Veganism?

[genkaus]

Yep, I don't want to be eaten. I hope that by not eating people I can show those around me (who are also hopefully not into eating people) that I'm not into eating people. If enough of us who aren't into eating people stick together, we will be hard people to eat. Until we get hungry....... Is this really so mysterious as to ask for a "logical explanation"?

I'm sure the deer don't want to be eaten either. That doesn't matter to the lion. It is possible for me to form a group of my own - of those who like to eat people (even if we do not want to be eaten ourselves). It is also possible that if we grew big enough or strong enough, we could eat people like you without any consequences or repercussions. But that does not answer the question of whether I should.

You are kind of missing the point here. The issue underlying veganism is a matter of morality. No one is saying whether you can or cannot eat other animals. You can. It is well within your capacity.

The question is - whether you should? The proponents of veganism would say that you should not, because it is immoral. Those opposed say that it is not immoral since it occurs in nature all the time. What I'm trying to determine here is a rational and objective criteria by which a person can determine whether he should eat a particular creature or not.

---

If I am trapped on a desert island with no food, you can bet your sweet ass I will become a canibal..

I will eat the vegans first...because they eat the food that my food eats, which makes them closer to food in my opinion.

And why should I wait to be trapped on a deserted island? If I can find a way to get away with it, why shouldn't I start being a cannibal right here and now?

---

is there a rational reason as to why I shouldn't kill and eat other people?

It being against the law is not enough of a reason?

It being against the law is a reason for me to find a way to escape the legal consequences rather than giving up on cannibalism.

Assuming that I can get away with it, why shouldn't I go ahead and do it?

[Minimalist]

But that does not answer the question of whether I should.

Actually, it does.

Remember there were religious groups who gleefully sacrificed infants to the 'gods.' People can rationalize damn near anything if you give them half a chance.

You are free to advocate for cannibalism. You are not free to kill people and eat them. That is because the constitution protects speech not conduct.

[genkaus]

Actually, it does.

Remember there were religious groups who gleefully sacrificed infants to the 'gods.' People can rationalize damn near anything if you give them half a chance.

You are free to advocate for cannibalism. You are not free to kill people and eat them. That is because the constitution protects speech not conduct.

Now we are getting somewhere.

Yes, people can rationalize damn near everything. Which is why, in order to separate the rationalized from the truly rational, we need objective standards.

Right now, I'm not free to kill and eat anyone I want because of the constitutional "right to life" given to every human being. But is this right given arbitrarily or is there a rational basis?

If it is arbitrary, what, other that popular vote, would stop it from changing to the way it was in the past? When the right was given only to the religious people or only to men or only to whites?

If there is an objective reason, what is it? What objective reason is there that this right is given exclusively to human beings and not to any other animal or plant?

[KichigaiNeko]

Perpetuation of the species and expansion of the tribal group.

[reverendjeremiah]

And why should I wait to be trapped on a deserted island? If I can find a way to get away with it, why shouldn't I start being a cannibal right here and now?

Because I taste like shit.

[RW_9]

Now we are getting somewhere.

Yes, people can rationalize damn near everything. Which is why, in order to separate the rationalized from the truly rational, we need objective standards.

Right now, I'm not free to kill and eat anyone I want because of the constitutional "right to life" given to every human being. But is this right given arbitrarily or is there a rational basis?

If it is arbitrary, what, other that popular vote, would stop it from changing to the way it was in the past? When the right was given only to the religious people or only to men or only to whites?

If there is an objective reason, what is it? What objective reason is there that this right is given exclusively to human beings and not to any other animal or plant?

What you are describing is the question of personhood. At what point is an entity considered a person, and does that entity necessarily have to be human? The most prominent person I can think of regarding this whole issue of animal rights is Peter Singer. You would probably find his work interesting.

I myself completely gave up on trying to develop a sound position on the entire issue of animal rights. I have other things to figure out at this juncture. Was that a completely arbitrary decision partially fueled by how much I hated living a vegan lifestyle? Yep. But I just can't decide what I think about the issue, and I'm done "erring on the cautious side."

I am now erring in favor of my taste buds.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rationalizations about irrational convictions, most likely Genk. Getting through our day to day (which is what a taboo toward cannibalism does) isn't about what's "right" or "true", it's about what works. Now I know that we like to attempt to make the two equal in modern society, but if we're going to use cannibalism as an example, it would be helpful to remember that cannibalism isn't some vague philosophy of person-hood. It was an act that we see a steady decrease in (via the record of midden heaps and human remains) all the way through the development of mankind (it does not appear to have ever been a huge issue with exceptions..which are notable both because the act is gruesome, and they are exceptions). There seems to have been a wide sort of agreement (even if it was never spoken) among human beings that cannibalism was not an option (excluding, of course, tribes of cannibals). That this agreement was made so early and so unanimously in our history probably leaves it as a question that we have had little to no reason to truly address in a long time. If you could show that cannibalism was rational (or at least no less irrational than veganism or omniverous diets), I doubt people would be flocking in droves to your tribe.

late edit: Cannibalism in the Pacific Ring is probably the single-most fascinating and well documented example. Thankfully we (The West) arrived on these cultures when they were still at an isolated and "primitive" state (I use the term very loosely), and so we got better than usual documentation with regards to both cannibalism and how it squared with their faith (rationalizations).

[DreadLock]

vegetarian food is proven to be more healthy
http://www.vegetariantimes.com/resources/why_go_veg/

also check out this links
http://healthandfitnesstimes.com/why-go-vegetarian/897/
http://features.peta.org/VegetarianStarterKit/

[The Grand Nudger]

So sayeth the Vegetarian Times and PETA?

[Minimalist]

Healthy?

We are where we are because our early ancestors stopped eating roots and berries and started eating meat.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...=128849908

Our earliest ancestors ate their food raw — fruit, leaves, maybe some nuts. When they ventured down onto land, they added things like underground tubers, roots and berries.

It wasn't a very high-calorie diet, so to get the energy you needed, you had to eat a lot and have a big gut to digest it all. But having a big gut has its drawbacks.

"You can't have a large brain and big guts at the same time," explains Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and director of the Wenner-Gren Foundation in New York City, which funds research on evolution. Digestion, she says, was the energy-hog of our primate ancestor's body. The brain was the poor stepsister who got the leftovers.

Until, that is, we discovered meat.