Is There Any Philosophical Basis for Stefan's 'Non-Sadistic-Principle'?

[FreedomPhilosophy]

I'm sorry it feels that way, but, while I appreciate your input, I don't feel very confident that you made an attempt to understand my argument. I try very hard to address each concern that you have as thoroughly as possible and I end up disappointed by what looks like blatant disrespect for my efforts every time you post. I don't mind being wrong if I'm wrong, but I like to have my points addressed concisely and logically. Philosophy is a science - if one can refute my argument using rational points OR by pointing out where my logic fails, then I think that's a great thing and no less than my argument deserves. So like I said, please feel free to read through my argument and try again, and I'll be happy to continue the debate.

 

 

That's great, I can't wait to see your supporting research and the inevitable scientific consensus! ...Even though there still appears to be plenty of evidence that we wouldn't even be the species we are without generous amounts of meat consumption such as here, here, and this excerpt. Until and unless I see your irrefutable research, it seems that I'm forced to believe that homo sapiens are evolutionary omnivores. It seems that "all of the known facts" better support the omnivore argument.

 

Ooh, I would not so lightly compare this kind of science to creation "science." There is a pretty clear difference in the evidence provided, and there is no consensus as there is against creationism. In fact, nothing that you've cited has given any positive support for a strictly herbivore diet. As I'm sure you know, a strictly vegetarian/vegan diet does not provide all necessary nutrients that humans need to live as long as we do currently. Vegans today have access to B12 vitamins (among others) that would not be found in third-world or pre-industrial societies. Just because you claim that many (the majority, most likely, though that wouldn't necessarily make them right) scientists are not subjecting themselves to scientific rigor, doesn't make it so.

 

Additionally, I submit your claim that I don't know any humans who can or would catch and eat raw animals to be absolutely, beyond any doubt, ridiculous. The only reason that I don't eat raw crab that I catch from the coast is because I have access to easier options. The only reason that I don't collect and eat grubs raw is because it is not necessary to my current survival (et cetera for any animals). But I would bet my life that, put in that kind of situation, I would do it without hesitation. And your claim that the use of tools is not an evolutionary adaptation on it's own doesn't stand up when you account for our evolutionary history. We absolutely developed the ability to use tools to more easily eat meat, and we certainly ate what we could catch before such adaptations. 

 

As for unfortunate consequences for meat-eaters? That article makes clear the average life-span of humans to be 25, well after the age of maturity and subsequent passing along of genes. I also wonder just how long the life-span would be if humans in those areas stuck strictly to local vegetation.

 

Cows and sheep don't need to for survival, since their bodies are far more adapted to eating vegetation than those of humans. So I'd still say that my observation is far from worthless. Also... Did I say that human omnivores live equally long and healthy lives? No, I don't believe I did. But conscious and rational choices regarding how much and what kinds of meat surely can and have led to acceptable longevity among whatever modern society I can point to.

 

Even if you're right, it still doesn't solve the issue of morality which Pepin (and, I'd like to believe, I) has effectively put forward, but I don't think that that's an issue that most vegan/vegetarians will fully consider, as morality has little to do with historical or current health benefits.

When you cherry pick a few pieces of information that seem to support your position you are showing complete contempt for the scientific method. It is lawyers who prefer to choose only that information that support their argument. In science the one proposing a hypothesis must examine ALL the available information and produce a cogent explanation.I have no intention of spending my time telling you why your assertions are wrong, I doubt there is any amount of information that would convince you of your folly, and even if there were the onus is upon you to produce a compelling case for your argument. You have not.With respect to vitamin B12 this is a problem only in contemporary cultures as a direct result of pesticides, artifically pest resitant cultivars and washing of food. Wild primates obtain B12 by coprophagy and insect contamination, meat consumption is not required.You would do well to start your argument with a definition of what an omnivore is and then a set of criteria that determines how when examining an organism we determine that it is an "omnivore".The argument that tool use in an adaptation leads to some bizarre conclusions within the context you use. Organisms undoubtedly evolve greater intelligence, but the results of the application of that intelligence cannot be directly attributed to a genetic process. If that were true it would be like saying we have genes to manufacture TVs.

[AnarchoBenchwarmer]

When you cherry pick a few pieces of information that seem to support your position you are showing complete contempt for the scientific method. It is lawyers who prefer to choose only that information that support their argument. In science the one proposing a hypothesis must examine ALL the available information and produce a cogent explanation.I have no intention of spending my time telling you why your assertions are wrong, I doubt there is any amount of information that would convince you of your folly, and even if there were the onus is upon you to produce a compelling case for your argument. You have not.With respect to vitamin B12 this is a problem only in contemporary cultures as a direct result of pesticides, artifically pest resitant cultivars and washing of food. Wild primates obtain B12 by coprophagy and insect contamination, meat consumption is not required.You would do well to start your argument with a definition of what an omnivore is and then a set of criteria that determines how when examining an organism we determine that it is an "omnivore".The argument that tool use in an adaptation leads to some bizarre conclusions within the context you use. Organisms undoubtedly evolve greater intelligence, but the results of the application of that intelligence cannot be directly attributed to a genetic process. If that were true it would be like saying we have genes to manufacture TVs.

 

You made a few very good points here that I will certainly research and attempt to verify. I especially like your refutation of the necessity of the B12 vitamin in our society, even if I'm a little confused as to how the ingestion of insects doesn't count as meat consumption. I'm sure similar refutations, if accurate, exist for other supplements that vegans find themselves forced to ingest.

 

But I have to reject your assertion that the burden of proof is on me. The only definitions (I should point out that the term "omnivore" is apparently not yet a scientific classification) that I can find regarding omnivores seem to support the idea that humans fall into that category; that seems to suggest that the current consensus is that humans are naturally omnivores. If there is a better scientific definition, one that excludes humans, then would it not be the duty of a scientific study to now prove that the current consensus is incorrect? And if such proof has arrived already and not been rejected, then why is it not more wide-spread?

 

I also consider it unfair of you to assert that I would not be willing to examine evidence objectively. Have I said anything to make you think that? I admit that I can often come off as rude (I don't do this on purpose) over the internet, but I don't think I've displayed behavior that would make anybody regard me as closed-minded. I'm simply trying to present a case that appears to be logical according to the evidence that I have. Additionally, I find your accusation of cherry-picking to be unfounded. At least I have found sources that support my conclusion. I've yet to see the same from you; indeed, when you do link to a website or video, I have generally found them to support my conclusion as well.

 

Tool-use is no doubt an applied effect of our genetic disposition toward creativity and our intelligence, which is no doubt an evolutionary advantage that we used to become more effective predators/gatherers/what-have-you, which humans, at the very least, seem to have a genetic predisposition towards being (human omnivore tendencies predate our use of tools, from what I understand). I'm stunned and somewhat disappointed that you would interpret my meaning to be something like "we have genes to manufacture TVs."

 

FreedomPhilosophy, I have so far enjoyed our discourse. I know you can do better than simply twisting my meaning, refusing to support your arguments, and implying that I do not respect the scientific method without reasonable support for your accusation.