(February 21, 2014 at 6:08 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

(February 21, 2014 at 2:11 am)là bạn điên Wrote: If you don;t want to fuck children THEN JUST DON'T

If you don;t want to beat someone up for being Gay THEN JUST DON'T


If you don;t want to murder someone for being an Atheist THEN JUST DON'T

Yeah.... Those things all involve harming other people. Worst analogies ever. Better analogies would be having children, being openly gay and being an atheist.

They are brilliant analogies because eating meat involves hurting other sentient beings. Once synthesised meat becomes economically viable then meat eating can become completely ethical.

(February 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm)rasetsu Wrote:


You keep forgetting two things.

a) Since my ethics is based on evolutionary principles, counter-claims are a matter of basic survival.

b) Since my ethics operates at the species level, it can't be used to support gender or race distinctions directly.

Your appeals continually violate these two basic facts.

I don't doubt that an interest in species and ideas about evolution are the basis for your system of ethics. I just don't believe these ideas are the right ones to choose. There is very much about our species that causes immoral behavior-- in fact, I'd argue that it is our ability to reign in obsolete evolutionary behaviors that constitutes the basis of morality.

Quote:I would agree that we should eliminate unnecessary animal suffering if it doesn't result in a drain on our survival. But if being altruistic involves sacrificing the goals of humans for the sake of animals, then your altruism is irrational. Altruism evolved to serve species goals, and when you take it outside of that, you are costing lives.

I don't think what you're saying about evolution is how evolution is correctly viewed. There's no goal, either of the species or of evolution. Stuff has happened, and so we are the way we are.

Nor is giving up meat really an act of altruism. It doesn't throw the self into jeopardy, leaving evolutionists to wonder why an organism would act in a way clearly contrary to its individual genetic fitness. Yes, there's some sacrifice involved, in that meat is yummy and someone doesn't get to enjoy its yumminess. But this is irrelevant to the genetic fitness of the species or of individual humans.

Quote:However, vegetarianism is a case of looking for an ethical principle to use to justify an ideological position, and holding fast to that rationalization in spite of the consequences.

I have used the word "moral" exclusively in this thread, and I think you are the first in this thread to refer to ethics. Is this semantic difference deliberate, and if so, what is you intent in differentiating?

(February 21, 2014 at 3:35 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 21, 2014 at 12:19 pm)rasetsu Wrote: However, vegetarianism is a case of looking for an ethical principle to use to justify an ideological position, and holding fast to that rationalization in spite of the consequences.

I have used the word "moral" exclusively in this thread, and I think you are the first in this thread to refer to ethics. Is this semantic difference deliberate, and if so, what is you intent in differentiating?

Oxford English Dictionary Wrote:ethics
2. a. (after Greek τὰ ἠθικά). The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty.

Now I know you can't help being a hair-splitting, obfuscating, red herring filled furrball, but I think when you question the relationship between the use of the term 'ethics' versus 'moral', you've ceased to be worth even the courtesy of a reply.

(February 21, 2014 at 1:49 pm)là bạn điên Wrote:

(February 21, 2014 at 6:08 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Yeah.... Those things all involve harming other people. Worst analogies ever. Better analogies would be having children, being openly gay and being an atheist.

They are brilliant analogies because eating meat involves hurting other sentient beings. Once synthesised meat becomes economically viable then meat eating can become completely ethical.

And antibiotics involve harming living beings. It all depends where you draw your line. You, apparently, set your standard of significance at the ability to suffer. I draw mine at the ability to reason. Others, who take a more extreme view, may draw it at life.

What makes your criteria better than anyone else's (in either direction).

I eat vegetarians .. am I a vegetarian??

I have a question la ban, how do you justify lions killing gazelle, or a cat that tortures a mouse?

(February 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: And antibiotics involve harming living beings. It all depends where you draw your line. You, apparently, set your standard of significance at the ability to suffer. I draw mine at the ability to reason. Others, who take a more extreme view, may draw it at life.

What makes your criteria better than anyone else's (in either direction).

It is better to value the ability to suffer than the ability to reason because one can not consistantly value the latter while still believing that the lives of those who do not reason such as children and the mentally disabled are of moral worth.

(February 21, 2014 at 6:09 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Now I know you can't help being a hair-splitting, obfuscating, red herring filled furrball, but I think when you question the relationship between the use of the term 'ethics' versus 'moral', you've ceased to be worth even the courtesy of a reply.

Think whatever you want. These words are sometimes used interchangeably, and sometimes with distinction. Since I don't know which way you are looking at the words, it is necessary to ask you to clarify. Your outrage at the process of clarifying meaning is, however, noted.

---

(February 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: And antibiotics involve harming living beings. It all depends where you draw your line. You, apparently, set your standard of significance at the ability to suffer. I draw mine at the ability to reason. Others, who take a more extreme view, may draw it at life.

What makes your criteria better than anyone else's (in either direction).

It's a fair enough point. A lot of energy goes into the growing of a plant, and billions of years of evolution. Why shouldn't it be protected and valued as a living thing?

If the goal is to have no effect on any living organism, then the answer is pretty obvious: protecting all organisms, including plants, demands suicide.

Barring that, there's no scenario in which eating meat will have a net reduction on the harm that sustaining a human being causes to other organisms. All meat is derived from the consumption of plants. Therefore, meat consumption STILL involves the consumption of the plants, and ALSO involves the additional suffering of the food animal.

(February 21, 2014 at 6:14 pm)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

(February 21, 2014 at 1:49 pm)là bạn điên Wrote: They are brilliant analogies because eating meat involves hurting other sentient beings. Once synthesised meat becomes economically viable then meat eating can become completely ethical.

And antibiotics involve harming living beings. It all depends where you draw your line. You, apparently, set your standard of significance at the ability to suffer. I draw mine at the ability to reason. Others, who take a more extreme view, may draw it at life.

What makes your criteria better than anyone else's (in either direction).

So you think that we should be allowed to eat mentally ill people who aren't capable of reason? There are plenty of people with a lower IQ than Dogs, Pigs, Dolphins and the Great apes so either you think we SHOULD eat the mentally Ill or we shouldn't eat the higher animals.

We were talking on another thread about a child born with only a brainstem but no brain. We can definitely eat him right?

WHY do you think ability to reason is what should make people safe from being eaten by others?

(February 16, 2014 at 10:11 am)enrico Wrote:

(February 16, 2014 at 9:37 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Vegetarians are much much much less common than meat eaters. Of course you are going to see more meat eaters with cardiovascular diseases, because there are more meat eaters, period. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? I also highly doubt that 99% of people you saw with cardiovascular problems were meat eaters.

The ratio (less then 10 compared to about 2000) is far far too much to make any mistakes.

Quote:And didn't you work in a psych ward last time we asked? Apparently?

1) In the last 24 years i worked in different units.
2) It is not only cardiovascular diseases that i saw but also dementia, Parkinson and Alzheimer and all these diseased ring a bell in my mind when i see that only NON veg. are affected.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: And when i know that their arteries are choked with saturated fats and cholesterol then an other bell ring in my head.

Quote:Yes, I'm sure you scraped their arteries and tested the samples yourself. No?

You don't need to study as much as a doctor to know that in most cases arteries are choked with these elements.
There are other cases in which arteries are choked but these cases are much more rare like when the cells in the blood are swollen or other.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: And when i know that this shit can not come other then meat

Quote:How do you know that? They could just eat a lot of chocolate.

I look after these people and i can see what they eat and what they don't eat.

(February 16, 2014 at 8:49 am)enrico Wrote: then one more bell ring in my head so why should i go looking for peer review when i already know the very cause of the problem?

Quote:No you don't know. You think you know, but you don't know. That is why peer review exists, to confirm, to add up the evidence, to evaluate the method and results. Have you ever considered any extraneous variables that could affect cardiovascular disease, such as: age, diet, % of body fat, ethnicity. I'm guessing you haven't. Correlation does not imply causation. You can't go making these grand conclusions from some (poorly collected, inaccurate) data

You would think that these people are all old people.
You would be surprised to find out that most of these people are in their 50 as average.

That is not evidence - it is anecdotes. This is science.

National Institutes of Health Wrote:According to pure vegetarian ideologists, people consuming vegetarian diet have better health and live longer than nonvegetarians, because persons consuming milk, dairy products, meat, eggs and fish are at health risk. In fact the most healthy people in Europe are inhabitants of Iceland, Switzerland and Scandinavia, consuming great amounts of food of animal origin. Meta-analysis of several prospective studies showed no significant differences in the mortality caused by colorectal, stomach, lung, prostate or breast cancers and stroke between vegetarians and "health-conscious" nonvegetarians.