(May 21, 2013 at 7:51 am)Sal Wrote:

(May 21, 2013 at 7:13 am)enrico Wrote: [color=#800080]
Considering that the human body is totally in line with a vegetarian diet (fruit, nuts, grain, vegetable etc) then you would draw that your theory is just a dogma (false true).
Only in time of calamity like the ice age or other disaster humans had no choices but to eat meat, but for ages and ages human were almost completely vegetarian.

[...]

The biological argument hasn't been discussed here, yet, thanks for raising it, although I think it's not going to resolve the issue.

Biologically we are clearly omnivores, any cheese-burger with wheat buns and a cucumber on top will prove that one. While there are convincing claims that the excessive consumption of meat we see today is actually detrimental to our health, there is very little proof that having a steak once a week is going to cause any significant health damage. (Except for the cow, of course.)

However a significant number of humans, around 400-500 million in total or around 7 percent of the global population, exist on a plant-based diet, which shows that we do have a choice between eating meat or not eating meat and hence it is not primarily a biological question but rather a moral one.

(May 21, 2013 at 8:20 am)littleendian Wrote: The biological argument hasn't been discussed here, yet, thanks for raising it, although I think it's not going to resolve the issue.

Doesn't it really come down to one thing? That being whether or not we consider it moral (or right, or just, or whichever word fits) to kill an animal for food. Or perhaps the question is whether we place non-human animals on the same "moral plane" as humans. I've followed the discussion with interest, but I think every other point flows from that one. Am I incorrect to simplify it to this degree?

Quote:Sal.......You do know that recorded human history, compared to the appearance of the first hominids is like a blink of an eye, right?
Oldest recorded history is probably the ancient Sumerians or proto-Chinese civilizations.

Humans have been here for at least a million of years.
Not just homo sapiens but the previous ancestors as well so it is in all this time that humans evolve their constitution to what we have now or better say.....similar to what we have now..
This is mainly physically. Spiritually is a different story.
So this evolution go well behind our recorded history because in only few thousand of years big changes would not be possible.

Quote:This is besides the point, if you mean when we moved from hunter-gatherer to agriculture, this happened around ~40,000 years ago although that is disputed (might be older, depends on what available data there is, really). People think after we moved to agriculture, we selectively breed animals(chickens, cows, pigs, cats, dogs, etc.) and crops (wheat, malt, pears, apples, etc.) that we found to be beneficial to ourselves, that is something which we know pretty damn well, it's just when it really began that's a bit disputed.

When you say.........we moved from hunter-gatherer to agriculture.......this is not really correct.
Before the advent of agriculture people still had available grains that grow wild, fruits, vegetable, nuts, legumes etc. so they really did not need to wait for the time in which they started agriculture.
In other words, they never moved from this to this.
You always had people who eat some meat but meat was never their main diet except in very cold places where a vegetarian diet was an impossibility.

Quote:That little conjecture about acids and teeth and whatnot I find laughable, because brown/black bears (to mention two species) eat meat and they don't have such acidic stomachs or remarkably gritting teeth, except for the canine teeth that you also find in humans, because most of them are omnivores, like us. I suspect you found your little story about the acids from some creationist bullshit website, which, ironically enough try to explain away the Eden story that all animals in the Eden parable (which they take literally) all ate grass or some stupid shit.

If is true that we are omnivores then why all our hospitals are full up with people with diseases related to vascular diseases.
Arteries choked up with saturated fats, cholesterol and toxins?
All this shit come from a non vegetarian diet.
Please explain.

People eat too much FAT, not meat. Some people getvill from eating too much meat, but eating too much of anything is bad for you. That's more or less the definition of "too much."

Are you saying I'm immune to certain illnesses because I don't eat meat? Well, that makes me feel better about the Pizza and ice cream I intend to eat later.

(May 21, 2013 at 8:20 am)littleendian Wrote: However a significant number of humans, around 400-500 million in total or around 7 percent of the global population, exist on a plant-based diet, which shows that we do have a choice between eating meat or not eating meat and hence it is not primarily a biological question but rather a moral one.

By default? I think you may have left out quite a few other possibilities.

(May 21, 2013 at 8:36 am)Tonus Wrote:

(May 21, 2013 at 8:20 am)littleendian Wrote: The biological argument hasn't been discussed here, yet, thanks for raising it, although I think it's not going to resolve the issue.

Doesn't it really come down to one thing? That being whether or not we consider it moral (or right, or just, or whichever word fits) to kill an animal for food. Or perhaps the question is whether we place non-human animals on the same "moral plane" as humans. I've followed the discussion with interest, but I think every other point flows from that one. Am I incorrect to simplify it to this degree?

If we talk about moral is then important to understand what is moral and what is immoral.
According to my values moral is anything that help us to get closer to our goal of life (human emancipation) while immoral is what get us far from our goal of life.
In other words killing and eating animals is immoral as the suffering that we are causing to animals will produce a bad karma for us (actions and reactions).
In the scale of right and wrong we can well be excused in taking other lives if we have no choices as vegetarian food is not available but if we have a choice then is wrong.
People may argue that also to cut a plant is causing suffering.
That is also quite true but as i said in previous post............less consciousness and less pain and beside if we eat nothing we die and that is not the objective of life so by being moral i do what cause less problem for everybody and everything else.

(May 21, 2013 at 9:23 am)enrico Wrote: If we talk about moral is then important to understand what is moral and what is immoral.
According to my values moral is anything that help us to get closer to our goal of life (human emancipation) while immoral is what get us far from our goal of life.

Everyone makes their own decisions about this based upon their own metrics. No argument from me on this count.

Quote:In other words killing and eating animals is immoral as the suffering that we are causing to animals will produce a bad karma for us (actions and reactions).

On the scale of decent justification for a statement, I'd say this falls pretty low - but that's just me. If your reason for calling this immoral is due to suffering - then any production and harvest procedure that doesn't involve suffering is a-ok. IOW, eating meat isn't immoral, but torturing animals, essentially, is. Further, if this justification depends upon some elusive "karma" it's doa unless you can produce some of that karma, eh?

Quote:In the scale of right and wrong we can well be excused in taking other lives if we have no choices as vegetarian food is not available but if we have a choice then is wrong.

You'll be taking lives with your bean salad as well. Alot of them. The hill of morality loses a few feet of altitude.

Quote:People may argue that also to cut a plant is causing suffering.
That is also quite true but as i said in previous post............less consciousness and less pain and beside if we eat nothing we die and that is not the objective of life so by being moral i do what cause less problem for everybody and everything else.

I wouldn't personally argue that - but less suffering as opposed to what, and again, removing suffering from the equation leaves us where? Picture this, livestock chillin in a field (or swimming in a tank) eating an appropriate diet. Safe from predators, protected from disease...and then, one day - nothing. Captive bolt. What then?

(May 21, 2013 at 9:14 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: People eat too much FAT, not meat. Some people getvill from eating too much meat, but eating too much of anything is bad for you. That's more or less the definition of "too much."

Are you saying I'm immune to certain illnesses because I don't eat meat? Well, that makes me feel better about the Pizza and ice cream I intend to eat later.

I suggest you to go in any hospital in the vascular unit during the meal time.
You will find that around 99% of people there are eating meat.
You may find some people who do not eat meat but they choke up their arteries by eating pizzas and ice cream but after doing your count you will find very few people under this category.
So when you draw your conclusion would be important to get a bit of statistic in your mind.

(May 21, 2013 at 8:36 am)Tonus Wrote: Doesn't it really come down to one thing? That being whether or not we consider it moral (or right, or just, or whichever word fits) to kill an animal for food.

The term "food" is ambiguous here. There is "food" for someone who is starving and there is "food" for a well-fed person sitting in a BBQ joint stuffing his face with beef because he enjoys the taste. You may kill someone who is about to kill you, but you may not kill someone for the joy of killing.

(May 21, 2013 at 8:36 am)Tonus Wrote: Or perhaps the question is whether we place non-human animals on the same "moral plane" as humans.

That woud be, of course, irrational, because animals can have no or only very limited understanding of moral concepts. However, we can apply human morals to human actions, and as so far as these actions affect the life and well-being of another non-human animal I would argue that, yes, we certainly do have a moral responsibility towards these creatures and in that sense yes, we must extend our "moral plane" to include them.

Because the line drawn between man and beast is just Christian dogma. I invite anyone to provide a more logical line than the one that includes all those who can suffer and who have a desire to live.

Quote:Rhythm..................less suffering as opposed to what, and again, removing suffering from the equation leaves us where? Picture this, livestock chillin in a field (or swimming in a tank) eating an appropriate diet. Safe from predators, protected from disease...and then, one day - nothing. Captive bolt. What then?

If animals would be left alone and live in a natural state then mother nature would follow her course.
Whether they will be killed by predators or not is immaterial.
Predators keep a balance in nature so they follow their instinct and do not cause any problem.
Said this i would not like to be predated.hock: