Veganism?

[reverendjeremiah]

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/

So a magazine called "vegetarian times" has said that vegetarian food is proven to be more healthy?

You dont say?

I read on Creation ministries International that Creationism is backed by science.

If Iwere to immediately switch over to a vegan lifestyle right now I would put my body at a health risk. Switching to veganism is so risky that I would suggest people NOT do it. But if they feel they HAVE to do it (for whatever religious or pseudo religious purposes they have for the conversion), then I would highly suggest that you change to it slowly and gradually while being monitored by a doctor or a nutritionist.

Also, once you flip over to a Vegan lifestyle, it is best that you find some good supplements to make up for the Vegan lack of certain minerals and vitamins that a healthy omnivorous diet used to give you. Here is a list of vitamins that are also stamped "vegan approved"

http://www.thriftyvegan.com/vitamin.html...7Qod5Tut3w

[RW_9]

I don't really care if someone wants to be vegan or not, but I do agree that contacting a reliable physician is in order before switching over. You never know how your body might uniquely react.

[reverendjeremiah]

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?

All rights are arbitrary. Every single right on that constitution was voted up or down by people.

Now...since you keep pushing the topic. If you want to be a cannibal, I would first ask you what kind of cannibal would you be. there are 2 kinds of cannibals I am aware of:

#1 - The most popular kind, these cannibals do not eat people for food, nor do they kill people to eat them. This kind of cannibal eats their dead tribesmen. Everytime a member of the tribe dies, the entire tribe cooks him and eats him. Their cemetary is in their stomach.

#2 - Hannibal lecter....loves eating human liver with fava beans and a nice kianti.

So I am guessing you want to be #2. Have at it bro. by all means if you want to eat humans then do it. You better be pretty slick and pretty strong to try to kill and eat me, because I guarentee I will fuck you up something bad if you tried to eat me or my family.

But no, ultimately NOTHING is stopping you from eating humans. In this world, ANYTHING goes...rights are merely opinions that people have voted to agree upon.

[Minimalist]

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.

What "right" is that?

All 50 states have statutes against murder, though.

[genkaus]

Perpetuation of the species and expansion of the tribal group.

I doubt that a little cannibalism is going to affect expansion of the species. Humanity is expanding a little too fast anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's a third kind, at least a third, probably more if we nitpick. A cannibal in a tribe of cannibals that belongs to a larger culture of cannibals who have accepted cannibalism as something other than taboo, possibly even reaching the level of spirituality. Consuming other groups within the culture but not their own tribe. Then there are starving outliers..so that's a 4th.

[genkaus]

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.

So am I. We do not have enough knowledge about a creature's consciousness yet to determine what role would it play in its personhood. But that shouldn't stop us from coming up with standards that would be applied once the knowledge does come into picture.

---

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).

I agree that we never sought to find whether cannibalism was rational or not because it was always, sort of, accepted that it was not an option. It has always been, sort of, a given. The fact that society almost unanimously agreed on it does not make it rational. There are many other things society sort-of agrees upon nearly unanimously.

Religion of the society used to be such a thing. In India, it was "not eating cows". Elsewhere, it was eating only Kosher meat. My point is, there is no more rational justification for not-cannibalism as there is for veganism or omnivorism. We need to find out IF there can be a rational way to judge these things.

[RW_9]

So am I. We do not have enough knowledge about a creature's consciousness yet to determine what role would it play in its personhood. But that shouldn't stop us from coming up with standards that would be applied once the knowledge does come into picture.

There have been standards applied to our current knowledge. If you disagree with the current standards in society (whichever you happen to be in), feel free to make an argument against them. At present time, the broad standard is that of the human species. If you are a proponent of calling that specieism and wish to include the rights of personhood to other species, feel free to make an argument for it. Virtually nobody will listen, but that's because Singer already came up with arguments for it and society dismissed him.

[The Grand Nudger]

My point is, there is no more rational justification for not-cannibalism as there is for veganism or omnivorism. We need to find out IF there can be a rational way to judge these things.

Perhaps such a thing doesn't exist, and all we have is that communal gut reaction that we all semi-agreed upon. Congratz to us.

[reverendjeremiah]

Religion of the society used to be such a thing. In India, it was "not eating cows". Elsewhere, it was eating only Kosher meat. My point is, there is no more rational justification for not-cannibalism as there is for veganism or omnivorism. We need to find out IF there can be a rational way to judge these things.

Yeah, that sounds boring as hell. I have talked to Vegans before (not saying you are one), and if one thing I have found out that they are very religious about their vegan beliefs. The vast majority of vegans I have met are extremists. some have flat out told me that if they could, they would have me arrested for eating meat, and they would gladly force every single human on this planet to be vegan like they are.

One time I was at a friends house and we had a vegan over there as well. We were feeding his snake a live mouse and the Vegan got offended. Get this shit, she said that feeding that mouse to the snake was cruel to both the mouse and the snake, and that she openly expressed her wish that the snake was a vegan like herself.

Needless to say, the idea of discussing food with a Vegan doesnt go well with me, as they tend to be so radical and off base that I frankly find them to be twisted.

Its one thing if you are a vegetarian. I have NO problem with vegetarians who are cool and easy going...but if you are one of those activist vegans who are trying to force your vegetable religion on me and the rest of the world, then I am your enemy.