brokeman

super late but congrats!!!

sounds self explainatory to me... an inuit: A member of a group of Eskimoan peoples inhabiting the Arctic from northern Alaska eastward to eastern Greenland, particularly those of Canada. ( right from the online dictionary) One only has to only think about it for a few moments to see that the artic/northern alaska/canada/greenland are very very cold places. they have a good reason for eating meat. simply for the fact that finding plants are very sparse within those areas. also, the fatter you are, the more heat you tend to hold and being in a cold climate like that.. I'd say thats an adventage. the near opposite would be being in the "garden of eden" without any animals.

The case between road kill that someone for the most part hit on accident and eating meat that has been put their for your consumption is two different things. Are you suggesting that eating the roadkill is the same as eating meat from the supermarket? if so, why? Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity. from wikipedia... sen·tience 1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness. 2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought. from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sentience so in that case sentinence is the ability to feel or perceive or be conscious. A newborn baby can feel so it is indeed sentinent. However, obviously a newborn anything can pretty much feel also so... that newborn sheep is sentinent just as much as that newborn human is also. Do you not think that if you pinched a newborn it wouldn't cry or if you hit a newborn sheep it wouldn't try to run away from getting hit again? Of course it would. The newborn sheep has a nervous system just like we do. If it didn't then we can state its not sentinent.

we still have the essential question that must be asked. Is it truly difficult to know if animals can understand the causes of pain? Sure, they might not know if they will eventually die but they might know that if they have seen death of a parent or something like that. For example, the only way we know that we will die is because others have died before us right? Would one think he will die if he never seen anything die? we can't communicate with an animal in the correct manner to find out if it has empathy for each other therefore we can eat that said animal due to it becoming subjective is highly flawed thinking. It's basically saying that if one can't communicate with their young, they have a subjective choice in eating that said animal. Need I give the example of a baby and its parents deciding on eating that child because the parents don't have the ability to communicate with the baby within the correct manner? Of course not. There are many examples within the animal kingdom itself where this falls flat on its face and one can observe all sorts of animals to see that your logic is flawed. That isn't rational simply because we aren't a carnvorous species. Ever ate anything besides meat? I'm sure you have even if we ate mac donalds or seasoned a steak. Meat doesn't taste very good without any type of herbs or spices on it to begin with so....

I have went though a thread about eating meat and that some people justified eating meat due to the fact that those said animals ( cows for example) don't display emotions and therefore are unable to know whats happening to them. However upon further research that obviously isn't the case as all animals have a nervous system and therefore are able to feel pain. Does one not think that if you placed a cow on a bunch of hot coals it would NOT try to get off of them? Of course it would. it feels pain just as we do. This test can be expanded to all animals... Now this essentially makes us all vegans at this point. However, we have another issue. Some plants within the plant kingdom have developed defenses to animals. We have drugs such as marijuana that if one eats it, they become high. One could say the plant does this because it wants us to eat it however that can't be the case. I doubt poision ivy "thinks" that way otherwise it wouldn't evolve to the point of having defenses that makes it poisous in the first place right? now we are left in the situation of picking certain fruits and vegetables that have not evolved to the point of having defenses. If the case is to eat plants that are defenseless then does that rule apply to animals too or just plants? This is where I have a hard time understanding how it is moral to eat plants or animals. this where the logic of self perservation comes into play so one thinks that they must eat something to survive... this is why some people are vegans mainly because they believe that killing a defenseless plant ( lettuce for example) would be less harmful to the plant than to the animal? In that case then I understand the reasoning but is there another logical and rational reason I missed?