- #841
JPD
- 28
- 0
physicsisphirst said:but you can associate with them and never, ever have the slightest fear of being eaten!
in fiendship,
prad
I shall do my utmost to return the compliment.
physicsisphirst said:but you can associate with them and never, ever have the slightest fear of being eaten!
in fiendship,
prad
physicsisphirst said:so are you asking me or telling me? please clarify.
in friendship,
prad
now that's evolution in action!JPD said:I shall do my utmost to return the compliment.
well i thought i had a reasonable idea what your thesis appears to be, but i don't understand what you are up to here.OneEye said:I am asking you: On what grounds do you enforce your moral vegetarianism on your dog - a moral perspective which the dog evidently does not share?
This may seem like a casual objection, but it is actually a key demonstration of my ongoing thesis.
Um, because we've been discussing the morality of eating meat for about two weeks now...physicsisphirst said:...additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'?
I think the point is that we don't know the impact of causing the extinction of a species so we'd better play it safe and not do it. And then, if we stop ourselves from causing the extinction of one species, we might head off any unconscious attempts to wipe out whole lots of species.russ_watters said:This is a little OT, but its my fault for alluding to it: I'm not sure I buy the argument that we should avoid making other species extinct (though, for now, I accept it and follow it). I'm just not sure what its based on. Is it ecology? Is it simply a matter of keeping pretty/interesting/tasty animals alive so our kids can see them at the zoo and eat them?
Maybe that's a topic for another thread...
We were talking about humans and dogs. But if we are talking about dogs then I know my dog wouldn't eat yeast, or shellfish, or (can you believe it) blue green algea.physicsisphirst said:LOL - you don't have to go to all that trouble and you don't do the bread thing with nutritional yeast (check it out at your local healthfood store). don't be so sure that eating meat saves you either:
Almost 40% of the U.S. population is deficient in vitamin B12 according to a recent study from Tufts University in Boston and a vast majority of them are completely unaware.
http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/27/vitamin_b12_deficiency.htm
now surely 40% of the population isn't strict vegetarian LOL
(and of course there is the usual stuff at the bottom about strict veggies going blind and suffering brain damage as a result this b12 thing - that's sort of mandatory)
(i thought we were talking about dogs anyway!)
Huh? Just because I feed my dog an artificial dog food doesn't mean that his instincts have been taken away. He still chases squirrels and chipmunks in the backyard all the time. I don't think his mom showed him what to do with them, so he just chases them. He never catches them anyway.physicsisphirst said:Dogs chase smaller animals without being taught, whether they see their parents doing it or not. Whether they eat the thing depends on seeing their parents do it, but the instinct to chase and catch is there for a reason.
does your dog chase, catch and eat the dogfood you provide?
i agree though that most dogs do like to chase and that, at least in the wild, they are 'taught' how to kill and then eat what they catch (by the parents).
I need to qualify natural? I need to define it for you?physicsisphirst said:there is little point in 'admitting' something that isn't even remotely correct (besides, you need to qualify just what you mean by 'natural'). as i have shown you in earlier posts, humans do not handle animal proteins in any form particularly well. if you look at their physiology you see why. dogs are true omnivores, but that also means that they don't need meat (as you keep insisting) and this has been shown for quite some time.
NEWS FLASH! Meat bad for dogs! Vegetable good for dogs!physicsisphirst said:agreed! the veg diet is good for dogs because they don't have to deal with the usual problems encountered when consuming meat (some dogs don't handle it well at all) which is why mainstream companies such as nature's recipe and natural life make a veg line - they don't make it to keep the ethical veggies happy you know LOL
You'll be pleased to know that they even recommend that 25% of the diet be vegetable. Even though, in the wild, the only veggies cats and dogs ever eat is grass to help them poo.Dogs and cats evolved eating a raw meat diet. That is a fact. Through marketing, the pet food companies have convinced us that the only way our pets can stay healthy is by feeding them the “balanced diet” that they themselves manufacture - mostly from cheap filler grains and very questionable protein sources.
Along with the following recipe ideas, both cats and dogs can (and should) be given raw bones (chicken or turkey necks, wings and backs). Bones must be given raw, cooked bones should NEVER be fed, since when cooked they become brittle and can splinter.
This is the problem my dog developed before I realized that he shouldn't eat these things, for some reason rice is ok. And this is what I mean when I say that a vegan diet IS NOT NATURAL for dogs (or cats).What other clues do we have that grains are not necessary for carnivores?
1) Dogs and cats do not have dietary requirements for complex carbohydrates.
2) Grains must be cooked or sprouted and thoroughly chewed to be digested Carnivores do not chew much at all.
3) The other nutrients in grains are readily available from other dietary ingredients. For example, B-vitamins are found in organ meats and trace minerals come from bones and vegetables. (Unfortunately, modern farming has striped many trace minerals from produce and supplementation is usually best.)
What are the negative effects? I believe that carnivores cannot maintain long-term production of the quantity of amylase enzyme necessary to properly digest and utilize the carbohydrates. In addition, the proteins in grains are less digestive than animal proteins. As a result, the immune system becomes irritated and weakened by the invasion of foreign, non-nutritive protein and carbohydrate particles. Allergies and other chronic immune problems may develop.
Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her diet and was also mostly a vegetarian.
MYTH #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.
Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. While lacto and lacto-ovo vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy products and eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not.
Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 naturally; they are always fortified from an outside source.
There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not bioavailable (13). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption, placing vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater risk for a deficiency (14).
There are way more people that are "meat eaters" than are vegetarians.A Response to Stephen Byrnes’ article: "The Myths of Vegetarianism"
I know vegetarians who seem distinctly unhealthy: pale faced, weak and unable to concentrate. I also know meat-eaters that are equally unhealthy: red-faced, gasping for air and with high cholesterol. Stereotypes for sure! There are also both vegetarians and meat-eaters who are very healthy—like Byrnes himself who looks the picture of health! That said, statistically, vegetarians are healthier than meat-eaters and there is, contrary to what Byrnes tells us, much supporting evidence for this.
Byrnes’ article is very useful to the vegetarian community because it reiterates the fact that just because a diet is vegetarian doesn’t automatically mean it healthy—an assumption that has seen many a healthy omnivore turn into an unhealthy vegetarian.
Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.
I agree with Byrnes on this one: it is essential for all vegans to include a B12 food supplement in their diets (these supplements are made from bacterial cultures and so can be taken by vegans). There is some evidence that certain foods like Klamath Blue Green Algae contain available (non-analogue) B12, and that this vitamin can be manufactured by intestinal flora and that it might be in the soil residues, but it is dangerous to rely on these sources for such an essential vitamin (although many people have and with fair results). The risks are too great not to supplement. Byrnes last statement that vegans a few decades ago would have died as they did not have supplements or fortified foods is not true as veganism is not a modern invention!
But... If any number of species have already been extincted - and if most species were extincted because of competition pressures - and if Earth is currently experiencing an extraordinary surfeit of species - then is it really wrong if one species (man) out-competes any number of other species?shrumeo said:I think the point is that we don't know the impact of causing the extinction of a species so we'd better play it safe and not do it. And then, if we stop ourselves from causing the extinction of one species, we might head off any unconscious attempts to wipe out whole lots of species.
shrumeo said:Anyway, this whole thread was about the morality of eating meat. We keep talking about the nutritional aspects of meat vs. non-meat. But, the nutritional benefits that meats provide is a clue that we are naturally inclined to eat it, so it is not immoral to merely eat meat. What I consider immoral (what I stated in my first post on this thread) is the way that we treat food animals in the name of maximizing profit (and keeping the cost down for us, the consumers). This is a question of our luxury vs. the animals right to a pleasant existence. IMO, I don't think that animals should be treated inhumanely just so we can support a huge population of fat slobs.
Yes, you see exactly where I am going. However, this is not a problem for my view. It is a problem for yours. If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences. If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas? You are coercing your dog into a lifestyle which it would not choose for itself.physicsisphirst said:well i thought i had a reasonable idea what your thesis appears to be, but i don't understand what you are up to here.
you were the one campaigning for animal-lack-of-awareness and now, suddenly, you show concern for my dog's moral perspective?
I don't think this is just an "assumption" on my part. It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat. You make your case for vegetarian dogs on health grounds, and you justify overriding your dogs' preferences based on their inability (or unwillingness) to make "right" choices for themselves. Yet with just a few interview questions, it would be easy to show that you would not allow your dogs to eat any meat whatsoever no matter what the health effects or noneffects were.physicsisphirst said:additionally, why would you assume that my vegetarianism is on grounds of 'morality'? why would you assume that i don't give my dog meat because i want him to be a 'moral' dog in this life...
OneEye said:Yes, you see exactly where I am going. However, this is not a problem for my view. It is a problem for yours. If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences. If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas? You are coercing your dog into a lifestyle which it would not choose for itself.
russ_watters said:But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote...well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.
so? how is that sufficient grounds for my veggieness to be a morality thing?russ_watters said:Um, because we've been discussing the morality of eating meat for about two weeks now...
this is from your post #814.russ_watters said:Therefore, the moral thing to do based on the utilitarian principle would be for me to wipe-out the bald eagle population to prevent the deaths of those hundreds of fish..
from post #831russ_watters said:2. I can eat a balanced meal without thinking about how to make it a balanced meal.
LOL! a curious thing to say when you consider the prevalence of diseases (heart, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence etc) linked to animal protein consumption in the US.shrumeo said:So what if 40% of the US is B12 deficient. That means they aren't eating enough meat!
a carrot doesn't run. throw one and your dog just might chase it.I never see my dog chasing oats and carrots though.
see post #647 p44 and earlierI need to qualify natural? I need to define it for you?
Where do you get this crap about humans not handling animal proteins well?
if you want to feed your dog meat, that's up to you. but i don't think you can use the dictionary definition of biologically natural (see "dogs eating poo" bit) to justify it and come to the conclusion that dog's fed veg diets are unhappy or malnourished.Look, I could be cruel to my dog and feed him oats and hay and tell him that he doesn't "need" meat, but isn't that going against his rights? Doesn't he have the right to life and liberty? Doesn't he have the right to eat meat if he prefers that and it's better for him?
i'm ok with that definition and i would also consider eating meat to be natural for humans when you use your 0.5 cm long canines to rip open a steer's throat (after pouncing and imbedding your 0.75 cm claws into it) and then tearing out its ... well let's not get too gruesome. i think that the vast majority of meat-eaters, though, imbed their 0.75 cm claws into the cellophane that wraps the meat which has been artificially grown in factory farms, artificially processed in slaughterhouses, artificially dressed in butcher shops and finally artificially prepared for consumption (ie cooked) - without even giving those 0.5 cm canines a workout. dogs however, being omnivores do better at eating meat more naturally, but the domesticated ones rarely get the chance to.When I say something is natural, I mean the dictionary definition of biologically natural:
"Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned"
and just to clear up artificial:
"Made by humans; produced rather than natural."
come now! i know it is a different idea from what most people consider 'normal', but that doesn't make it bad. anyway, I'm glad that you are at least reading some of the links and considering them - you don't have to agree with any of it.NEWS FLASH! Meat bad for dogs! Vegetable good for dogs!
Total horsecrap.
actually, carnivores often go after the stomachs of their kill to get at the vegetable matter contained there in.You'll be pleased to know that they even recommend that 25% of the diet be vegetable. Even though, in the wild, the only veggies cats and dogs ever eat is grass to help them poo.
that doesn't mean it is unhealthy. rice is hardly a 'natural' food (especially for dogs), but yours seems to do ok with it which is great!This is the problem my dog developed before I realized that he shouldn't eat these things, for some reason rice is ok. And this is what I mean when I say that a vegan diet IS NOT NATURAL for dogs (or cats).
dogs are very and wonderfully aware - how does that relate to their being moral agents (the former is almost passive in nature, whereas the latter is active)?OneEye said:If you believe that dogs are aware, then you must allow them the right to live by their own lights as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences.
non, mon ami!If you believe that animals (specifically, your dogs) should have the same rights as you, then surely this right includes their being allowed to eat as they please - n'cest pas?
i'd like to see you do that.I don't think this is just an "assumption" on my part. It would be quite easy to distill your previous posts and show that you, yourself, are an ethical vegetarian - and that you think it wrong that any animal should eat meat.
i shall not comment one way or another since i'd like to see you 'distill' my posts first - then we can do the cross-examination! i await your distillation!So, let me state myself plainly: I believe that the reason which leads you to feed your dogs a vegetarian diet is that you feel that it would be morally wrong for your dogs to eat meat.
...
If I am wrong, I will gladly hear you say it. But be prepared for a little cross-examination if you do.
learningphysics said:Humans aren't allowed to live as free moral agents, responsible for their own choices and to their own consciences... We have the law to prevent a serial killer from committing crimes, which he may find morally acceptable according to his conscience...
An animal in the wild dies either from predation, disease, or old age. All of these deaths take hours to months, and are terrifying and painful to the animal in the process. Humans dispatch their food animals in a process which takes less than an hour and which ends in a death which takes only a few seconds. Seems to me that meat-eating humans are a lot kinder to animals than nature is!physicsisphirst said:...you would have to wipe out the human species which from what i understands causes the greatest amount of suffering...
If you insist on my doing this, I will.physicsisphirst said:i shall not comment one way or another since i'd like to see you 'distill' my posts first - then we can do the cross-examination! i await your distillation!
OneEye said:"Free moral agent" usually refers to a condition of the individual, not of the environment. A free moral agent is able to evaluate situations according to moral criteria, and is able to choose their response based on their own moral evaluation of that situation. We are not sure that animals are free moral agents - and physicsisphirst seems bent on proving that they are not!
OneEye said:Given my clarification, I restate:
It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
Humans are members of Animalia.
-------------------------------------------------------
It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
How do you reply to this?
cogito said:This thread is so long, I'm not sure anybody has pointed out extremely obvious and equally absurd consequence of this argument, so apologies if this is redundant. This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. So, Oneeye, how do you reply to that?
To me it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of right or wrong, but of aesthetics.OneEye said:But... If any number of species have already been extincted - and if most species were extincted because of competition pressures - and if Earth is currently experiencing an extraordinary surfeit of species - then is it really wrong if one species (man) out-competes any number of other species?
It certainly would be natural.
learningphysics said:Then why did you say that physicsphirst must "allow" the dog to act as a free moral agent following his conscience etc... According to the above you can't prevent a being from acting as a moral agent.
learningphysics said:You were the one who stated that if someone believes a dog is aware, he must allow the dog the freedom to do whatever... But this is obviously a false statement... physicsphirst is not obligated to allow the dog to perform whatever action it wishes even if it is an aware moral agent... any more than he is obligated to allow a serial killer(an aware moral agent) to kill... or a child (an aware moral agent) to play with fire...
shrumeo said:To me it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of right or wrong, but of aesthetics.
OneEye said:Sorry... I'm still not making it clear. What cannot be prevented is a person's being a moral agent. Whether they can act as a moral agent has no bearing on this question. A moral agent is able to perceive moral value and make decisions which are informed by moral considerations and which have moral weight (i.e., culpability). We only hold moral agents guilty for their actions; if it cannot be convicted of a crime, then it is presumed not to be a moral agent. Justice can only be served on moral agents.
Your consideration is missing an implied or "hidden" premiss: that a moral agent may not ethically restrain a peer's liberty. Words for this sort of thing are kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, extortion, etc.
Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.
Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.
This is not what I am saying. It is because children are moral agents that adults hold them guilty for wrongdoing.learningphysics said:There are rights and there are rights... From what you've described above, children are not moral agents (at least in some states they aren't considered moral agents) and don't have the same rights as adult humans...
Not necessarily true. A policeman and I have equal rights, but he has moral authority over me. In the same way, parents are naturally vested with authority over their children, even though the children have the same rights as the parents.learningphysics said:Adult humans hold themselves as a moral authority over children... something you imply cannot happen if adults and children have equal rights...
learningphysics said:But there are another set of rights... right to be free of pain... right to be treated ethically etc... Children are given the same rights here as adults... and what the AR folks are saying is that animals should be given these same rights also...
You can LOL all you want, but you don't know what you are talking about.physicsisphirst said:LOL! a curious thing to say when you consider the prevalence of diseases (heart, cancer, osteoporosis, impotence etc) linked to animal protein consumption in the US.
you're right a carrot doesn't run. It is only moving when moved. If the human weren't there the carrot would sit still and a dog would ignore it.a carrot doesn't run. throw one and your dog just might chase it.
Ok, this site has a lot of jumbled crap on it but I picked out what I could find quickly.see post #647 p44 and earlier
or see http://www.pcrm.org/
This one is pretty funny.or see http://www.vegsource.com/
This is just lame propaganda. It's pretty funny though.or see http://Earth'save.org/
and you've bought it all.or ... the list goes on and on! there really has been a lot of stuff done on this.
It was the dog's choice to eat poo. That's why it was natural. If it were it's choice to lick up some antifreeze, then that's natural, and the dog will die, naturally.if you want to feed your dog meat, that's up to you. but i don't think you can use the dictionary definition of biologically natural (see "dogs eating poo" bit) to justify it and come to the conclusion that dog's fed veg diets are unhappy or malnourished.
Um, ok. So we've gotten more efficient with the way we injest vital nutrients.i'm ok with that definition and i would also consider eating meat to be natural for humans when you use your 0.5 cm long canines to rip open a steer's throat (after pouncing and imbedding your 0.75 cm claws into it) and then tearing out its ... well let's not get too gruesome. i think that the vast majority of meat-eaters, though, imbed their 0.75 cm claws into the cellophane that wraps the meat which has been artificially grown in factory farms, artificially processed in slaughterhouses, artificially dressed in butcher shops and finally artificially prepared for consumption (ie cooked) - without even giving those 0.5 cm canines a workout. dogs however, being omnivores do better at eating meat more naturally, but the domesticated ones rarely get the chance to.
Ah! Nice to know.actually, carnivores often go after the stomachs of their kill to get at the vegetable matter contained there in.
Great for me, because now I can save money by feeding him relatively cheap dog food that has fillers like rice and things like rendered animals. If he couldn't have rice I'd probably have to feed him raw chickens and steaks and that would get expensive.that doesn't mean it is unhealthy. rice is hardly a 'natural' food (especially for dogs), but yours seems to do ok with it which is great!
I just feel sorry for any dog forced to eat nothing but vegetables.shrumeo, I'm sure you are very close to your dog and are a responsible owner and friend. otherwise, you would not be so up in arms with the veg dog concept. i would be the first to acknowledge your sincerity in this matter. however, some of us have also been quite diligent in our investigation of 'the otherside' and have seen the benefits of going there.
I doubt they outnumber us.russ_watters said:But humans, by virtue of taking part in government, get to shape how morality is applied by government. A dog is not afforded that right. If we were to let the animals vote...well, like someone else said, they outnumber us.
OneEye said:Only a superior authority may ethically restrain a free moral agent. For most human societies, the superior moral authority is the law, enacted by government officials. So, in order for physicsisphirst to control his dogs in this fashion (and, it must be admitted, against their known preferences), physicsisphirst must be asserting himself as the proper moral authority over the dog.
Not the sort of thing one would do if one believed that all animals had equal rights.
OneEye said:In addition, you have skirted an important question: If a cat is a moral agent which has its own view of the morality of eating meat, then who are you to stop it?
OneEye said:And if a cat is not a moral agent, then can it at all be called a person, or the equal of a person?