J. D. Stembal Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Sure it is a lot less than is used to grow grain (they don't eat) to feed them. If you stop feeding them grain ... well, there is not enough pastures for all of them. In future, would you please refrain from mockingly speculating what I am going to tell you next? How are there not enough pastures? Can you prove it? A free market would dictate that this cannot be. If there are too few pastures, the price of pasture raised cattle would go up, and more ranchers would get into the market by buying up more pasture land to raise more animals. You vote with your dollars so that ranchers invest more capital into ranching. Could it be that this land is already taken up by the agriculture of corn, soy, and wheat, which are far more destructive to the environment and subsidized by the federal government? Could it be because 28% of the land in the United States (640 million acres) is federally owned and managed? I apologize for my mockery. I was over-zealous in my tone. My assertion is that ethical veganism is an outgrowth of ideological Marxism, and feminism. The fact that it cannot be universalized should tell us that any campaign to oppose the consumption of meat beyond individual voluntary choices is following the slippery path toward authoritarianism. Regarding cow milk production, you are probably correct in your facts, but realize that dairy cows are rarely going to be allowed to roam a pasture and eat grass (they would have to be connected and disconnected from the milking machines), so they are probably fed mainly corn and soy, maybe wheat and hay. This adds to the water requirements of cattle because metabolizing grains requires a lot of water. People that eat grains hold onto excessive amounts of water weight. The simple answer is if you don't like dairy farming, don't drink milk. I consume a little dairy because it is a good source of saturated fat (yogurt and cheese), however, I like to keep it limited because it makes my acne break out. If we voluntarily milked healthy lactating humans for dairy production, I would consume a lot more of it.
guitarstring87 Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I am a vegan. I am comfortably surviving on the plant products of local farmers. Nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, potatoes, fruit and vegetables are all anyone needs. You can grow a lot in a lot of places. I eat rice and avocado too, only because I like to not because I need to. I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I call you or anyone with a fat veal steak on their plate immoral. Because you have a choice. It takes about 7kg of grain to get 1 kg of beef. If feeding people is our concern, the solution seems obvious. As I said above, I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I don't have an argument for animals that can be evaluated by UPB. I don't think UPB allows such argument to be made. I don't quite see where you are going. Can this poor afghan goat herder change his conditions? Do you survive there also by eating his goats? Does he eat goat products only? Things can grow in a lot of places, but its is easier to run away and survive with a herd of oats than with a field of half grown crops. Just an idea. 'Go out into nature for a bit. Go on. Don't take any food or water.' - there. How would it make it anything but a constructed scarcity. Is a local farm nature enough for you? Can I work in the farm for food? Do you need to cut a wast amount of choices to prove your point? In future would you please refrain from calling people you don't agree with disconnected from reality? So if you say some people can morally eat meat, and others cannot and remain moral. Ok, since we can get down with double standards now... I have a WHOLE BUNCH of double standards that I want to put on everyone now that Universal ethics is done away with. First of all... Effective immediately, only I can be right and you have to be wrong. Also it is bad for any of you to be rich but it is good for me to have all the money. No one can marry girls except me and the rest of you all must be celibate. This is just the best. I LOVE double standards. So lets say we do accept your "double think" (George Orwell 1984 if you didn't get the reference). Who decides at what point a man is poor enough to partake in meat morally? Or when the soil is to barren to grow crops? Or if a man has enough access to other nutrition? You perhaps? The government? Why not... You have no problems with double standards and surely you must need a framework that is the epitome of a double standard to carry out what you want. Can you even give me a clear answer of who are "desperate people in desperate conditions"? There is no use for morality in your framework. Life is just a fog of gray. You have absolutely no idea what life is like outside of the states do you? You haven't seen the struggle of life and death with your own eyes have you? You haven't ever watched people starve while starving yourself for weeks and months have you? I have lived in shit holes for the last 7 years of my life from the horn of Africa to far eastern Russia. I have seen scarcity brother... in fact there is nothing scarce about it. People everywhere are hungry and you would take away a food source or call them immoral for feeding themselves or their children. DON'T say you would not because they are “desperate” when you can't even define “desperate” as it relates to food. What applies to me just as well applies to them. Unless of course we use a double standard. In which case it is good for me to murder them and take their food and bad for them to murder me and take my food. If you have been around the world like I have, if you are currently watching your children go hungry on a daily basis, if you walk outside your door in the morning and are surrounded by gaunt faces, AND you still hold to your position... You my misguided friend are the immoral one. You are dead right that it doesn't fall under UPB. Because what you are proposing is immoral and illogical. In the future would you please refrain from asking people to please refrain from anything? You live in double standard world now. No rules buddy. What is bad for you is good for me. Welcome to this living hell called "Post Modernism". I hope you enjoy your stay.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Fantastic teabagger. That added so much to the dialogue. You are fairly certain it isn't immoral - because you are. Wow, what lucid & persuasive rhetoric. I've answered all questions. The omnivores are the ones who can't argue why given a choice, choosing to cause more harm than less is a moral thing to do. & so you are a vegetarian, just don't have any idea why? It would be expected then that you haven't thought it through. Again you display an insufferable sanctimony. I asked you a question. What's wrong with killing a cow? What's wrong with it? Go on, tell me. Yes I am certain it isn't immoral. It isn't immoral and it doesn't become immoral no matter how much shaming language you use. There's no moral prohibition against killing a cow or eating meat in and of itself. It doesn't follow that by not eating meat I'm doing less harm. Maybe I'm doing MORE harm by with my vegetarianism. There's no way to calculate that and harm is often subjective. If you have "thought it through" then you will provide me with the objective proof that killing a cow and eating meat is morally wrong, right? No shamming language or manipulative appeals to emotion. Because right now the only reason I have to remain vegetarian is habit and some possible health benefits.
James Dean Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 To UPB animals are things This statement indicates to me a misunderstanding that you might have of UPB, it's part of the reason why UPB is such a bitch to get in the ol' noggin and get it to stay there. I, too, had this same misunderstanding for a long time so hopefully I can shed some light on this. UPB says nothing about animals, it says nothing about humans, it says nothing about governments or any material things. UPB is a framework for validating theories about ethics (theories of preferable behavior). The thing that helps me the most is constantly comparing it to the scientific method. Does the scientific method say anything about gravity or about any matter or energy? no. It only evaluates theories about the nature of reality. So UPB does not say that animals are things, you cannot make a theory of ethics that includes animals universal or logically consistent, this whole thread is a testimony to that. Despite numerous promptings, no one has proposed a UPB theory that includes animals. Mostly because no such theory can be logically sustained. I also appreciate your civil discourse, so let me take this time to say the conditions that animals face in factory farms is miserable and atrocious, and would never EVER be sustained in a free society. You couldn't pay un-traumatized people to do that to animals, you have to be desensitized to violence on some level to commit that level of cruelty. Stef has made this argument before, I'll briefly summarize here. You cannot protect animals without first protecting children. Anyone who gives passing lip service to peaceful parenting but continues to rant about how bad conditions are in factory farms are putting the cart before the horse, and missing the primary human victims. I wouldn't go so far as to say any animal killing is bad... or that dairy products are somehow bad as well. Just because UPB isn't really applicable to animals doesn't mean that you must automatically support factory farms (which are mostly subsidized, so we, as anarchists, are against that anyway). I try to make better choices around buying meat and dairy products like buying milk from a local dairy farm and paying extra for the cage free eggs and so on. Yes there are some really bad intensive farms but there are also a lot of independent farmers who use more humane practices. If you kill an animal for meat quickly and humanely, I don't see anything immediately wrong with that. If someone can prove to me that it is immoral, id be most grateful. I honestly just can't see a way to make that universal. But again, since I guess you didnt read the thread but brought it up, animal agriculture, cow farts included is the leading cause of CO2 emmisions, and CO2 emissions are bad because...? water shortage, topsoil loss, biodiversity loss, pollution, hunger and malnutrition in the 3rd world, disease, among other things, the world over. This isn't even disputed. No one is disputing the fact that factory farms are bad for animals and bad for people. Again, they are largely the result of huge subsidies to the meat and dairy industry, so as anarchists, pretty much everyone here is against that, why you feel the need to opine about it is baffling. You're passionate rhetoric about how we're all terrible people for eating meat is entirely without substance as you have provided no counter theory which could be evaluated in any rational or consistent way. Instead you've opted to use inflammatory language and take the discussion wildly off course, like "animal rights" activists always do. This thread is addressing weather or not you can make universal statements of ethics concerning animals. You can certainly make universal statements of aesthetics (it's preferable not to torture animals) but any theory that grouped them as moral agents would have to be universal. If the theory was universal, animals would be held responsible for their actions, but this is illogical because they have no free will. If the theory is not universal, it fails as a theory out of the gate.
guitarstring87 Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I am a vegan. I am comfortably surviving on the plant products of local farmers. Nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, potatoes, fruit and vegetables are all anyone needs. You can grow a lot in a lot of places. I eat rice and avocado too, only because I like to not because I need to. I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I call you or anyone with a fat veal steak on their plate immoral. Because you have a choice. It takes about 7kg of grain to get 1 kg of beef. If feeding people is our concern, the solution seems obvious. As I said above, I don't call desperate people in desperate conditions immoral. I don't have an argument for animals that can be evaluated by UPB. I don't think UPB allows such argument to be made. I don't quite see where you are going. Can this poor afghan goat herder change his conditions? Do you survive there also by eating his goats? Does he eat goat products only? Things can grow in a lot of places, but its is easier to run away and survive with a herd of oats than with a field of half grown crops. Just an idea. 'Go out into nature for a bit. Go on. Don't take any food or water.' - there. How would it make it anything but a constructed scarcity. Is a local farm nature enough for you? Can I work in the farm for food? Do you need to cut a wast amount of choices to prove your point? In future would you please refrain from calling people you don't agree with disconnected from reality? So if you say some people can morally eat meat, and others cannot and remain moral. Ok, since we can get down with double standards now... I have a WHOLE BUNCH of double standards that I want to put on everyone now that Universal ethics is done away with. First of all... Effective immediately, only I can be right and you have to be wrong. Also it is bad for any of you to be rich but it is good for me to have all the money. No one can marry girls except me and the rest of you all must be celibate. This is just the best. I LOVE double standards. So lets say we do accept your "double think" (George Orwell 1984 if you didn't get the reference). Who decides at what point a man is poor enough to partake in meat morally? Or when the soil is to barren to grow crops? Or if a man has enough access to other nutrition? You perhaps? The government? Why not... You have no problems with double standards and surely you must need a framework that is the epitome of a double standard to carry out what you want. Can you even give me a clear answer of who are "desperate people in desperate conditions"? There is no use for morality in your framework. Life is just a fog of gray. You have absolutely no idea what life is like outside of the states do you? You haven't seen the struggle of life and death with your own eyes have you? You haven't ever watched people starve while starving yourself for weeks and months have you? I have lived in shit holes for the last 7 years of my life from the horn of Africa to far eastern Russia. I have seen scarcity brother... in fact there is nothing scarce about it. People everywhere are hungry and you would take away a food source or call them immoral for feeding themselves or their children. DON'T say you would not because they are “desperate” when you can't even define “desperate” as it relates to food. What applies to me just as well applies to them. Unless of course we use a double standard. In which case it is good for me to murder them and take their food and bad for them to murder me and take my food. If you have been around the world like I have, if you are currently watching your children go hungry on a daily basis, if you walk outside your door in the morning and are surrounded by gaunt faces, AND you still hold to your position... You my misguided friend are the immoral one. You are dead right that it doesn't fall under UPB. Because what you are proposing is immoral and illogical. In the future would you please refrain from asking people to please refrain from anything? You live in double standard world now. No rules buddy. What is bad for you is good for me. Welcome to this living hell called "Post Modernism". I hope you enjoy your stay.
fulop78 Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 How are there not enough pastures? Can you prove it? A free market would dictate that this cannot be. If there are too few pastures, the price of pasture raised cattle would go up, and more ranchers would get into the market by buying up more pasture land to raise more animals. You vote with your dollars so that ranchers invest more capital into ranching. Could it be that this land is already taken up by the agriculture of corn, soy, and wheat, which are far more destructive to the environment and subsidized by the federal government? Could it be because 28% of the land in the United States (640 million acres) is federally owned and managed? I apologize for my mockery. I was over-zealous in my tone. My assertion is that ethical veganism is an outgrowth of ideological Marxism, and feminism. The fact that it cannot be universalized should tell us that any campaign to oppose the consumption of meat beyond individual voluntary choices is following the slippery path toward authoritarianism. Regarding cow milk production, you are probably correct in your facts, but realize that dairy cows are rarely going to be allowed to roam a pasture and eat grass (they would have to be connected and disconnected from the milking machines), so they are probably fed mainly corn and soy, maybe wheat and hay. This adds to the water requirements of cattle because metabolizing grains requires a lot of water. People that eat grains hold onto excessive amounts of water weight. The simple answer is if you don't like dairy farming, don't drink milk. I consume a little dairy because it is a good source of saturated fat (yogurt and cheese), however, I like to keep it limited because it makes my acne break out. If we voluntarily milked healthy lactating humans for dairy production, I would consume a lot more of it. Prove it? Like empirically? Can anyone? Well only if you give me the power. More or less current data: beef head count in US is 95 million. All grassland and non-forrested pastures in US is about 600 million acres. Beef cow needs 2-4 acres of good pastures throughout the grazing season. On bad pasture it may go up to 30 acres. Requirement for milk cow is much higher. And there is also winter. So unless my basic math is way off you'd need all of the land and them some for 95 million. And the consumption is as always rising. Free market would dictate but there is no free market to be seen anywhere and there won't be anytime soon, I'm afraid. Surely it would solve many problem and meat consumption would be vastly reduced in my opinion. You see, a lot of the land used to grow corn, soy, wheat is to feed the cows with grain. The land requirement for grain fed cow is much lower that for a grazed cow. Government is bad - I am not denying that. I very much appreciate your apology, it can be a hard thing to do (for me it is most of the time). I see ethical veganism as an outgrowth of humanism. Feminism originally was too. What do you know about marxism? Have you read his works? I am asking because most people just use the term as a general pejorative. Can you elaborate on your assertion? It can not be universalized because there is an underlying assumption that animals are mere things. Not even elephants or dolphins that speaks nor our primate cousins deserve any moral defense. And it was about 6 millions years ago when we were the same animal as them. Well, to bad they are not evolved enough to reason cogito ergo sum, emotions, grief, learning, allomothering, mimicry, play, altruism, use of tools, compassion, cooperation, self-awareness, memory, and language is just not enough. How is UPB universal when it completely ignores all but human preferences? I will have to read and understand the book but there is something wrong (and it could be me of course, but I doubt it is just me). Simple answer. Yes, I already made my choice not to consume animal products. Is it really a good source when it makes your acne break out? Isn't that contradictory? May I suggest coconut oil?
fulop78 Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 "Show me a central nervous system in a plant. Show me it's brain and how the pain centers light up on emr scan." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?list_uids=16843034&cmd=Retrieve&indexed=google Long story short: They respond to sound, rain, sunlight, injury. Some can respond to other external stimuli like touch in the Venus Fly Trap. They even send electrical signals through their "bodies" and produce Serotonin and Dopamine. Not exactly pain response, but they definitely are just mindless growing things either. Of course they respond their environment. They live. Does that equal mind and ability to suffer? Does it means they are closer to a cow than a cow is to a human? Is a tribesman from equatorial guinea (average iq 59) really capable of higher reasoning? If not, can you therefore cage him, artificially impregnate females, slaughter babies and eat their flesh and call it aestethics? I don't know where exactly to draw the line on what is OK to kill to eat. Most of you just seem to be sure it's all except humans (or to be precise higher reasoning). Are you going to change your diet to fruits and nuts? I think I'd be alright with that.
Justin K. Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Is it morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals for the purpose of amusement, entertainment or convenience? ...is the question. We all accept that it is not. It's against the law to neglect your dog, strangle your cat, etc. So the question becomes, What is convenience? With thousands upon thousands proving for decades there is no physical biological reason to have to eat animals, & even if there were, no reason to treat them as we do (but there isn't a health reason) how can anyone argue this? They can't. Which is why instead I suppose they just ban you from the forum, idk. I posted the video above because it was sent to me, it is relevant, and it contains nothing offensive.
Justin K. Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Professional Teabagger. Is it morally wrong to cause needless suffering to an animal for the purposes of entertainment, amusement or convenience?
AncapFTW Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Of course they respond their environment. They live. Does that equal mind and ability to suffer? Does it means they are closer to a cow than a cow is to a human? Is a tribesman from equatorial guinea (average iq 59) really capable of higher reasoning? If not, can you therefore cage him, artificially impregnate females, slaughter babies and eat their flesh and call it aestethics? I don't know where exactly to draw the line on what is OK to kill to eat. Most of you just seem to be sure it's all except humans (or to be precise higher reasoning). Are you going to change your diet to fruits and nuts? I think I'd be alright with that. If they can respond to injury and pain, then yes, they can suffer. And, apparently, you think that IQ, which was likely measure using faulty tests and is a poor measure of mental ability to boot, can determine whether they are "on par" with animals or not. If you'd read my previous posts, though, you'd see that I said that even the most mentally handicapped person's brain functions differently than a cows. I wouldn't eat a great ape, either, as they at least have some ability to reason (extremely minor, but still there). But go ahead, keep saying that a certain race of people are basically animals and that you can do whatever you want with them. And why would anyone want to "change their diet to fruits and nuts" because of any of the "arguments" presented in this thread. So far no evidence has been presented by your side, though a lot of "retarded people are animals" seems to be considered argument by them. ps: As an aside, I can't eat large amounts of nuts because it makes me sick. It might be a minor food allergy, but I don't know. I do love red beans and rice, though.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Is it morally wrong to cause needless suffering to an animal for the purposes of entertainment, amusement or convenience? If I get my dog fixed at the veterinarian's it's for my convenience because I don't want to always have to worry about it getting pregnant. So I've made it suffer for my convenience. Is that wrong? If fact not having my dog immediately and painlessly killed is causing it needless suffering. It doesn't need to exist and it suffers to some extent every day (hunger, normal aches and pains). I can kill it and it will never suffer again. The only reason to keep it alive is for my amusement / convenience. So I'm not sure it IS wrong to cause an animal "needless" suffering for amusement or convenience.
fulop78 Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 If they can respond to injury and pain, then yes, they can suffer. Only if you define suffering as response to injury. You don't really know there is pain involved, where as in animals it is evidently true. And, apparently, you think that IQ, which was likely measure using faulty tests and is a poor measure of mental ability to boot, can determine whether they are "on par" with animals or not. If you'd read my previous posts, though, you'd see that I said that even the most mentally handicapped person's brain functions differently than a cows. I wouldn't eat a great ape, either, as they at least have some ability to reason (extremely minor, but still there). But go ahead, keep saying that a certain race of people are basically animals and that you can do whatever you want with them. IQ is quite good for determining the capability of abstract thinking, if you know better please enlighten me. The most mentally handicapped person's brain of course works quite differently that a healthy man's brain and no two human brains work exactly the same, I'm not sure what your point here is. I am saying that all people are basically animals. And also that you can not do whatever you want with animals. Would you consider it immoral to cage, artificially impregnate, slaughter and eat a great ape? If not what is your reason for not eating them? Is it really just preferential? Would you argue with other people to stop eating them? And why would anyone want to "change their diet to fruits and nuts" because of any of the "arguments" presented in this thread. So far no evidence has been presented by your side, though a lot of "retarded people are animals" seems to be considered argument by them. ps: As an aside, I can't eat large amounts of nuts because it makes me sick. It might be a minor food allergy, but I don't know. I do love red beans and rice, though. Unnecessary animal suffering is not convincing enough for you obviously. I have no other argument at this time. You probably don't even consider it an argument. So I have to give up for now and look for holes in UPB or my thinking.
Justin K. Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Why won't anyone answer my question? I've proposed it several different ways and responses are conspicuously absent. Is it morally wrong to cause unnecessary harm or suffering to anything for mere convenience? If you were walking down the street and saw a 9 year old child kicking a puppy, then pick up a stick to beat it with, would you stop the child? If you would, than it is hypocritical to pay others to imprison and slaughter animals when there is zero nutritional reason that makes it imperative. Causing more harm than necessary is immoral. No one has said the developmentally disabled are animals. (The guidelines say not use words like "retarded" - while we all know what it means & I know you didn't mean it in a derogatory way) What has been said is many aren't moral agents. The reason it is immoral to eat animal is because It is never acceptable to initiate force unless in self defense. When chickens start attacking you, we can talk about whether UPB can be applied to animals. But they aren't. If a child or special needs individual kills you accidentally through negligence, they aren't punished like adult moral agents, because they don't have the same capacity for reason. But we don't say it is okay to harm them. The arguments to the contrary do not address this. They don't make any sense.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Why won't anyone answer my question? I've proposed it several different ways and responses are conspicuously absent. Is it morally wrong to cause unnecessary harm or suffering to anything for mere convenience? If you were walking down the street and saw a 9 year old child kicking a puppy, then pick up a stick to beat it with, would you stop the child? If you would, than it is hypocritical to pay others to imprison and slaughter animals when there is zero nutritional reason that makes it imperative. Causing more harm than necessary is immoral. No one has said the developmentally disabled are animals. (The guidelines say not use words like "retarded" - while we all know what it means & I know you didn't mean it in a derogatory way) What has been said is many aren't moral agents. The reason it is immoral to eat animal is because It is never acceptable to initiate force unless in self defense. When chickens start attacking you, we can talk about whether UPB can be applied to animals. But they aren't. If a child or special needs individual kills you accidentally through negligence, they aren't punished like adult moral agents, because they don't have the same capacity for reason. But we don't say it is okay to harm them. The arguments to the contrary do not address this. They don't make any sense. Wow. I just gave you an argument for why your question has problems. Your question uses vague terms and your variations on it have different premises. Sometimes it vague language like "needless suffering" and other times it's a child kicking a puppy. Just because you can ASK a question doesn't mean there's a yes or no answer to it. I have just proven this to you with my example which you do not address. Until you address my argument I hold that you have been proven wrong and are simply resorting to shaming tactics and emotional manipulation.
FreedomPhilosophy Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 My assertion is that ethical veganism is an outgrowth of ideological Marxism, and feminism. I've seen no evidence of this. The founders of veganism were individualists, humanitarian and spiritual and they established veganism because of the absurdity of vegetarianism. The reasons for starting the vegan movement are given below, no mention of Marxism, it's all about the feelz. VIP: What events in your life led you to vegetarianism? What brought you to veganism? DW: As a child seeing animals pushed through doors alongside butchers' shops to be killed. I once saw a cow and a calf enter together. I wondered later which one the butcher killed first. On one occasion I actually watched a cow being killed at an abattoir in a field where local children were free to watch and where they hoped to be given a bladder to use as a football. I also watched a pig being killed when I visited an uncle's farm. I turned vegetarian at the age of fourteen. My conversion to veganism was about eighteen years later when I learned about the biological mechanics of milk production. http://www.vegparadise.com/24carrot610.html How are there not enough pastures? Can you prove it? A free market would dictate that this cannot be. If there are too few pastures, the price of pasture raised cattle would go up, and more ranchers would get into the market by buying up more pasture land to raise more animals. You vote with your dollars so that ranchers invest more capital into ranching. As the price of pasture land rises to create a premium, rain forest is felled to create more beef ranches. Supply increases with demand. I suppose if the various governments released the millions of acres of land they had stolen, that could offset the present rate of growth in cattle ranching, but for how long?
AncapFTW Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Only if you define suffering as response to injury. You don't really know there is pain involved, where as in animals it is evidently true. IQ is quite good for determining the capability of abstract thinking, if you know better please enlighten me. The most mentally handicapped person's brain of course works quite differently that a healthy man's brain and no two human brains work exactly the same, I'm not sure what your point here is. I am saying that all people are basically animals. And also that you can not do whatever you want with animals. Would you consider it immoral to cage, artificially impregnate, slaughter and eat a great ape? If not what is your reason for not eating them? Is it really just preferential? Would you argue with other people to stop eating them? Unnecessary animal suffering is not convincing enough for you obviously. I have no other argument at this time. You probably don't even consider it an argument. So I have to give up for now and look for holes in UPB or my thinking. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx There's an article and a report on how IQ test are flawed. The second link even specifically talks about mentally handicapped people. -- The way I deal with people/animals/beings is based on their ability to interact with me. If an ape isn't able to understand the concept of "morality" as applied to something, then it can't be considered immoral for them to do it to people or for us to do it to them. I know that there are cases where they have abducted and eaten human children (usually babies), but I'm not sure whether that's because they consider people to be enemies, or if they think we're just another animal, or what. My problem with using them for food is that I'm not sure how they function, or if they are capable of understanding concepts like morality, especially in certain situations, like food. By the same token, raising something as a pet is different than raising it as a food source. I wouldn't mind having one as a pet, and wouldn't have a problem using one to test medicines if you are reasonably certain that it will help more than it hurts.
James Dean Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 Causing more harm than necessary is immoral. Do you not see the problem with this? What is the objective standary by which we can determine if something is necessary? and in relation to what goal? It's the same problem that rational egoism has with UPB. "it is moral (universally preferable) to do what is in your best interest." This is significantly problematic because what is in the best interest of person A is not necessarily, and might be completly contradictory to what is in the best interest of person B. If my goal was obtain bacon, the "harm" caused by me to my pig is totally necessary. If my goal was to derive sadistic pleasure from torturing a kitten, the harm would be essential, and therefor, by your standard, moral... which makes no sense, so this moral standard also fails. Have you read UPB? It seems like you're having trouble making a statement that is universal and objective. Unnecessary animal suffering is not convincing enough for you obviously. I have no other argument at this time. You probably don't even consider it an argument. So I have to give up for now and look for holes in UPB or my thinking. I respect your choice to look closer at your thinking and familiarize yourself with the material before continuing to debate. I would suggest trying not to think of ethics as it relates to effects, like suffering, but how it relates to universal theories. Murder rape theft and assault are not wrong because they cause suffering, it is that those actions cannot be logically made into universal standards while their opposites can be. good luck and keep trying, UPB is not easy... if it was, we would have figured it out ages ago.
Justin K. Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Oh God. How dramatic. And now the tap dancing begins No it's actually quite easy. Not complicated. Not even a little bit. Unnecessary meaning there is absolutely no necessity for you to eat animals. At all. Professional Teabagger, Claiming you've answered a question isn't a substitute for answering it. Claiming I haven't answered your question doesn't erase the 6 different ways I've answered it. Let's be honest. No one on the other side of this issue has any genuine interest in arriving at philosophic truth. You just want to drown out good arguments with Ad Homs & Straw Men. Claiming I am sanctimonious, etc. I thought this was a philosophy forum. It's starting to sound more like mental masturbation. Minute 37-about 42 (in case you get bored) pretty much summarizes why you already subscribe to principles which we know render you on this topic unequivocally wrong. If you have an answer to the contrary, I'm still all ears. Anyone who can read knows I've answered yours. UPB isn't complicated. Morality isn't complicated. We want to complicate it to mask our moral schizophrenia regarding animals. But it is fairly cut & dry, whether we like it or not.
J. D. Stembal Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Prove it? Like empirically? Can anyone? Well only if you give me the power. More or less current data: beef head count in US is 95 million. All grassland and non-forrested pastures in US is about 600 million acres. Beef cow needs 2-4 acres of good pastures throughout the grazing season. On bad pasture it may go up to 30 acres. Requirement for milk cow is much higher. And there is also winter. So unless my basic math is way off you'd need all of the land and them some for 95 million. And the consumption is as always rising. Free market would dictate but there is no free market to be seen anywhere and there won't be anytime soon, I'm afraid. Surely it would solve many problem and meat consumption would be vastly reduced in my opinion. You see, a lot of the land used to grow corn, soy, wheat is to feed the cows with grain. The land requirement for grain fed cow is much lower that for a grazed cow. Government is bad - I am not denying that. I very much appreciate your apology, it can be a hard thing to do (for me it is most of the time). I see ethical veganism as an outgrowth of humanism. Feminism originally was too. What do you know about marxism? Have you read his works? I am asking because most people just use the term as a general pejorative. Can you elaborate on your assertion? It can not be universalized because there is an underlying assumption that animals are mere things. Not even elephants or dolphins that speaks nor our primate cousins deserve any moral defense. And it was about 6 millions years ago when we were the same animal as them. Well, to bad they are not evolved enough to reason cogito ergo sum, emotions, grief, learning, allomothering, mimicry, play, altruism, use of tools, compassion, cooperation, self-awareness, memory, and language is just not enough. How is UPB universal when it completely ignores all but human preferences? I will have to read and understand the book but there is something wrong (and it could be me of course, but I doubt it is just me). Simple answer. Yes, I already made my choice not to consume animal products. Is it really a good source when it makes your acne break out? Isn't that contradictory? May I suggest coconut oil? I had just watched the documentary, Meat the Truth, where bovine-derived methane is argued to be the most environmentally devastating green house gas that is causing global warming. I directed my angst at you, but it could have been more respectfully dissipated at the film. That is where the cow fart comment originated. I do eat coconut oil as a source of saturated fat. Nearly every day, I drink a shake made from coconut oil, raw eggs, cod liver oil, and flax seed oil. I have had a juvenile fixation with dairy, probably because I was not breast fed extensively, and breast milk is the most readily available source of saturated fat available. It's too bad lactating women don't sell it on the open market. I used human milk in my tea, and it was an amazing experience for the senses. I am striving to eliminate bovine dairy from my diet. There is a very clear correlation, at least in my physiology, between bovine hormone consumption and acne. I don't see the same effect when I eat grass-fed beef. I usually get the grass-fed liver steaks. That is power food! Cow heart is simply incredible. It's too bad you can't find it in stores, and have to order direct from a farm to get it. In general, I prefer pork over beef due to higher fat content and subjectively better flavor. Back to the pastures... back to the range. My purpose of asking how you knew that there aren't enough pastures is to demonstrate that no one can know the answer. If we could calculate it precisely right now, what does that number ultimately matter in the long run? The free market would adapt to scarcity by creating more pasture land, or develop more efficient modes of grazing (see my later reference to Polyface Farms and Joel Salatin). Your assertion that there isn't enough pasture is an argument from consequence, and it paints pro-meat eaters into a corner. On one hand, it is certainly valid that the CAFO (confined animal feeding operation) is inefficient, destructive, and cruel. Yet, when I suggest that consumers vote with dollars to get more cattle into pastures, I am told that there is not enough land to facilitate this. How can this be, considering that more capital investment could be allocated to it, and secondly, what does it matter? Ranchers will make do with the land available to them. Consumers will make do with the product that is available. Price will fluctuate accordingly. Furthermore, if we could answer the pasture question, it would be a damaging argument against the validity of the free market, and free will. A priori, we can have no definitive knowledge of the ranching practices in the future without the burden of the yoke of the state. Disappear the USDA, and the generous government subsidies for corn production, and the environmental and economic distortions will go with them. Note that the federal government started regulating agriculture during the Great Depression, and has continued to interfere to this day. In an earlier post, I suggested that there would be more land available for ranching if there was no federal government holding it for ransom. We don't need to burn down the rainforests so that customers can buy beef. We need to burn down the government instead. Once Americans realize that consuming grain and soy is detrimental to human health, as well as the health of feedlot animals, all the wasted agricultural capital, including the land, can be put toward ranching. Farmers, such as Joel Salatin (http://www.polyfacefarms.com/), have improved on farming and ranching techniques, providing tremendous value for their customers, and are pioneering sustainable forms of animal agriculture. When you get government out of the way, amazing things can happen. Don't fall back on the trope that the free market does not exist and never will. It is another argument from consequence. There will never be a free market in reality, so this disproves the efficiency of the free market. It's also entirely untrue. Free markets are omnipresent, as long as there is trade and barter, and they will remain even under a repressive fascist government. Please note that beef consumption is declining, not rising. Since the mid-1970s, it has dropped about 30% in the United States. The graph is spoilered for size. I suggest anyone interested in sustainable animal agriculture to read Michael Pollan's Ominvore's Dilemma, as he goes into great detail describing how CAFOs operate, and how they are influenced by over-production of government-subsidized corn. OD is one of the most well written books I have read in the last five years. Here is an excerpt: Corn itself profited from the urbanization of livestock twice. As theanimals left the farm, more of the farm was left for corn, which rapidly colonized the paddocks and pastures and even the barnyards that had once been the animals' territory. The animals left because the farmers simply couldn't compete with the CAFOs. It cost a farmer more to grow feed corn than it cost a CAFO to buy it, for the simple reason that commoditycorn now was routinely sold for less than it cost to grow. Corn profited again as the factory farms expanded, absorbing increasing amounts of its surplus. Corn found its way into the diet of animals that never used to eat very much of it (like cattle) or any corn at all, like the farmed salmon now being bred to tolerate grain. All that excess biomass has to go somewhere. Finally, here is my reasoning behind the statement, "Ethical veganism is derived from cultural Marxism." Please let me know how sensible it sounds. I'm still honing it. Marxist ideology relies on the premise that there are historically oppressed groups of people, and only government intervention can reverse their plight. The oppressed cannot advocate for themselves, like children and animals. The feminist and civil rights movements both jumped on the Marxist bandwagon, claiming that minorities and women have historically been oppressed, like the proletariat worker. This was so that they could abandon self-ownership, and beg the state to intervene on their behalf. There is documented evidence that the civil rights movement was directly funded by the Communist Party. Feminism continues to be a movement funded primarily by the state, which is inherently socialist. The notion of animal rights and vegetarianism also gained popularity during this time, because rights advocates could use animals as another oppressed class of living beings to further their political and social agendas, as the categorical "minority" and "women" had both been abducted by cultural Marxism. Animals cannot advocate for themselves, except for adult humans. This is important when discussing how UPB applies to animals. When an intelligent bovine can log in to the forum and explain to us he doesn't want to be penned or slaughtered and why, we will have to revamp UPB to include him. Seminal feminist-vegetarian works, such as Carol Adams' The Sexual Politics of Meat, insist that throughout history meat procuring and consumption was largely a male-dominated endeavor, and that grains, plants and fungi were deemed to be only acceptable fare for feminine constitutions. Meat consumption is described as a violent, unjust, and barbaric behavioral outgrowth of the patriarchy. I have only skimmed parts of her book, but Adams' goes on to conflate the butchering of animals with the rape of women, that dismembering a calf is psychologically the same as having sex with a young woman against her will. We don't require consent from an animal to eat it, because it cannot give consent. Adams contends that when consumption of animals is rejected by men, and society as a whole, women will no longer be oppressed. From the preface in the new edition of The Sexual Politics of Meat: Imagine the day when people respond to someone who says“but I need my sausage in the morning,” by saying, “oh that’s so 20thcentury. You know, the century when some of the earliest people talking about climate change were animal activists who understood the interconnections between environmental destruction and animal agriculture.” Better yet, imagine the day when people no longer feel they need a “sausage” in the morning. Imagine the day when women and children are not sold into sexual slavery or prostituted or pornographed. Adams' thesis rests on the assertion that animal agriculture is the foundation and causation of female oppression. Compare this to Stefan's recent empathic proto-postulate on vegetariansim. If we treat our children with kindness and teach them empathy, they won't want to consume animal products. (If we treat our animals with empathy and kindness, men won't rape women.) However, this far from an ethical proof and cannot be universalized under his own system of secular ethics. At best, vegan theory falls under aesthetic preference, such as I like chocolate, you enjoy vanilla. The empathy theory also completely ignores that some animal consumption is required for optimal human health and development. We evolved to eat animals, not plants, and especially not grains. This is incontrovertible biological fact. Our endocrine system and metabolism are calibrated to hunt large wild animals because they are the densest forms of nutrition available in nature. We eat what we are for health. We are animals, so we need to eat animals to thrive. The optimal foraging strategy would also dictate that hunting large wild game was the most energy cost efficient mode of food procurement available pre-agriculture, assuming wild game was available. Animal husbandry and ranching makes meat-eating more efficient than our Paleolithic ancestors could imagine. If you were to attempt to universalize the ethical proof of consuming animal products is immoral (or not universally preferable behavior), mothers could not breast feed children without violating UPB. Indeed, we would not be able to metabolize ourselves for energy, as this would also violate the proof. Humans are, by definition, animals, but not all animals are human. Human is a sub-category of animal. I have killed two chickens, and it was an overwhelming experience. You must rip off the head, so that the bird dies instantly and painlessly. There is not a lot of blood spilled. The first time I did it, I wept afterwards. I did not hold any malice or ill-will toward the chicken. In both instances, it was a mercy killing, not a slaughter. One chicken was terminally ill, and the second had been mauled by a dog. The dog did not stand trial for a violation of ethics for mortally wounding a chicken. The mauled bird was safe to eat (you never eat sick animals), so her death was not meaningless, as her nutritional essence lives on in me. Kill an animal with your bare hands, and you will have an idea how much empathy required to do it. Overall, it was an emotionally cathartic experience for me. I regard the act of raising, slaughtering, butchering and eating animals to be very beautiful and life affirming. It allowed me to deal with some misplaced feelings about death. At least, that's my anecdotal experience and perspective. Please define humanism, and demonstrate how it is separate from the movement of cultural feminism. If ethical veganism is representative of humanism, why does it advocate for organisms that aren't human? If you consider Briffault's Law to be a valid observation of human social and sexual interactions, you might also consider that women are largely the arbiters of the family structure, and by logical extension, greater society. Is there any room for another ideological "-ism" movement besides feminism, if women are able to veto it down with their eggs? I suspect that humanism is actually feminism in disguise, pandering to egalitarians and utilitarians. It is a collectivist ideology, plainly and simply. In closing, I want to thank you for the engaging questions and discussion even though I took a jab at you earlier. I hope that most of this lengthy post is useful and constructive regarding animals and UPB. If not, feel free to neg me.
fulop78 Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspx There's an article and a report on how IQ test are flawed. The second link even specifically talks about mentally handicapped people. -- The way I deal with people/animals/beings is based on their ability to interact with me. If an ape isn't able to understand the concept of "morality" as applied to something, then it can't be considered immoral for them to do it to people or for us to do it to them. I know that there are cases where they have abducted and eaten human children (usually babies), but I'm not sure whether that's because they consider people to be enemies, or if they think we're just another animal, or what. My problem with using them for food is that I'm not sure how they function, or if they are capable of understanding concepts like morality, especially in certain situations, like food. By the same token, raising something as a pet is different than raising it as a food source. I wouldn't mind having one as a pet, and wouldn't have a problem using one to test medicines if you are reasonably certain that it will help more than it hurts. I agree that IQ tests are flawed. Any test that gives you a simple number for something extraordinarily complex is flawed. Still, from my experience, IQ is quite good (and the best we have for now) to determine a someone's ability to reason. I doubt your experience or anyone's really is much different. We're getting off topic here though. I think most people are not capable to understand the concept of morality as you understand it. That does not mean we can use them as food source or forced labor or whatever.
Justin K. Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Ethical Veganism has nothing to do with cultural marxism. I'm not looking for any government law, but rather a choice not taken in a free market. James Dean & Professional Teabagger, I meant unnecessary as in literally there being no necessity to do it. Doing it for reasons of pleasure, convenience or entertainment by definition is unnecessary. So no there is no problem with this. ?In relation to what goal"? The goal of living & eating without torturing and destroying the planet. I'm not saying this sarcastically or scornfully. But that is the goal. To live morally. If Michael Vick was wrong to fight dogs, how are we any different to eat pigs. We are doing this solely for sensual pleasure. That we can live off it is no more relevant than Vick can make money fighting dogs.
Justin K. Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 I think this debate on neutral playing field between Macan & Francione is fair to both sides & summarizes the issue quite well. Ethical Veganism has nothing to do with cultural marxism. I'm not looking for any government law, but rather a choice not taken in a free market. James Dean & Professional Teabagger, I meant unnecessary as in literally there being no necessity to do it. Doing it for reasons of pleasure, convenience or entertainment by definition is unnecessary. So no there is no problem with this. "In relation to what goal"? You asked. The goal of living & eating without torturing and destroying the planet. I'm not saying this sarcastically or scornfully. But that is the goal. To live morally. If Michael Vick was wrong to fight dogs, how are we any different to eat pigs. We are doing this solely for sensual pleasure. That we can live off it is no more relevant than Vick can make money fighting dogs. This debate between Francione & Macan summarizes both sides very well and I think is fair to both positions.
James Dean Posted March 14, 2015 Posted March 14, 2015 I think most people are not capable to understand the concept of morality as you understand it. That does not mean we can use them as food source or forced labor or whatever. I don't think it has anything to do with weather or not people understand UPB because then it wouldn't be universal. It would be like saying the scientific method is only valid once everyone understands the scientific method. UPB is true independent of weather any individual human being understands it or not. Animals are not capable of understanding it, therefor it is inapplicable. Just like animals are unable to speak, therefor the right of free speech is not applicable to them. It's not like they don't have that right, it makes no sense to apply it to them. Similarly it's not like animals are exempt from UPB because they can't reason, because they can't reason it makes no sense to apply UPB to them. Explain to a lion how it's universally preferable not to kill as you step into his enclosure at the zoo.
fulop78 Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I don't think it has anything to do with weather or not people understand UPB because then it wouldn't be universal. It would be like saying the scientific method is only valid once everyone understands the scientific method. UPB is true independent of weather any individual human being understands it or not. Animals are not capable of understanding it, therefor it is inapplicable. Just like animals are unable to speak, therefor the right of free speech is not applicable to them. It's not like they don't have that right, it makes no sense to apply it to them. Similarly it's not like animals are exempt from UPB because they can't reason, because they can't reason it makes no sense to apply UPB to them. Explain to a lion how it's universally preferable not to kill as you step into his enclosure at the zoo. Are all humans capable of understanding UPB and able reason? Are there various degrees to this ability, some perhaps bordering on not able. What makes them moral agents if they are not able to understand and reason? If it is inapplicable, how can it be applied on human animal interaction, saying not immoral?
fulop78 Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 ... long post ... I did not want to let your effort go unanswered. Still, current numbers do not support your idea to let all the lovely bovines roam and graze. Perhaps that wasn't your idea, now it sound more like let as many as possible roam and graze. I have never heard of Carol Adams and sure she sounds quite crazy. I don't think her ideas are at all representative for vegans or veganism. "some animal consumption is required for optimal human health and development. We evolved to eat animals, not plants, and especially not grains. This is incontrovertible biological fact. Our endocrine system and metabolism are calibrated to hunt large wild animals" - this I don't agree with. Just look at other great apes' diet. There is also a lot of research that says otherwise (here for example http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-diet-argument/). If we really did evolve to eat animals why is killing one so difficult, why seeing a carcass does not make you salivating? I also appreciate the discussion but I think we're getting way off topic here. I'll have a more thorough red of UPB and be back with questions.
Justin K. Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I think this debate between Francione & Machan on neutral territory summarizes both sides quite well and is intellectually fair to both positions. James Dean. When you ask how we can define necessity, and in relation to what goal. We can define necessity as being necessary to sustain your life, and in relation to living a moral life and not causing immense suffering and destroying the planet for reasons of sensual pleasure and convenience only.
shirgall Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Animals don't have rights because they won't rebel and kill government leaders if they are violated. This is the only reason rights were invented.
J. D. Stembal Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 I did not want to let your effort go unanswered. Still, current numbers do not support your idea to let all the lovely bovines roam and graze. Perhaps that wasn't your idea, now it sound more like let as many as possible roam and graze. How do you know? According to your previous math, a single cow requires 2-4 acres of land to itself. Why is it so inefficient? Are there other animals that are more efficient? What if you combine the ranching of different animals on the same land, making it more efficient than it would be with only one type of animal? I brought up the example of Joel Salatin and Michael Pollan's Ominvore's Dilemma for a reason. I have never heard of Carol Adams and sure she sounds quite crazy. I don't think her ideas are at all representative for vegans or veganism. Search for "books on meat eating and feminism" or "feminist vegan books" and you will get a sense of how well read this book is in feminist and vegan circles. Either the feminist movement co-opted the ethical vegan propaganda, or the two evolved together, but the difference is not that important. There is a strong correlation between feminism and vegans for the reasons I noted previously. There is also a cookbook from 1981, which has its origins in political lesbianism - http://www.amazon.com/Political-Palate-Feminist-Vegetarian-Cookbook/dp/0960521003 There are also a number of prolific vegan-feminist bloggers, Marla comes to mind foremost - http://www.amazon.com/Political-Palate-Feminist-Vegetarian-Cookbook/dp/0960521003 Just look at other great apes' diet. There is also a lot of research that says otherwise (here for example http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-diet-argument/). If we really did evolve to eat animals why is killing one so difficult, why seeing a carcass does not make you salivating? Notice that I said "we evolved" and not "apes evolved" to eat meat. There are a number of significant biological differences between the different species of apes and humans not the least of which is our ability to adapt to different habits in order to pursue wild game herds. The other apes don't fare well when removed from their natural habitats. That's why they stick to plants. Plants don't move at all. We are erect while motile, and this separates us from all of the surviving species of primates. The other apes walk on all fours. This provides part of the explanation for our extreme adaptability. Walking upright is a more efficient use of energy. We also have larger brains than the other apes, which adds to our unique ability to track game, and remember which berries are yucky. Pollan goes into some detail about this. The title of the book, Omnivore's Dilemma, is a direct reference to our ability to be curious and rational about our environment and the other plant and animal life around us. While easily the weakest, humans have the finest manual dexterity of all the apes, which, along with our brain mass, allows us to make tools, for hunting, and gathering. The "NutritionFacts" video you linked overlooks the fact there were countless proto-human species between chimps, bonobos, gorillas and us, so the argument that they mostly eat plants, therefore we should, too, doesn't hold water, empirically speaking. It's clear that humans are omnivores, not vegetarians. What vegans decide to do in their kitchens is irrelevant to the reality of our history of multiple modes of nutrition.
J. D. Stembal Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 ...current numbers do not support your idea to let all the lovely bovines roam and graze. I fail to understand why this is supposedly an insurmountable problem. Perhaps you can elaborate on your position. I have never heard of Carol Adams and sure she sounds quite crazy. I don't think her ideas are at all representative for vegans or veganism. She is an oft-quoted feminist vegan. Her ideas are representative of vegans. Search for "books on vegan feminists" and the first hit is The Sexual Politics of Meat on Amazon, followed by numerous blogs by other vegan feminists. I admire that you are attempting the "Not All Vegans Are Like That" explanation. If only that were true. See my previous post on why veganism, feminism and Marxism exploit oppressed classes to further their agenda. In the case of ethical veganism, the oppressed classes aren't people, and cannot advocate for themselves. Who asked us to advocate on their behalf? "some animal consumption is required for optimal human health and development. We evolved to eat animals, not plants, and especially not grains. This is incontrovertible biological fact. Our endocrine system and metabolism are calibrated to hunt large wild animals" - this I don't agree with. Just look at other great apes' diet. There is also a lot of research that says otherwise (here for example http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-diet-argument/). If we really did evolve to eat animals why is killing one so difficult, why seeing a carcass does not make you salivating? I'm slow cooking a three pound elk roast right now, and I have to admit my stomach was growling when I was handling the raw meat. Physically, it was not difficult for me to kill the chicken once I watched a video on Youtube on how to best do it. Emotionally, it was difficult because I was very close to the chickens. They are wonderful creatures. However, I don't allow emotions get in the way of consuming them, or their eggs. If I am understanding the NutritionFacts video you linked, human are supposed to only eat fruits, vegetables and fungus because other species in Family Hominidae almost exclusively consume them? Fourteen million years separate all the living great apes from a common ancestor. Countless proto-humans have lived and gone extinct to lead to us. In than span of time, our extinct ancestors increased the brain to body mass ratio for language and logic, improved manual dexterity to develop tools for hunting and gathering, and most importantly, evolved for bipedal motility so that we could leave arboreal habitats to chase wild herds of game. Plants don't move very fast, so it is unlikely that we would have left the more traditional forested ape habitats for any other reason than to eat meat, thus supporting the development of the other biological characteristics that differentiate us from the other great apes, like intelligence. The human brain is 70 percent fat, and 20 percent cholesterol by weight. How could this feat of evolution been accomplished without eating the best sources of fats and cholesterols, which happen to come from animals?
AncapFTW Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Chimps have been known to eat other primates, or other animals.
Justin K. Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I submit that Vegeterianism/Veganism most likely birthed the entire concept of right & wrong. All morality, ethics, & philosophy followed the first time someone went to attack something else, (& in the beginning, for what other reason but to eat it) saw the fear in it's eyes, the ferocity with which it fought back, or the speed with which it ran away, and changed their mind. It may have been the first self reflective or moral thought in the Universe. Yes dare I say get completely carried away, but, it follows quite logically that the entire world, and everything good and noble in it, started with that decision. Less we be tribes of murderous thieves and cannibals, someone decided hurting other things is wrong. While some may have limited it to humanity, there can be little doubt, it was first employed near an act of savagery committed against an animal. It is no surprise that Plato, the Pythagoreans, Aristotle, and the founders of damn near every major religion abstained from meat. It is no wonder the book of Genesis, the concept of good & evil, as well as Cain & Abel revolved around a story of agriculture. We are born with an innate empathy for our children of course. The first time we extended this feeling outside of our family, or our tribe, basically to someone or something that could NOT do us any good, is the very foundation of the Non Aggression Principle or Universally Preferable Behavior. Somewhere, sometime long ago, someone, first had a heart, said to themselves, perhaps without words, but "screw it, I'll eat a banana" & empathy, and morality, was born.
shirgall Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 I submit that Vegeterianism/Veganism most likely birthed the entire concept of right & wrong. More likely came from some tribal chief claiming sole right of seeding the next generation. No one argues about food choices until there's a lot of choices.
Justin K. Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 It's clear that humans are omnivores, not vegetarians. What vegans decide to do in their kitchens is irrelevant to the reality of our history of multiple modes of nutrition. Well first, vegeterians are omnivores. Vegans are herbivores. This is an important distinction. But second, biologically nothing could be further from the truth. Homo Sapien sapiens share almost no of the identifying characteristics of carnivores, very little with omnivores, a ton with herbivores and almost everything with strictly frugivorous creatures that eat all fruit. The comparative anatomy chart I posted earlier with over 100 anatomical facts makes this unequivocally clear. Not that this has anything to do with morality, but our digestive systems are long and not made for eating meat. Sometimes people point to our canine teeth. A saber tooth tiger's tooth it is not. It works pretty good biting into an apple, but hop on the back of a cow and try taking a bite, and you'll learn pretty quickly as you are tossed 20 feet away on your head bum over teakettle how omnivore humans are designed. Here is the truth about human classification Sorry it didn't attach, here:
J. D. Stembal Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 It's clear that humans are omnivores, not vegetarians. What vegans decide to do in their kitchens is irrelevant to the reality of our history of multiple modes of nutrition. Well first, vegeterians are omnivores. Vegans are herbivores. This is an important distinction. But second, biologically nothing could be further from the truth. Homo Sapien sapiens share almost no of the identifying characteristics of carnivores, very little with omnivores, a ton with herbivores and almost everything with strictly frugivorous creatures that eat all fruit. The comparative anatomy chart I posted earlier with over 100 anatomical facts makes this unequivocally clear. Not that this has anything to do with morality, but our digestive systems are long and not made for eating meat. Sometimes people point to our canine teeth. A saber tooth tiger's tooth it is not. It works pretty good biting into an apple, but hop on the back of a cow and try taking a bite, and you'll learn pretty quickly as you are tossed 20 feet away on your head bum over teakettle how omnivore humans are designed. Here is the truth about human classification Sorry it didn't attach, here: I apologize for the mistake. I had intended to write "It is clear that humans are omnivores, not herbivores." Either way, I understand that you don't agree with the statements. Obviously, in my own mind, I equate vegetarians and vegans to a kind of human herbivore. As a vegan, have you ever consumed grass? Humans are omnivores, not carnivores, to be clear on my position. This reply above presumes that I am arguing that humans are carnivores. I did not point out our canine teeth. No man is going to jump on the back of an animal and bite it. Humans use tools to hunt. That's where our superior mental dexterity among the great apes comes into play. I've seen the same animal comparison chart before, but I don't understand what this information proves even if we suppose it is accurate. For instance, human molars are far from flat, and the jaw can move in such a manner to produce a shearing motion. Also, while eating meat, not much chewing is required. Extensive chewing is required when we eat plants. Why can't humans consume meat while having a long digestive tract? Peristalsis appears to work well without any plant fiber, at least in my experience. I would like to introduce a short article by Loren Cordain where he describes why we are not evolutionarily adapted to eat grain - the seeds from grasses - and legumes. http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml#intro I realize we are drifting far from morality and UPB, but I have already made a tight case against the morality of veganism in this thread while connecting it ideologically to Marxism and feminism, and I have not seen an earnest rebuttal of my points. Currently, I am seeking to provide even more traction for my arguments by introducing the concept that humans aren't evolved to eat most of the plants that we consume in the modern world - corn, soy, and wheat, all of which have been genetically engineered. There is an obvious correlation between the consumption of these products and human disease. World Grain Production: World Obesity Rates: US Corn Consumption: US High Fructose Corn Syrup Consumption & Obesity Rates: US Per Capita Wheat Flour Consumption: CDC Diabetes Rates in the US: CDC Obesity Rates in the US: I've got data from Canada, too, but I've already assaulted you guys with a ton of charts.
Recommended Posts