My parents being the tolerant people they are let me be vegetarian (a lot of my friends would not have been allowed) and accomodated it, sometimes cooking me a separate meal if they were having meat, but most of the time cooking vegeatarian food.

These days, although I am a fan of Peter Singer's ethics, it doesn't actually lead me to say it is morally wrong to eat meat, my vegetarianism is a habit that I am reluctant to break and doesn't do me or anyone else harm to keep. I generally think we do wrong to any sentient being by not allowing it to pursue it's benign or essential interests. But that is not to say that animals have an actual interest in life. Some quite probably do, higher primates, or at least those trained in sign language have been known to understand the concepts of life and death and talk about them with their human researchers. An interest in life arises from this understanding. A sheep by contrast, cannot understand life or death, cannot forsee its own death, but only deals in its existence, it has interests in living in a field with plenty of tasty grass and in procreating and not feeling pain or fear or what-have-you but it cannot have an interest in life. You are not doing any wrong by the sheep if it is killed in a reasonably peaceful way.

Mice have even fewer interests, and perhaps we have very few moral obligations towards them. Is it morally bankrupt to lay poison down for mice or rats? I don't think so. Is it wrong to perform tests on mice for medical reasons? I'm not sure, certainly some tests on mice involve causing it a lot of pain or sickness which is, as they are sentient beings, against its interests. But, does the human interest in life trump the mouse's interest in not feeling pain? Humans are undoubtedly more complex creatures than mice, we have a greater complexity of interests, this appears to me to say that actually we should be able to conduct experiments on mice for medical reasons (something I always used to be against in my fanatical vegetarian days) but that there should be a duty where possible to cause as little pain as possible and perhaps even engineer test mice without pain receptors, thus allieviating the interest in not feeling pain.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: You didn't

Vastet wrote:
You didn't touch his refutation, and therefore lack any substance within your own.

Thanks for pointing that out Vastet(I was incommunicado this w/e, moving my brother)... And now we are back to trying to turn this into a moral issue....Why is it any less moral for me to eat a cow that was fairly humanely slaughtered as opposed to a lion ripping the throat out of a gazelle (very painfully I might add)?  It's not, because this is an A-moral issue.  Animals must comsume something to survive.  No matter what we consume, it was once alive.  In order for humans to survive we must kill things....Tell me where I went wrong in that reasoning...(and yes I realize that this leaves cannibalism open...eh, tastes like chicken..)

No Gods, Know Peace.


DeeLock
DeeLock's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Ok, my bad not touching


Ok, my bad not touching your refutation but let's move on with this one!

Quote:
Why is it any less moral for me to eat a cow that was fairly humanely slaughtered as opposed to a lion ripping the throat out of a gazelle (very painfully I might add)? It's not, because this is an A-moral issue.

For one thing, slaughterhouses are anything but humane.  Tiny pens, poor living conditions, lack of attention, and the "killing" of the animal right before they chain them up is normally inaffective. 

 So what you get is a semi conscious and still breathing animal being skinned and gutted alive. 

A gazelle lives a normal, free, and plentiful life.  Lions are carnivores, they can't live on just plants so they have to eat the gazelle.  I have no issues with carnivorous animals, just humans that try to justify mistreating animals from the second they are born to the day they bleed to death while hanging upside down, by saying that it is natural to eat animals. 

Of course it is, i just have a problem with the neglectful way in which we do it.

Quote:
Animals must comsume something to survive. No matter what we consume, it was once alive. In order for humans to survive we must kill things....Tell me where I went wrong in that reasoning...

Minerals, vitamins...those arn't alive, lol, jk.

 I see what you mean though, plants are alive, but, animals have emotions and feelings. 

Plants don't mind that much, they want other organisms to eat their fruits to spread their seeds, they don't feel anything like animals do.

 They certainly don't have brains.

Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.

-Woody Allen


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
DeeLock wrote: Ok, my bad

DeeLock wrote:

Ok, my bad not touching your refutation but let's move on with this one!

at least you admit it
Quote:

For one thing, slaughterhouses are anything but humane. Tiny pens, poor living conditions, lack of attention, and the "killing" of the animal right before they chain them up is normally inaffective.

So what you get is a semi conscious and still breathing animal being skinned and gutted alive.

So, you've been to alot of slaughter houses...or you think you have b/c you watched alot of PETA videos. I've seen cows and many other animals slaughtered with my own eyes, and most of them die very quickly and with a minimum of pain. Some of them do not, that's the way it is.
Quote:

A gazelle lives a normal, free, and plentiful life. Lions are carnivores, they can't live on just plants so they have to eat the gazelle. I have no issues with carnivorous animals, just humans that try to justify mistreating animals from the second they are born to the day they bleed to death while hanging upside down, by saying that it is natural to eat animals.

Ok, you've obviously never been on a farm. Farmers found out a long time ago that if you abuse animals you get less than optimal returns on investment. If you call leaving a cow in a field with more grass then it can eat in a lifetime cruelty, then sign me the fuck up. Most farm animals are very well cared for, but just like other domesticated animals (cats, dogs, lizards) they are abused from time to time. This is wrong we agree.

My problem with your post so far is simple; I've seen the things that you are railing against first-hand and find you to be so melodramatic as to be bordering on falsification. I'll stop short of that due only to the fact that things such as you've mentioned do happen, but they are the exception not the rule.

Quote:

Of course it is, i just have a problem with the neglectful way in which we do it.

Quote:
Animals must comsume something to survive. No matter what we consume, it was once alive. In order for humans to survive we must kill things....Tell me where I went wrong in that reasoning...

Minerals, vitamins...those arn't alive, lol, jk.

I see what you mean though, plants are alive, but, animals have emotions and feelings.

some animals show what humans interpret as emotion, but don't anthropomorphize all animals.

Quote:

Plants don't mind that much, they want other organisms to eat their fruits to spread their seeds, they don't feel anything like animals do.

They certainly don't have brains.

it's nice of you to be so considerate about animals but then do the exact opposite to plants just because you have to eat them. This is a joke. To quote Lewis Black "Namby, Pamby, Sissy, Pansy Bullshit.

No Gods, Know Peace.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
DeeLock wrote: For one

DeeLock wrote:
For one thing, slaughterhouses are anything but humane.  Tiny pens, poor living conditions, lack of attention, and the "killing" of the animal right before they chain them up is normally inaffective. So what you get is a semi conscious and still breathing animal being skinned and gutted alive.

For one thing, this is merely an argument against current practices against the slaughter of animals for consumption, not against the consumption itself.
Secondly, as Ninja pointed to, you are by no means describing the circumstances in every slaughterhouse. Merely what the terrorist organization PETA wants you to believe. I've been to a few myself when I grew up in Alberta(perhaps you've heard of Alberta beef, greatest in North America if not the world?). There was nothing inhumane that I saw. Animals were killed quickly and efficiently. There was no "skinning alive", "poor living conditions"(in itself a contradiction, animals don't live in a slaughter house, they die there), etc.

DeeLock wrote:
Minerals, vitamins...those arn't alive, lol, jk.

I know you were joking, but if it were your position then why are you eating plants? You come up with food that involves no death from any life whatsoever and you'll have my backing. Not before.

DeeLock wrote:
I see what you mean though, plants are alive, but, animals have emotions and feelings.

Plants don't mind that much, they want other organisms to eat their fruits to spread their seeds, they don't feel anything like animals do.

They certainly don't have brains.

Who are you to say an animal has more right to life than a plant? Or that a plant can't feel? They certainly do a pretty damn good job of responding to stimulai for something that can't feel. Seriously, people who suggest such nonsense piss me off. Plants were one of the first life forms. They have the most diverse base of any classification on the globe. Plants can even be carnivores. They are far more essential to the ecology than a few animals who couldn't survive in the wild. You know what would happen if you let all the livestock in farms go? The vast majority of them would die. Those that didn't would wreak havoc on local wildlife. It would be a lot worse than a few assholes taking bad care of their animals.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


DeeLock
DeeLock's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-03-01
User is offlineOffline
You guys are scary. I have

You guys are scary.

I have seen a few slaughter houses and it is pretty bad for someone grown up in a family of tree huggers and WWF supporters so there is a bit of a bias on my part.

As long as this sort of behavior is allowed to go on in even a couple of these meat farms I will continue to be against it.

I have faith in the fact that there are probably really good and humane houses where everything is very efficient and clean, but there are still the ones that arn't.

I'm kinda done with this argument, don't get me wrong, I'm no coward, I just know when I'm beat.

P.S.: I am very melodramatic, just who I am. 

Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.

-Woody Allen


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
DeeLock wrote: You guys

DeeLock wrote:

You guys are scary.

I have seen a few slaughter houses and it is pretty bad for someone grown up in a family of tree huggers and WWF supporters so there is a bit of a bias on my part.

As long as this sort of behavior is allowed to go on in even a couple of these meat farms I will continue to be against it.

I have faith in the fact that there are probably really good and humane houses where everything is very efficient and clean, but there are still the ones that arn't.

I'm kinda done with this argument, don't get me wrong, I'm no coward, I just know when I'm beat.

P.S.: I am very melodramatic, just who I am.

  I agree that it shouldn't take place anywhere, but at a certain point it does turn into a "baby with the bathwater' situation.

I think  that slaughterhouses and such should treat animals humanely (seems like an oxymoron, I know), and people that don't should be punished.

 I guess it also stems from the fact that i grew up around livestock, farmers, slaughterhouses, hunters, butchers....you name it.  Most of these people are thankful for the animals that they have, and in a weird way are very defensive of them.  They don't like it anymore than you do when someone abuses their animals, mainly because it makes them look bad.  Shit, I know a hunter who doesn't eat any processed meats.  He owns a bunch of land and eats mainly the deer that live on it, but he also gives tobacco offerings (he's a little new aged at times).  

I guess my point is: When you're talking about people, most people do the right things.  There will always be those who are cruel/bad/inhumane, but we can't judge the many based on the few.  If we did that why are we even here on this site..... 

No Gods, Know Peace.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I would agree, and there are

I would agree, and there are certain regulations which have to be adhered to in British law unless they are Kosher or Halal slaughter houses in which case they are given the right to ignore such rules. It seems a little bit weak really. It annoys me, but what can I do.  


stillmatic
stillmatic's picture
Posts: 288
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
TheAtheistPaladin

TheAtheistPaladin wrote:

Vastet wrote:
To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on.

 http://www.goveg.com/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp

Nice try.

 You seriously need to check your sources. Quoting PETA propanganda does not score you points in my book.

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: To make a

Vastet wrote:
To make a more significant contribution than the last one, though I see it was appreciated, I think vegatarians are for the most part hypocrites. We have evolved to be omnivorous. It is foolish to cut either side of consumption out. Especially when doing so out of a bias against plant life compared to irrational empathy for animal life. Every life form on this planet exists to be eaten. Accept it, move on.

 Yup, I was a hypocritical vegetarian once. Now I'm one who doesn't try and argue in favour of vegetarianism, but I'm just in the habit of not eating meat and my metabolism probably couldn't cope with it now anyway. Long term vegetarians who go back to eating meat can actually die from it. Yup, you have a point.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
DeeLock wrote:You guys are

DeeLock wrote:
You guys are scary.

Your attitude against plant life scares me more than my unbiased consumption of life in general should scare you.

DeeLock wrote:
I have seen a few slaughter houses and it is pretty bad for someone grown up in a family of tree huggers and WWF supporters so there is a bit of a bias on my part.

The only reason you could call yourself a tree hugger is because you can't eat trees. You certainly have a problem with plant life in general.

DeeLock wrote:
As long as this sort of behavior is allowed to go on in even a couple of these meat farms I will continue to be against it.

Be against the farms that use such behaviour, not everyone who's ever consumed a healthy steak or fish.

DeeLock wrote:
I have faith in the fact that there are probably really good and humane houses where everything is very efficient and clean, but there are still the ones that arn't.

Yes there are, and they should be shut down. But taking a stance against all meat consumption will not accomplish it. When you wrap the innocent and the guilty together, the guilty have a much bigger defense than if you isolate them. The innocent have no choice but to help them to protect their own interests. Peta's ignorant and hypocritical position means anything they come up with that's real is ignored by most rational people. The boy who cried wolf comes to mind. Everytime they find a bad practice they call to arms against all meat, instead of putting pressure only on the practice they found.

DeeLock wrote:
P.S.: I am very melodramatic, just who I am.

This happens to be something I'm rather passionate about myself.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.