Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[James2014]

So what make a carnivore a carnivore and herbivore a herbivore?

Before I answer your other points lets address this. Do you think I could theoretically feed a herbivore a diet based on meat alone yet it still be healthy? I can tell you that I could.

How could I do this?

[StoryBook]

So what make a carnivore a carnivore and herbivore a herbivore?

Before I answer your other points lets address this. Do you think I could theoretically feed a herbivore a diet based on meat alone yet it still be healthy? I can tell you that I could.

How could I do this?

I see that it is clear that you don't know then. If you did you would not of asked a silly question.
A herbivore can not stay healthy on a carnivore diet, the same as a carnivore can not stay healthy on a herbivore diet.

[James2014]

1. Animals are conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer

2. Mere assertion

Fundamentally you are right, all ethics start with something we inherently assert to be of value. If you don't value suffering, then you could find something else to value (some not available to atheists admittedly), the only rules are be consistent and don't make logical fallacies. If you value suffering however my argument suggest one must think meat eating to be wrong. There other systems of ethics out there of course, e.g. Carl Cohen's social contract ethics. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...search.htm
I have specific arguments why he is wrong, but it is an interesting line of thinking.

---

I see that it is clear that you don't know then. If you did you would not of asked a silly question.
A herbivore can not stay healthy on a carnivore diet, the same as a carnivore can not stay healthy on a herbivore diet.

Nope. Its not a silly question at all. All meat consists of is primarily carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged into molecules of carbohydrates, fats and proteins (and of course all the vitamins and minerals. Converting the types carbohydrates/fats/protein in animal flesh in the types that are in plants for the herbivore to eat merely requires a sequence of chemical reactions. One could figure these out in a lab, then simply synthesise these chemicals from meat. All meat is is chemicals. All plants are, are chemicals.

When we talk about herbivors, what we mean is they are animals that have a number of physiological adaptations to allow them to survive off a diet of plants alone in the wild. When we talk about obligate carnivours all we mean is they are animals that have a number of physiological adaptations to require them to survive off a diet of animals in the wild. When humans get involved, all bets are off, because we have science and chemistry.

Does this make sense?

[StoryBook]

I see that it is clear that you don't know then. If you did you would not of asked a silly question.
A herbivore can not stay healthy on a carnivore diet, the same as a carnivore can not stay healthy on a herbivore diet.

Nope. Its not a silly question at all. All meat consists of is primarily carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged into molecules of carbohydrates, fats and proteins (and of course all the vitamins and minerals. Converting the types carbohydrates/fats/protein in animal flesh in the types that are in plants for the herbivore to eat merely requires a sequence of chemical reactions. One could figure these out in a lab, then simply synthesise these chemicals from meat. All meat is is chemicals. All plants are, are chemicals.

When we talk about herbivors, what we mean is they are animals that have a number of physiological adaptations to allow them to survive off a diet of plants alone in the wild. When we talk about obligate carnivours all we mean is they are animals that have a number of physiological adaptations to require them to survive off a diet of animals in the wild. When humans get involved, all bets are off, because we have science and chemistry.

Does this make sense?

You were getting so close But that is the wrong answer. Would you like to try again? And while you are at it answer the rest of my post?

[Anomalocaris]

If you don't value suffering, ..

You mean "If you don't value reduction in sufferung". If I value suffering, I would be a sadist and consider the infliction of pain to be its own reward.

... the only rules are be consistent and don't make logical fallacies....

Not necessary. Value as seen in common usage is subjective. Consistency and logical soundness are only of value in the pursuit of the objective.

If you value suffering however my argument suggest one must think meat eating to be wrong.

There is no must. There would be no must if one value reduction in suffering, but only amongst some subset of those who are capable of suffering. There would be no must if one value reduction in suffering, but value some of what may be attained through infliction of suffering more. There would be no must if one value reduction in suffering, but judge the cost of the implementation of the reduction in suffering to in fact be be equivalent to greater suffering.

The attempt at reduction of value system to a single variable along a single axis is, how do you say "simple minded, obsessive, impudent and infantile" politely?

[James2014]

You were getting so close But that is the wrong answer. Would you like to try again? And while you are at it answer the rest of my post?

What is cellulose (ie the main constituent of cell walls in plants) made of?

---

You mean "If you don't value reduction in sufferung". If I value suffering, I would be a sadist and consider the infliction of pain to be its own reward.

yes, You can phrase it that way if that is clearer for you, I was meaning value in the sense that suffering has ethical importance not that suffering is a good thing.

[StoryBook]

You were getting so close But that is the wrong answer. Would you like to try again? And while you are at it answer the rest of my post?

What is cellulose (ie the main constituent of cell walls in plants) made of?

So you're not going to answer the rest of my post?

Its glucose, your point?

edit:
I see where you are going, but you are over looking my question. Carnivores do not have the enzymes to break down cellulose like herbivores do.

[James2014]

The attempt at reduction of value system to a single variable along a single axis is, how do you say "simple minded, obsessive, impudent and infantile" politely?

No, that is not very polite.

---

Its glucose, your point?

Yep, glucose. Now If I get fat from an animal, add a few chemicals in there, I can turn it into glucose. I can then add a few more chemicals in there and polymerise glucose into cellulose. Sure I have used a few other synthetic chemicals in the process, but fundamentally I have fed nutrients from meat to a herbivore in a form that would allow them to be healthy, agreed?

---

Ok then...
1. Animals are conscious, and can suffer. They suffer more in the wild. They get chased, injured, strangled, starved, dehydrated and killed or die a slow/long death(days even). You are confused about nature being a happy place. Domesticated animals get food and water, shelter, and a place to grow with little worry of predators.

2.There is a difference from killing for food and abuse. If you are going to compare yourself to an animal then have fun out running a lion. Lions don't see eating a gazelle is wrong. They claw it, injure it, bite its neck, strangle it, paralyze it and eat it. They don't feel guilty about it, it is in their nature to eat meat.

3. As stated in 1 and 2 eating can cause suffering. Suffering is a fact of life. No matter what you do, you can't prevent that gazelle from suffering without causing another animal to suffer.

Therefore your logic is flawed. You are blind to what has been presented to you.

The points you raise then. Firstly could you clarify your argument for me? Do you agree that reducing suffering should be our prime ethical concern?

[là bạn điên]

reducing suffering is MY primary concern and comes way above maximising pleasure for humans

[James2014]

Not necessary. Value as seen in common usage is subjective. Consistency and logical soundness are only of value in the pursuit of the objective.

Values are indeed subjective. But when those values are applied they must be applied logically and consistently. Do we agree on this?

There is no must. There would be no must if one value reduction in suffering, but only amongst some subset of those who are capable of suffering. There would be no must if one value reduction in suffering, but value some of what may be attained through infliction of suffering more. There would be no must if one value reduction in suffering, but judge the cost of the implementation of the reduction in suffering to in fact be be equivalent to greater suffering.

Don't quite understand what you are saying here, could you rephrase? Edit : Are you trying to say one can value suffering will still valuing other things as well? And the competition between how much suffering is reduced, and how much some other ethical value is satisfied can result in an action that causes suffering to be ethical? Furthermore even if one only values the reduction of suffering, an action that aims to reduce suffering, can, in its implementation, cause more suffering. Is this what you are trying to express?

---

reducing suffering is MY primary concern and comes way above maximising pleasure for humans

Indeed, as it is for me.