(May 21, 2013 at 9:34 am)enrico Wrote:What the fuck else would I expect to find when 97% of the population eat meat? I never claimed vegetarianism causes heart disease, did I?(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.:thinking:
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 22, 2024, 9:55 pm
Thread Rating:
|
are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?
|
  (May 21, 2013 at 9:30 am)Rhythm Wrote: You'll be taking lives with your bean salad as well. Alot of them.No, those plants are seeds, the plant doesn't have to die to harvest them. If we really need a discussion about the entire plants-feel-pain debate, which I would find fascinating, then I propose we do that in a different thread. (May 21, 2013 at 9:30 am)Rhythm Wrote: 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?I don't think you would defend the holocaust because they chose to use relatively painless means of mass-execution. If you're not free and you can't speak, you're the perfect victim. Do you think it is likely that any profit-oriented industry with a competition will ever have great concern for the pain and suffering of the "product" that goes through it? But lets pretend it was so, even if those animals had great lifes, then death is usually a messy thing, there is no way to guarantee that there won't be incredible suffering in that slaughtering process. But lets even imagine that it will be completely pain free: How on earth can we deal out death, the greatest punishment our legal system allows for terrible crimes, how can we deal out death in such a massive scale if it is the one thing we ourselfs are most afraid of? Call me a new-age, tree-hugging, fairy-kissing son of a stupid person, but I believe, yes, believe, without being able to back that one up with conscious reason or much evidence, that that will creep back into our psyche and it will come back to haunt us. Of course that won't convince you, and thats very good for you, you don't buy something just because someone tells you, kudos! I'm just saying. The only thing that exists in my mental landscape that I love more than reason is compassion. But, you're right, that's just not an argument, so I'm now officially out of arguments 
"Men see clearly enough the barbarity of all ages — except their own!" — Ernest Crosby.
 (May 21, 2013 at 9:40 am)littleendian Wrote: 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.To clarify, you feel that there is a justification for killing an animal for food, if it's absolutely necessary to sustain a human life? littleendian Wrote: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.Does this cover other areas? Such as using animals for scientific research and testing?
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould RE: are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?
May 21, 2013 at 10:07 am
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2013 at 10:14 am by littleendian.)
(May 21, 2013 at 9:17 am)Rhythm Wrote:You may refer to the argument that meat-eating is actually necessary for some people, depending on their individual biology (?)(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. (May 21, 2013 at 10:02 am)Tonus Wrote: To clarify, you feel that there is a justification for killing an animal for food, if it's absolutely necessary to sustain a human life?Yes, I don't think its possible to attribute any kind of moral value to any act that directly serves self-preservation in the face of death. (May 21, 2013 at 10:02 am)Tonus Wrote: Does this cover other areas? Such as using animals for scientific research and testing?Of course, although this is much more ambiguous than the question of diet at least in the medical science because it's impossible to quantify the suffering of the lab animals against the human suffering that it might prevent. Cosmetics is quite a different matter though.
"Men see clearly enough the barbarity of all ages — except their own!" — Ernest Crosby.
(May 21, 2013 at 10:07 am)littleendian Wrote: Of course, although this is much more ambiguous than the question of diet at least in the medical science because it's impossible to quantify the suffering of the lab animals against the human suffering that it might prevent. Cosmetics is quite a different matter though. Thanks, I was just curious.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould RE: are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?
May 21, 2013 at 11:39 am
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2013 at 11:54 am by The Grand Nudger.)
To make a very long story short - if the goal is to minimize suffering in some way through our dietary decisions, it's difficult to ignore how useful livestock production would be in achieving that goal. By tying livestock and ag into an artificial loop we might be able to reduce our reliance on "external" inputs (largely, at present, petrochem - and all the suffering that this entails). We know that -biology works-, so it would seem to be a good idea to look to biology to solve our biology related problems, like what to eat and how to get it. It would also seem counterintuitive - in trying to achieve that goal, if we took something off the table because of an emotional response to a specific method. Really think about that for a moment. Our emotions are such conflicting things that some of us may not be able to satisfy our own internal emotional requirements because of conflicting emotional requirements - even though it's the very same emotion in both cases. "My compassion says that I must, but also that I cannot".
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
 Quote: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). Um, go to a mirror and smile. See those pointy teeth on your upper and lower jaws. Those are not for hunting broccoli. In fact, one of the surest signs of human evolution is the reduction in tooth size over several million years. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...tooth-size Were it not for meat eating we would not be sitting here having this discussion. http://greatist.com/health/eating-meat-b...ain-121112 Quote:One study suggests that the high calories found in meat helped fuel the development of the human brain. The researchers believed it would’ve been impossible for early humans to gather enough calories from meat-free foods to feed their growing brains. If early humans had followed a raw diet (like gorillas), they would have had to eat for a total of nine hours every day in order to consume enough calories for proper brain development. On the flip side, if gorillas were to develop a humanlike brain, they would need to eat 700 additional calories per day — an extra two hours of eating all those greens. (May 21, 2013 at 11:39 am)Rhythm Wrote: Our emotions are such conflicting things that some of us may not be able to satisfy our own internal emotional requirements because of conflicting emotional requirements - even though it's the very same emotion in both cases. "My compassion says that I must, but also that I cannot".I'm happy our goals seem the same, but I'm still not convinced that we will minimize suffering by eating meat, considering what is today required to produce it. But I see your point and will certainly look into that. However, meat tastes great, and I know from introspection that there is a great temptation to just accept an argument if it will only allow me to have juicy steak... so I have my suspicions.
"Men see clearly enough the barbarity of all ages — except their own!" — Ernest Crosby.
There is of course the argument that it is much more humane to allow feral domestic animals (those released by well meaning animal activists) to die a painful death from 1080 poisoning whilst they destroy the natural fauna.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
 (May 21, 2013 at 12:05 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote: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). First you should explain why the vegetarian hippos got their canine 100 times bigger then humans. After this we can start talking about canine teeth.  Were it not for meat eating we would not be sitting here having this discussion. http://greatist.com/health/eating-meat-b...ain-121112 Quote:One study suggests that the high calories found in meat helped fuel the development of the human brain. The researchers believed it would’ve been impossible for early humans to gather enough calories from meat-free foods to feed their growing brains. If early humans had followed a raw diet (like gorillas), they would have had to eat for a total of nine hours every day in order to consume enough calories for proper brain development. On the flip side, if gorillas were to develop a humanlike brain, they would need to eat 700 additional calories per day — an extra two hours of eating all those greens. This so called research is nothing else but a theory with no scientific substance at all. A proper scientific research study everything not just 1 item as in this research. In my previous post i point out to several facts beside the teeth. The length of the stomach compared to carnivore, the gastric juices compared to carnivore etc. I also point out the high incidence and terrible effect that a meat diet has on the vascular system which choke when saturated fats, colesterole and toxins prevent the blood from moving. When you are prepared to discuss all these factor come back here or better go to any hospital in the vascular units and see if you can find any vegetarian. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
