Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[OneEye]

why should a veg have to 'justify' the diet when it
- doesn't ravage the environment (none of this pollution, deforestation, water depletion etc etc etc);

Sorry. This is really my last post:
If you think vegetable farming is environmentally friendly, then you are really out of it.

• Corn farmers cannot touch the seed they plant because of the additives it is coated with.
• Irrigated grain production in my area has caused so much depletion in the water table that we are being declared a "red zone" by the feds. Yet without irrigation farming, much of the US becomes agriculturally useless.
• We are facing a farming crisis in many areas of the US because the prevalent "deep tillage" methods have denuded the soil of nutrients and helpful symbiotes - but without these methods, farming becomes untenable in many areas.
• Planting and harvesting methods kill millions - perhaps billions - of animals a year.
• We live in the shadow of the grain elevators, and suffer grievously from sinus infections whenever the fans are turned on to dry the grain.
• Deadly phosphorous chemicals are injected into the intakes of grain elevators to kill pests.
• Herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers are heavily used in all phases of veggie farming - and without these methods, we might not be able to produce an adequate food supply.

Sorry, but veggie-only farming is really no superior to animal farming. And at least, with pasturing, large sections of the land are left as native grassland.

Sorry for the reality dose. But that's the way it is.

Sayonara, everyone!

 

[loseyourname]

The word was for emphasis, not insult. I understand his position. But it is certainly, certainly, not factual. There are, in fact, no facts whatsoever in his argument. That is exactly what makes it so dismissable. Where are the facts? Please, if you think there are facts, tell me what facts? All I see are abstractions. Useless abstractions. This is the very problem. The absence of facts. First come the facts. Then the abstractions to support the perception of facts. No facts, useless abstractions.

I suggest you evaluate the situation again.

There are no such things as ethical facts, sheepy, only ethical arguments. You cannot empirically verify that it is wrong to do something. There is no property of "wrongness" in an action that can be detected with the senses. All you can do is either argue that the action is intrinsically wrong or that its consequences are intrinsically wrong. Then when I demonstrate the inconsistency of your arguments, I guess you can make further bald assertions, which I might remind you are a violation of the forum rules.

 

[sheepdog]

time

What is actually going on here - pretty much unremarked - is a clash of moral systems. Meat eaters believe that they are well within their rights to eat meat - and, based on their moral system, they are right. Ethical vegetarians may well believe that "Meat is Murder" (as Morrissey sings) - and within their value system, they are right.

So the real question is, Which value system (if any) is right?

This question has really been at the foundation of the disagreement here - and without facing and resolving this question, there can be no resolution on the matter. Or, put another way, unless the ethical vegetarian or animal rights activist is able to show that my value system is wrong and theirs is right, they have no business condemning me for eating meat - they are wrong to do so..

The animal rights movement made a big mistake when it tried to argue the "rights" angle. Animals have no rights. What we put in our mouths and how it got there has nothing to do with morality or ethics. There is no argument to be made, won or lost. There are no rules to be obeyed or broken. There are only a series of moments, surrounded by the facts in which we are embedded -- for a very, very short time. A vegetarian does not eat meat because she believes it is moral or ethical. There is no clash of value systems with meat eaters or others. Yes, we may argue on moral or ethical principles, but only for the company. We don't really believe any of that garbage. We place in our mouths what we see belongs there, at that moment, for no reason that can be completely articulated, except that it is right action. I'm sure it is the same for meat eaters. The values are the same. Only the outcome will be different.

 

[physicsisphirst]

There are no such things as ethical facts, sheepy, only ethical arguments.

i think that was precisely the point sheepdog was making to oneeye. you weren't presenting facts, only arguments. it was oneeye who was claiming that you were arguing factually and sheepdog was trying to point out to him that that you were making abstractions.

Then when I demonstrate the inconsistency of your arguments, I guess you can make further bald assertions, which I might remind you are a violation of the forum rules.

i don't think you demonstrated the inconsistency of sheepdog's position. you merely offered him 2 choices (post #1020, at least i think this is what you are talking about) in the form of a question:

Are you arguing that animal life has intrinsic worth, or are you arguing that the good consequences you think will arise from not eating meat have intrinsic worth?

and then proceeded to provide your own answers to them:

if it is the latter, you must then acknowledge that there are ways of bringing those consequences about that do not require the complete abandonment of meat products. [praditor's note: this remains to be shown]. The only way to avoid this is to say that the only consequence you are trying to bring about is a lack of animal death at human hands, in which case you simply revert to the intrinsic worth of animal life. [praditor's note: how is it that the only consequence must be the intrinsic worth of animal life? why couldn't a human not kill an animal because the human refuses to kill rather because animal life has intrinsic worth?]

(i am also curious to know exactly what forum rule you think sheepdog has violated.)

btw, i am very interested in hearing your ideas on more humane killing processes. i indicated that way back in post #1022, but i think you may not have seen it, because the thread has moved several pages since our earlier exchanges.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Sorry. This is really my last post

we shall see ...

if you think vegetable farming is environmentally friendly, then you are really out of it.

while some of the items on your list are legitimate qualitatively, they don't add up quantitatively. considering that most of the land is used to grow stuff to fatten animals that are then eaten, surely it is a simple matter to see that if people ate the stuff first, you could by pass the 'middleman'. i could show you why, but i think you'd dismiss all my links and facts as being veg propaganda and simply ignore it as you have done to date with anything presented to you along these lines.

Sorry for the reality dose. But that's the way it is.

i think the only reality you have demonstrated is that you are unwilling to even consider any of the information that is presented if it disagrees with your present beliefs. perhaps this approach of yours to discussion will change in the future - perhaps it won't. either way, if you are really leaving, best wishes.

 

[physicsisphirst]

An impressive list of anatomical characteristics to be sure; but not one of them DEFINES either herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore.

Herbivores are animals that eat plants; not animals that are equipped to eat plants.

Carnivores are animals or plants that eat animals; not animals or plants that are equipped to eat animals.

Omnivores are animals (or plants) that eat anything, or most anything whether plant or animal (or something else like rocks or dirt)

what you are saying is certainly consistent, but only because you go by the 'define by doing' approach as expressed in the first article in post #900. because humans eat meat, you are saying that humans are omnivores. however, the point that Mills and Roberts were making is that human physiology lines up much more closely with herbivores than with the 'classic anatomical omnivore' the bear (as in Mills' article).

if you go by the 'define by doing' approach, you can technically say that factory-farmed cows, pigs and chickens are omnivores because they actually do eat animals - rendered animal products (including feces) are often mixed into their feed. in fact, a Canadian company Maple Leaf prides itself by stating in their commercials (tv and otherwise) that their animals are not fed any animal by-products:

Maple Leaf pork and poultry have been fed a strict and exclusive diet of all Vegetable-Grain, with NO ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS.
http://www.saveonfoods.com/1/brightlife/safety/article_meat_safety.htm

(you probably already know why this concern came about)

the point Mills was demonstrating was that humans don't have the mechanisms to process meat very well, because their physiology is closer to that of herbivores.

now, for humans, being an omnivore 'by doing' rather than 'by being' can lead to some serious consequences such as heart disease, cancer, arthritis, osteoporosis, excema, obesity, impotence, etc etc.

You cite the bear as the perfect omnivore, that eats (and is equipped to eat) almost anything, including plastics; so then what about the giant panda that is as close to a bear as you can get yet it eats and is equipped to eat only one kind of one kind of plant (bamboo grass).

i'm not sure what your point is here.
i don't know if you read the Mills article, but here is a quote from it:

Bears are classified as carnivores but are classic anatomical omnivores. Although they eat some animal foods, bears are primarily herbivorous with 70-80% of their diet comprised of plant foods. (The one exception is the Polar bear which lives in the frozen, vegetation poor arctic and feeds primarily on seal blubber.) Bears cannot digest fibrous vegetation well, and therefore, are highly selective feeders. Their diet is dominated by primarily succulent lent herbage, tubers and berries. Many scientists believe the reason bears hibernate is because their chief food (succulent vegetation) not available in the cold northern winters.

bears are in carnivora (like cats and dogs), but are equipped to handle all kinds of foods. the polar bear has as a result of its habitat developed a pechant for eating meat. similarly the giant panda (scientists think is more closely related to racoons rather than bears) has bamboo processing equipment:

Giant pandas live almost solely on a diet of bamboo, up to 33 pounds a day, and will very rarely eat other plant matter or scavenge the meat of dead deer

bears are not omnivores only 'by doing' - they actually do have the physiological equipment.

Humans eat and are equipped to eat both plants and animals

the first bit is correct, but the second really isn't. humans are not very well equipped to eat meat. humans are however, very well equipped to eat leafy greens and fruits and do well with other veggies.

To argue that humans are not omnivores because of some completely arbitrary list of anatomical characteristics is simply silly.

well let's look at that list again:

these have to do with munching
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
human munching abilities line up with herbivores rather than omnivores

these have to do with digestion:
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
colon
human digestive abilities line up with herbivores rather than omnivores

there is much more in the article and we can go through it together in another post, if you wish, but surely you can see that the selection isn't arbitrary at all. (on the otherhand, someone noted that humans don't have hooves so that means that they are not aligned with herbivores - that sort of thing is arbitrary LOL).

no one is saying that a human is a cow. however, the physiological characteristics of humans line up much closer to herbivores than omnivores. here is the Mills link from post #900 again (in case anyone missed it): http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

By definition, omnivores eat plants and animals (and rocks (dirt)).

this is the definition 'by doing' again. just because you do, doesn't mean you have the tools to do it - and consequences are forthcoming as cited earlier.

We invented morality; and we aren't at all universal about what it means.

So while I have no comlaint with the person who decides to be strictly herbivorous for whatever reason they make that choice; it is simply none of their business what I choose to eat.

i don't think anyone has told you not to eat meat - that isn't the point of the discussion here at any rate which is to answer the question "should we eat meat". however, surely it is incorrect to conclude that "it is simply none of their business what I choose to eat" if their choice of morality (and you do grant them this because you say "we aren't at all universal about what it means") dictates that animals should not be eaten.

Society as a whole has decided we shouldn't eat each other; but mother nature would tell us that anyway; it does not lead to species survival improvement

i'm not sure war leads to species improvement, but has mother nature told us that? actually, mother nature has made fairly clear comments about eating meat in terms of the human physiology and health consequences.

If the PETA folks were to extend their philosophy to the animals, and decree that the big fish shouldn't eat the little fish, the whole balance of life on Earth would be disrupted with disastrous consequences.

where you get this idea that the PETA folks have a "big fish shouldn't eat the little fish" philosophy (they tend to be pretty utilitarian anyway). i know certain individual(s), in this thread, have fabricated their own statements regarding animal rights, and then tried to claim that these are the foundations of the animal rights movement, but if you really want to know about AR philosophies go to post #748, p50 and you'll find summaries of some of them (as well as follow-up links).

As I said before, we could manufacture all the nutritional necessities of sustenance out of rocks and water and sunlight, and stop eating anything else that is alive (or was).

i'm not sure that would be particularly healthy or necessary especially when veg eating has proven itself to be wonderfully healthy over the centuries - it is not a new fad, but it is certainly a growing movement.

 

[physicsisphirst]

There is no clash of value systems with meat eaters or others. Yes, we may argue on moral or ethical principles, but only for the company.

that's surely it, sheepdog!
we are all such lonely individuals

To the extent our choices serve other-than-self we also choose the brighter alternative future. To the extent our choices serve self we are choosing the darker alternative future. I believe this is a law of nature ...

this is so beautifully expressed, michael! these ideas are what we hold as honorable, what our role models have provided us throughout history and what we teach our children because we want that 'brighter alternative future' for them!
wow!

 

[JPD]

that's surely it, sheepdog!
we are all such lonely individuals


this is so beautifully expressed, michael! these ideas are what we hold as honorable, what our role models have provided us throughout history and what we teach our children because we want that 'brighter alternative future' for them!
wow!

But how do you know that those other individuals to whom you give are going to do something good themselves, which may or may not include reciprocating the gesture, with or without material benefits?

 

[Philocrat]

Should we eat meat?

Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!

Maybe we should all stop eating meat!
It's not unhealthy or lacking enough essentials
because all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

Now the main problem is:
- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??
- Or should we stop eating meat and everyone changes to
become a vegetarian?
(since it's considered to be
cruel to kill other life forms)

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:

• Freedom for all farm animals!
• Eating less unhealthy food
• No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess
• Eating more healthy food!
• No more interference with the animals' life and death.
• Increase in animal population!
• More animals to conduct researches on.
• No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!
• and many more!

If you want to see the BIGGER PICTURE of eating meat and not eating meat, look at the FOOD CHAIN both quantitatively and logically. From my own detailed examination of it, the food chain is one of the ugliest and spookiest structures in nature. It's total horror! It's like a snake with two heads. As ugly and spooky as it is, apparently, it also has very intelligible structure for self preservation when you look at it mathematically and logically. Let me leave you guessing for now. Try and see if you can see what I have observed ...I will discuss this in detail later.

 

[sheepdog]

statistical balance

But how do you know that those other individuals to whom you give are going to do something good themselves, which may or may not include reciprocating the gesture, with or without material benefits?

You don't. But you know that life is a numbers game. The outcome is statistically determined. If benefit predominates then life will continue. If harm and disadvantage predominate then Nature will remove that species from the system. You cannot cheat Nature. Those against her will eventual be eliminated. So on balance one can be certain benefits will predominate. It is our task to figure out how to act to swing the balance to benefit.

I have set before you life and death, blessings or curses.
Oh that you would choose life, that you and your children might live.
--Deuteronomy 30:19/20

 

[physicsisphirst]

But how do you know that those other individuals to whom you give are going to do something good themselves, which may or may not include reciprocating the gesture, with or without material benefits?

good point, jpd! however i don't think the issue sheepdog is making is one of simply giving (at least, that's not how i took it).

here's his quote:

To the extent our choices serve other-than-self we also choose the brighter alternative future. To the extent our choices serve self we are choosing the darker alternative future. I believe this is a law of nature ...

i think what he is getting at is that when we make a choice, it can be a self-service or other-than-self-service. when the latter, the being that benefits from our choice may not 'pay it back' or even 'pay it forward'.

sometimes, what is 'returned' may be dangerous. for instance, a couple of AR activists saved a stranded cat during the east coast hurricane last year. in the process, the cat scratched them up badly enough that they needed to go to emergency (they didn't have protective gloves). I've encountered unpleasant situations trying to help high school students from abusive homes - just because you 'serve' them, doesn't mean they will express gratitude in the expected fashion (some of them had a justifiably heavy and unpleasant chip on their shoulders).

i think what sheepdog was getting at though is that there may be merit in serving others, regardless of how they end up utilizing this service. i think that there have been many in history who were willing to take the chance.

for instance, consider the words

of John Kennedy:
ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country.

or John Wooden:
You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you.

or Leo Tolstoy:
The sole meaning of life is to serve humanity.

or Emily Dickinson:
If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Up to his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.

or Damien Hess:
Service...
Giving what you don't have to give.
Giving when you don't need to give.
Giving because you want to give.

or Anthony Robbins:
Only those who have learned the power of sincere and selfless contribution experience life's deepest joy: true fulfillment..

or Albert Einstein:
Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.

or Helen Keller:
Happiness cannot come from without. It must come from within. It is not what we see and touch or that which others do for us which makes us happy; it is that which we think and feel and do, first for the other fellow and then for ourselves.

or Albert Schweitzer:
I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve.

or Ann Radcliff:
One act of beneficence, one act of real usefulness, is worth all the abstract sentiment in the world.

or Ann Frank:
How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.

or Martin Luther King Jr:
Everybody can be great... because anybody can serve. You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.


so why is it that we find these words and those from whom they came inspirational? it is not because doing good things for others, just makes us feel good (even though that is obviously a fringe benefit - as Gandhi said The fragrance always remains on the hand that gives the rose.). it is because in each of us there flickers the hope that not only may tomorrow be better than today - but that we may be able to do our part to make it so.

we can do this because it is deeply in our nature - some would hope as result of evolution, some would insist because it has been branded into our souls.

mother teresa put it very beautifully:

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives; be kind anyway
If you are honest and sincere, people may deceive you; be honest and sincere anyway
The good you do today will often be forgotten; do good anyway
Give the best you have, and it may never be enough; give your best anyway
In the final analysis, it is between you and God; it was never between you and them anyway


the thoughts and the actions of these (and many other) people throughout history is some of that other-than-self-service they performed for us.
how will we choose to reciprocate their gesture?

 

[sheepdog]

giving up

i think what he is getting at is that when we make a choice, it can be a self-service or other-than-self-service. when the latter, the being that benefits from our choice may not 'pay it back' or even 'pay it forward'.

Yes, that's right. And I very much enjoyed the rest of your remarkable list of quotes.

Also to be noted is that giving includes "giving up", as in giving up meat. That too is a type of giving and a very important type. This is the way I think of vegetarianism. By giving up meat I pass a benefit to those that would have been eaten.

When you serve or give to yourself you benefit one. When you serve or give to other-than-self you benefit many. There is only one of you and there are many other than you. The benefit is necessarily multiplied, amplified. This is, in the scientific, analytical sense, why it works.

Most of what the Dahli Lama says I do not find very interesting, except for this one statement, which I find to be extremely true. He has said, "Compassion is completely logical." We can see clearly what he meant by working through the issue of vegetarianism like this.

Thank you for your beautiful comments, prad.

 

[loseyourname]

i think that was precisely the point sheepdog was making to oneeye. you weren't presenting facts, only arguments. it was oneeye who was claiming that you were arguing factually and sheepdog was trying to point out to him that that you were making abstractions.

That is how arguments are critiqued - through abstractions.

Are you arguing that animal life has intrinsic worth, or are you arguing that the good consequences you think will arise from not eating meat have intrinsic worth?

and then proceeded to provide your own answers to them:

if it is the latter, you must then acknowledge that there are ways of bringing those consequences about that do not require the complete abandonment of meat products. [praditor's note: this remains to be shown]. The only way to avoid this is to say that the only consequence you are trying to bring about is a lack of animal death at human hands, in which case you simply revert to the intrinsic worth of animal life. [praditor's note: how is it that the only consequence must be the intrinsic worth of animal life? why couldn't a human not kill an animal because the human refuses to kill rather because animal life has intrinsic worth?]

A human can refuse to kill animals, but he cannot contend there is any moral worth in doing so unless he contends that there is worth to animal life. If he cannot contend that there is moral worth in such an action, then there is no reason to advocate that other people follow in his course.

(i am also curious to know exactly what forum rule you think sheepdog has violated.)

Rather than respond to arguments being made, he has simply labelled them "garbage." Doing that is insulting and not conducive to furthering a discussion, which is the aim of the forum.

btw, i am very interested in hearing your ideas on more humane killing processes. i indicated that way back in post #1022, but i think you may not have seen it, because the thread has moved several pages since our earlier exchanges.

Any method of killing that does not involve any pain on the part of the animal being killed. Instantaneous breaking of the neck, a gunshot wound to the brain, lethal injection, electrical shock to stop the heart all fit the bill. No, I have not seen that post.

 

[yanglobal]

yanglobal

the tiltle "Should we eat meat "is very important for human being,from buddish religion concept,the each kind creature including animals and plants has life chartistic ,especially human was the leader among the creature ,human born with wisdom and can handle the world most important thing.
but in the buddish meaning /principle ,the human was among the six kind of ways of creature,the six kind ways including upper 3 way:heaven way,human way, AUSHLO(own angry mind/giant power capacity)way,and downward 3-way:animal way ,hungry ghost way,evil hill way.
why human being can not eat meat ,because now the existing animals was human everyone of relatively relation before,why they became to be animal because they do not do advantage everything for each creature and even do many many hurt or killed creature things.so When they (bad creature(man)) died,he will fall into downward 3-way among the six kind of ways .
and I think the human being finally shall be keep very kind and mercy mind, do not hurt any creature and peaceful with any kind of creature,and the world will become to be heaven forever.

 

[yanglobal]

yanglobal

the title "Should we eat meat"is very import thing for human being,the Human
is the leader among the creature including animal and plant ,he own the wisdom and handle control the Earth beyond anyone Earth creature ,

In buddish /Tao religon concept, That eat or kill any animal is very serious crime matter,let me shortly introduce the buddish theory /principle ,the buddish thought generally that the world /universe has six styles way of creature ,including upper 3-way eaven(was angel/lucky creature life)way
,human way ,Aushulo(violent temper and own giant power) and below 3-way :hungary ghost way ,animal way ,and evil hall way.

when the human do not do advantage thing for creature and do many many bad thing even killed creature ,and finally the bad-man for being himself evil behavior will fall into below 3-way to become one of creature among the hungary ghost way ,animal way ,or evil hall way.

human shall follow up the god mercy and be peacefully with any kind creature.let the world become more brightness and happiness.

 

[physicsisphirst]

A human can refuse to kill animals, but he cannot contend there is any moral worth in doing so unless he contends that there is worth to animal life. If he cannot contend that there is moral worth in such an action, then there is no reason to advocate that other people follow in his course.

what does the worth of animal life have to do with whether a human thinks there is moral worth in not killing? for instance, i can say that we should 'love thy neighbour' even if that neighbour is hitler (now don't get all upset because i said hitler - it's only for dramatic effect LOL). surely, there can be no worth in loving hitler as your neighbour, but there may be some worth to me to 'loving my neighbour'. i may also find moral worth in meditating about say palm leaves, even though there may not be anything particularly worthy about palm leaves - the meditation may make me a better person and having discovered this i could certainly recommend that others follow this practice as well.

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

Rather than respond to arguments being made, he has simply labelled them "garbage." Doing that is insulting and not conducive to furthering a discussion, which is the aim of the forum.

i'm not sure that is really a violation of forum rules though it may not encourage further discussion.

would you agree that statements like these:

There you go again, friendly Prad. ... You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy. (your post #1000)

There's a rule of thumb at play here. I don't remember its name, but whenever a person appeals to an analogy with Hitler, he generally doesn't have much of a case. ... Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. (your post #1012)

If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it. (your post #1012)

are "not conducive to furthering a discussion"?

for instance, i have explained twice already that the point I'm making has really nothing to do with your specific concern about hitler (i even encouraged you to substitute your favorite character in place of him), yet you insist that i am trying to run an emotional campaign. i also have been trying to discuss this without the acceptance of animal rights (and have even explained certain AR philosophies do not promote inherent rights for animals), yet you keep insisting that i am granting animals their rights. then you go on to say that we have reached an impasse here because of this.

i do not understand 2 things here about your approach:

1) why do you tell me what i am doing, rather listen to what i am actually saying?
2) why are you in such a hurry to end discussion - you do this with your 'impasse' line to me and you did the same thing to sheepdog in post #1011 If you say there is no way to alleviate some of the problems we have here except by going vegetarian, then I cannot talk to you.

for someone who has just pointed out that the aim of the forums is to further discussion, can you not at least consider what is being said (rather than insist on your own interpretations) and make an attempt to continue communications (rather than cut them off)?

(i'm not complaining or even requesting, btw - nor do i find anything you have said insulting. i do think that there is ground to be explored in this thread, but it will require a bit more than simply discounting ideas because you don't like them.)

Any method of killing that does not involve any pain on the part of the animal being killed. Instantaneous breaking of the neck, a gunshot wound to the brain, lethal injection, electrical shock to stop the heart all fit the bill.

these all sound like improvements. in fact, i believe the second one was suggested by john robbins in his book diet for a new america - however, it seems that the meat industry is unwilling to adopt any of them because of the added expense.

now my next question is why is it that you seem interested in killing animals painlessly? (please note that i am not arguing whether your techniques really are or are not painless - for the purposes of continuing this discussion, suffice it to say that if you think they are painless, that is sufficient).

specifically, if you had the choice of buying your meat from a store that has 'compassionately killed' meat or the regular brutal stuff, what would you choose? (also, i am assuming that since you are interested in making the killing compassionate, you would also insist that the living conditions be humane as well.)

 

[sheepdog]

the long run

That is how arguments are critiqued - through abstractions.

No. Arguments are critiqued through comparison with the real, experiment. We only share reality. I cannot share with you what is confined to your head.

A human can refuse to kill animals, but he cannot contend there is any moral worth in doing so unless he contends that there is worth to animal life.

I contend there is no worth to moral worth. I contend there is no worth to animal life. The only worth there is is the worth in not killing. All the worth is in the choice. It goes no farther than that. Understand the act itself. Anything else is only a distraction

If he cannot contend that there is moral worth in such an action, then there is no reason to advocate that other people follow in his course.

We all follow our own courses. What I need from you is your eyes, your ears, your sensibilities. Each of us sees the world through a very small window. Without sharing your experience, and the sensibilities and experience of a multitude of others, I cannot hope to see and understand enough to do my job. If your sensibilities tell you to eat meat I don't understand that. Mine tell me not to. No one is right here. No one is in the wrong. One of us is missing something.

Rather than respond to arguments being made, he has simply labelled them "garbage." Doing that is insulting and not conducive to furthering a discussion, which is the aim of the forum.

I accept that as a fair criticism. I only regret that I was asked a question and could find no softer way of answering. What does one call nonesense? Gibberish? Ignorant confusion? You see? It was the least offensive term my limited vocabulary could find. If you could suggest a better way of phrasing my answer I would appreciate the lesson.

The question, "Should we eat meat?" can be better phrased, "What should we take from the world?" Eating is a kind of economic transaction with Nature. She has an abundance to give, more than any of us could ever use. What is it best for us to take from this abundance? As much as we can? Anything we like? That would seem to be the popular answer. Personally I think there must be a better solution for the long run.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Also to be noted is that giving includes "giving up", as in giving up meat. That too is a type of giving and a very important type. This is the way I think of vegetarianism. By giving up meat I pass a benefit to those that would have been eaten.

for the billions that are eaten each year (and don't need to be), that is indeed an important benefit. i hope you receive the same benefit, since oneeye threatened (in post #1079) to eat you :

When you serve or give to yourself you benefit one. When you serve or give to other-than-self you benefit many. There is only one of you and there are many other than you. The benefit is necessarily multiplied, amplified. This is, in the scientific, analytical sense, why it works.

it really is quite logical. as mr spock would say, "the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or one" - of course, mr spock was veg LOL

He [Dahli Lama] has said, "Compassion is completely logical." We can see clearly what he meant by working through the issue of vegetarianism like this.

it is interesting that certain people throughout history see this sort of thing. they don't advocate peace and compassion simply because their 'religion' dictates it - they do so because civilized behavior stands on its own feet. rather than being wishful pie-in-the-sky, it is extraordinarily pragmatic. as the saying goes, "there is nothing so practical as idealism"

Thank you for your beautiful comments, prad.

my pleasure, michael! your posts have always provided many wonderful insights (as well as much humorous delight). i am glad if i have been able to return some of it.

 

[physicsisphirst]

but in the buddish meaning /principle ,the human was among the six kind of ways of creature,the six kind ways including upper 3 way:heaven way,human way, AUSHLO(own angry mind/giant power capacity)way,and downward 3-way:animal way ,hungry ghost way,evil hill way.

thank you yanglobal and welcome to the thread.
i was not aware of this buddhist 6 way.
it is interesting and i shall look into it.

 

[sheepdog]

our burden

for the billions that are eaten each year (and don't need to be), that is indeed an important benefit. i hope you receive the same benefit, since oneeye threatened (in post #1079) to eat you.

Let's be specific about the magnitude of the carnage. 9 billion animals are slaughtered every year for meat. That is to say a population greater than all the people who have ever lived are killed unnecessarily every single year, year in and year out.

Yet it is the vegetarians who must shoulder much of the responsibility, paradoxical as that sounds. The meat eaters have devised a society that reinforces meat eating. The religion preaches domination over animals rationalizing the carnage. Businesses promote meat eating for fun and profit. Meat eaters put their efforts into supporting their churches, businesses, schools, sports and social clubs. Vegetarians mostly do not. We have a tendency to sit on the sidelines and complain. Shame on us.

We should be forming churches where Compassion is worshiped. We should only do business with businesses that promote Compassion. We should be forming schools, sports centers and social clubs centered on Compassion. This would be a difficult and painful process because we would be denying ourselves many of the luxuries of our rich societies. But we are mere hypocrites so long as we whine about all the slaughter while continuing to reap the lavish products of that slaughter.

To change society we must propose a completely new one. It isn't enough to simply deny the validity of the present one with no clear plan for what would replace it. Without a clear alternative people are compelled to keep what they have.

 

[loseyourname]

does a 'good' action necessarily require that the recipient of that action be 'deserving'? or is it possible that the action in itself is of benefit to the doer?

Sure, but there aren't many ethical theories that hold action categories, in and of themselves, to be good or bad. Most theories stipulate that actions be taken in context. The ending of a life is not always a good or bad thing. It depends on the nature and quality of that life, as well as the reasons that it is being ended. Granted, there are certain theories that hold all killing, regardless of the life ended or the reason for the killing, to be immoral (Jainism comes to mind), but they aren't widely held. If this is the paradigm shift you are hoping for, so be it, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

would you agree that statements like these:

There you go again, friendly Prad. ... You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy. (your post #1000)

There's a rule of thumb at play here. I don't remember its name, but whenever a person appeals to an analogy with Hitler, he generally doesn't have much of a case. ... Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. (your post #1012)

If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it. (your post #1012)

are "not conducive to furthering a discussion"?

No, silly. These were answers to questions of yours. I was explaining why I felt the appeal to analogy with anything having to do with Hitler is not generally a good idea. I didn't just say "this is garbage." There is a difference. Either way, I am perfectly willing to address your arguments, regardless of what I may personally think of them.

for instance, i have explained twice already that the point I'm making has really nothing to do with your specific concern about hitler (i even encouraged you to substitute your favorite character in place of him), yet you insist that i am trying to run an emotional campaign. i also have been trying to discuss this without the acceptance of animal rights (and have even explained certain AR philosophies do not promote inherent rights for animals), yet you keep insisting that i am granting animals their rights. then you go on to say that we have reached an impasse here because of this.

To be honest, I didn't consider the possibility that you just consider the ending of any life to be a bad thing. That being the case, why the heck are you going to such great lengths to demonstrate secondary effects of meat consumption such as ecosystem degradation and animal suffering?

To specifically address your genocide analogy, I didn't like it because it is obvious that the actions of those who would defend genocide are morally bad because they are defending the killing of persons that had the right to not be killed. I do not consider it a bad thing to kill a living organism that does not have that right. Because I do not consider farm animals to have that right, your analogy meant nothing to me. Defending the killing of these animals is not the same as defending the killing of persons. The physical actions and arguments used are often the same, but the moral worth of the arguments is not. I don't consider an argument form to be immoral in and of itself and I would think that you do not either. It is the application of the argument that is immoral.

1) why do you tell me what i am doing, rather listen to what i am actually saying?

It's not that I'm telling you what you are doing. I am just trying to conceive of the possible systems under which your claims might be true, and then using other conclusions drawn from the implications of that system in an attempted reductio ad absurdum. Either that or demonstrate an inconsistency between the system under which one claim of yours may be true and other claims you have made. It's not an uncommon technique.

2) why are you in such a hurry to end discussion - you do this with your 'impasse' line to me and you did the same thing to sheepdog in post #1011 If you say there is no way to alleviate some of the problems we have here except by going vegetarian, then I cannot talk to you.

If you say that meat consumption is bad because of secondary effects it has, and then ignore the fact that there may be other methods of alleviating these secondary effects, then I cannot talk to you any further along those lines. I'm just frustrated that neither of you are getting at the actual reason that you think meat consumption is wrong. If it was the ecological consequences, then you would only advocate the amelioration of these consequences - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it was about animal suffering, then you would only advocate the amelioration of animal suffereing - by any means, not just by the ending of meat consumption. If it is as you say, and you just think the ending of any life is a bad thing, period . . . then just argue that. Why confuse the matter?

(i'm not complaining or even requesting, btw - nor do i find anything you have said insulting. i do think that there is ground to be explored in this thread, but it will require a bit more than simply discounting ideas because you don't like them.)[/QUOTES]

I only discount ideas that are inconsistent with one another. I have nothing against any of your ideas by themselves.

these all sound like improvements. in fact, i believe the second one was suggested by john robbins in his book diet for a new america - however, it seems that the meat industry is unwilling to adopt any of them because of the added expense.

It's expensive to break an animal's neck?

now my next question is why is it that you seem interested in killing animals painlessly?

I'm not interested in killing animals at all, unless they are a threat to me and I have no other choice. Heck, I even try my best not to kill insects and annelids, despite the fact that they don't have brains and cannot suffer either way (again, unless they are a threat of some sort, like termites that taking out the infrastructure of my house). I'm just saying that if the purpose of vegetarianism is to ameliorate animal suffering, it isn't necessary. All you have to do is kill in a humane manner and not inflict pain on the animal while it is still alive. Heck, you can even try being a scavenger and only eat meat that has died from a non-human cause.

specifically, if you had the choice of buying your meat from a store that has 'compassionately killed' meat or the regular brutal stuff, what would you choose? (also, i am assuming that since you are interested in making the killing compassionate, you would also insist that the living conditions be humane as well.)

It's difficult to answer that question. No meat farming facility is supposed to inflict needless pain on the animals being farmed. It is difficult to research the operating habits of every company that one buys from. By the same token, I would prefer that the car I am buying does not contain parts that were manufactured by a worker that was mistreated by his boss. But the amount of research necessary to make sure no product I buy was ever produced or refined or shipped by a company that has either advertently or inadvertently promoted the suffering of a sentient being would be so daunting and time-consuming that conducting this research would keep me from ever buying anything. In this case, I would starve. How do I know that the vegetable farmer I am buying from doesn't use some of his profits to buy underage prostitutes? Granted, it's a bit of a stretch, but you can see what I'm getting at.

 

[loseyourname]

No. Arguments are critiqued through comparison with the real, experiment. We only share reality. I cannot share with you what is confined to your head.

I'm a seasoned debater and a large part of my major consists of logic and critical thinking classes. I know how to critique an argument. One method is by critiquing the form. I can do this either through formal analysis, which I do not generally get into outside of the logic forum, or I can do this by demonstrating an obvious false conclusion drawn from true premises in the same argument form. I can also demonstrate an inconsistency in your views that I think I have uncovered. All are abstract methods and are the proper methods of critiqueing an argument. If you had presented empirical evidence, then you would be right to say that I can only critique by an appeal to other pieces of empirical evidence. You did not.

I contend there is no worth to moral worth. I contend there is no worth to animal life. The only worth there is is the worth in not killing. All the worth is in the choice.

I contend that such worth is only in your head. You cannot empirically demonstrate the worth of something. You can either make a good argument, or (as you seem to be doing here) simply say it is so. The latter is not particularly convincing. Arguments from personal conviction rarely are.

If your sensibilities tell you to eat meat I don't understand that. Mine tell me not to. No one is right here. No one is in the wrong.

If I am not wrong, then why the heck are you in here telling all of us carnivores not to eat meat? If you consider it a purely personal decision dictated by conscience, then follow your conscience and I will follow reason (I don't consider my conscience to be generally reliable). My reasoning may be wrong, but since you're not using reasoning anyway, and seem to think reasoning is invalid, why bother criticizing my decision?

I accept that as a fair criticism. I only regret that I was asked a question and could find no softer way of answering. What does one call nonesense? Gibberish? Ignorant confusion? You see? It was the least offensive term my limited vocabulary could find. If you could suggest a better way of phrasing my answer I would appreciate the lesson.

How about you just don't make arguments unless you are willing to analyze them? The method of analysis by abstraction is common to the philosophy forums (in fact, it is common to all of philosophy). Maybe this isn't the place for you. If you think you have empirical evidence of the worth of an act, present it. If you have personal conviction, then fine; present that. Don't present an argument if you won't see a critique of it. Arguments in and of themselves are abstractions.

The question, "Should we eat meat?" can be better phrased, "What should we take from the world?" Eating is a kind of economic transaction with Nature. She has an abundance to give, more than any of us could ever use. What is it best for us to take from this abundance? As much as we can? Anything we like? That would seem to be the popular answer. Personally I think there must be a better solution for the long run.

Well, if you do rephrase it as such, then my answer becomes much the same as yours. I personally consider The Future of Life to be somewhat of a bible to me. The Sceptical Environmentalist, however, is my apocryphal gospels. I hold as axiomatic that nature does not hold such an abundance that we can afford to take all that we can and, as such, we should not simply take all that we can. It doesn't follow from that fact that I hold the act of ending the life of an organism to always be a morally wrong act.

 

[sheepdog]

morality versus life

I hold as axiomatic that nature does not hold such an abundance that we can afford to take all that we can and, as such, we should not simply take all that we can. It doesn't follow from that fact that I hold the act of ending the life of an organism to always be a morally wrong act.

I agree with both statements completely. Now you see how easy that was? All I had to do was find the words that suited you sufficiently and suddenly we have found something we may share, you and I, between us. I think we should take some pride in this moment.

My only request is that we drop the word "moral" and its relatives from the conversation. Just tell me what you think is a wrong act, without unnecessary qualifications. If an act is wrong it doesn't really matter whether it is wrong "morally" or "temporarily" or "relatively" or "transformationally" or whatever. It is wrong. That's good enough. Let's keep it simple. I can understand simple.

So now I'd like to ask you when it is wrong to end the life of an organism? But I fear your answer will be "when it is morally wrong". Let me suggest that what I'm looking for is concrete examples of a life that is wrongly ended, not more morality abstractions. And I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat what you have written in prior posts. It's a very long thread. A brief summary would be great, thanks.

I would also ask if it is "axiomatic" (is that the same as personal conviction? No, probably not) that "nature does not hold such an abundance that we cannot afford to take all that we can", what about "taking whatever we want" even if is not "all that we can". Where do your axioms land on that approach?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So now I'd like to ask you when it is wrong to end the life of an organism? But I fear your answer will be "when it is morally wrong". Let me suggest that what I'm looking for is concrete examples of a life that is wrongly ended, not more morality abstractions. And I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat what you have written in prior posts. It's a very long thread. A brief summary would be great, thanks.

Fine. Let's start with a normal two year old child, one that can walk and speak and express emotions - and say "No!" Ending that life deliberately would be wrong for me under almost any circumstances.

 

[sheepdog]

children

Fine. Let's start with a normal two year old child, one that can walk and speak and express emotions - and say "No!" Ending that life deliberately would be wrong for me under almost any circumstances.

Excellent! Since we met at the "What should we take from Nature?" question, let's say it would be wrong for you or me to take a healthy child from Nature for any reason. OK? Now what is it about the physical characteristics, what are the facts of this situation, that put this particular situation in the category of "wrong"? Is it that the child is two that makes it wrong? If she were three would it no longer be wrong? Is it that she can walk, speak and express emotions? What facts are you using to make the judgement?

And thank you for being so responsive.

 

[loseyourname]

I agree with both statements completely. Now you see how easy that was? All I had to do was find the words that suited you sufficiently and suddenly we have found something we may share, you and I, between us. I think we should take some pride in this moment.

I'm very proud of us, Sheepy.

My only request is that we drop the word "moral" and its relatives from the conversation. Just tell me what you think is a wrong act, without unnecessary qualifications. If an act is wrong it doesn't really matter whether it is wrong "morally" or "temporarily" or "relatively" or "transformationally" or whatever. It is wrong. That's good enough. Let's keep it simple. I can understand simple.

All right, I cannot agree to this. The word "wrong" has to be qualified. Saying that 2+2=7 is not wrong in the same way that it is wrong to beat your spouse. Each is wrong within a certain system that says what is wrong and what is right. The former example is wrong within a formal system of numerical arithmetic. The latter is wrong within my ethical system. Neither is wrong within the other system {Edit: Actually, this one is wrong under two systems - my personal ethics, and US law}. I cannot conceive of what it would mean for something to be absolutely wrong; that is, wrong without reference to a certain system of right and wrong.

So now I'd like to ask you when it is wrong to end the life of an organism? But I fear your answer will be "when it is morally wrong".

Nope, but I will take your question as "When is it morally wrong to end the life of an organism?"

Let me suggest that what I'm looking for is concrete examples of a life that is wrongly ended, not more morality abstractions. And I'm sorry if I'm asking you to repeat what you have written in prior posts. It's a very long thread. A brief summary would be great, thanks.

First, I'll give some examples. Then I will give the abstraction - simply because I cannot give you an exhaustive list of wrong instances, but I can give you the set of circumstances under which the action is wrong.

Examples:

• The little girl buying ice cream that gets caught in gangwar crossfire.
• Death-row inmates.
• Laci Peterson.
• Dave in Mystic River.

Now the set of circumstances under which I will consider killing to be morally wrong:

• First off, the organism killed must have the right to not be killed. Whether or not I want to call this right "innate" isn't too important of a distinction to me. It seems difficult to say that any right is "innate." We have rights because we are given rights. I do think that we should give these rights; that is, it is the right thing to do. Still, I will shy from calling them "innate" or "self-evident" or anything like that.
• This right must not have been forfeited. Circumstance of forfeiture include: posing a direct threat to the life of an innocent person, being engaged in military conflict, etc.
• The killing must be intentional.

Everything now seems to hinge on what qualifies an organism to be given this right not to be killed. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain. Being a human that is not brain-dead obviously qualifies you. What would it take to qualify a non-human animal for this right? Consciousness, the ability to conceive of a self separate from its environment, the ability to recognize and fear death (not simply flee because of evolutionary programming), as well as other considerations. This is obviously anthropomorphic, it's the best I can do. I can't think of any better set of qualifications.

I would also ask if it is "axiomatic" (is that the same as personal conviction? No, probably not) that "nature does not hold such an abundance that we cannot afford to take all that we can", what about "taking whatever we want" even if is not "all that we can". Where do your axioms land on that approach?

It is a matter of personal conviction. Again, one cannot empirically demonstrate what something ought to be, only what it is. I think that nature ought to be preserved to a high degree of functional autonomy and biodiversity. There are good reasons to do this aside from my personal conviction, but they are all contingent upon being of benefit to humans, in which case we must hold on conviction alone that we ought to do that which is beneficial to our species.

"Taking whatever we want" is not the best way to go about it. The ecological consequences of the taking have to be considered. Nature exists in homeostasis that depends upon physical disequilibrium, chemical equilibrium, and biological interdependence. It is important to preserve these factors in order to preserve the integrity both of individual ecosystems and of the biosphere itself.

 

[learningphysics]

It is a matter of personal conviction. Again, one cannot empirically demonstrate what something ought to be, only what it is.

Is there ANY way to demonstrate what ought to be? If there isn't, then it appears that any discussion about morality is a waste of time.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Is there ANY way to demonstrate what ought to be? If there isn't, then it appears that any discussion about morality is a waste of time.

Moral philosophers try to present stories that appeal to our intuition to undergird their teachings. For example the "veil of ignorance" of Rawls. But Marxists, for example, regard all such stuff as just bourgeois posturing and "fetishism" (a term of art in marxism). And indeed it is not clear that such stories a culture-free.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there ANY way to demonstrate what ought to be? If there isn't, then it appears that any discussion about morality is a waste of time.

There are actually two questions here:

First, is morality absolute or relative? I believe it is absolue and I believe there are serious flaws in relativism, but in any case, you're right that if we can't come to an agreement on this point, further discussion is entirely useless: whatever I say is right for me is right for me - whatever you say is right for you is right for you - whatever SA says is right for him is right for him. End of discussion.

IMO, the basic flaw in this is where does it end? If morality is relative, how does anyone have any moral authority? Why can't a kid tell his dad its ok to smoke pot in his morality? Why can't a murderer tell his country that its ok to murder in his morality? Why can't a country tell the world its ok to wipe out an ethnic group in their morality? Just saying we have a contract (the Constitution and treaties) isn't enough: all of these things are based on larger moral principles.

Now, if we could agree that morality is absolute (even if only de facto - we signed a contract with the Constitution) and we must adhere to a specific code, the second question is: where does it come from/what does it say?

You can't really say its written in the Constitution because it isn't - a great many court cases require going beyond the explicit intent of the framers and exploring morality (polygamy). You could say its decreed by God, but that doesn't satisfy scientists and athiests. Still too arbitrary.

It is my view that morality, like physics, can be arrived at empierically. Science is largely predicated on the assumption that there are absolute laws that govern how the universe works and if we are smart enough we might find them (paraphrase, Hawking). But we can't really be sure God isn't just up there screwing with us. Now, it can be said that every successful experiment supports this assumption, and there is no evidence to the contrary - no reason to believe the God postulate - but it can't ever be proven absolutely. It is assumed like any other postulate.

So what about morality? Why can't we start with the same assumption (in my view, a reasonable assumption, but even if you don't buy it, try it anyway and see how it works) and attempt to find moral laws emperically?

How would we do this? Well, in many ways, game theory is the scientific study of morality: you set up various scenarios - various dilemas - and see what happens with different approaches to the problem. Obviously, this is more difficult on the big-scale, but the US has been called an expierment: why can't it be viewed that way?

One quick, apt example: murder. Two possibilities: either it's moral or it isn't. If its moral, it should be ok if everyone does it. My hypothesis is that murder is immoral and my prediction is that a societey predicated on murder will break down and fail. So we set up a society (even in a simulator - how about "The Sims: Morality"?) that encourages murder and see how it works. If the society fails as predicted, we have a piece of evidence to support the moral theory that murder is immoral.

Now, quite obviously, the problem with this is complexity. Human behavior is complex and moral dilemas quickly become extremely complex. But that isn't to say it can't be modeled mathematically, simulated, and predicted. With computers and chaos theory (not an expert in chaos theory), scientists have, in the last few decades, been able to model systems that previously were thought to be utterly random. Why not morality?

So, bringing us back to this thread, my argument would be that whether or not eating meat is immoral is something that can be observed, modeled, hypothesized, and theorized. That is how new moral dilemas should be approached.

 

[learningphysics]

One quick, apt example: murder. Two possibilities: either it's moral or it isn't. If its moral, it should be ok if everyone does it. My hypothesis is that murder is immoral and my prediction is that a societey predicated on murder will break down and fail. So we set up a society (even in a simulator - how about "The Sims: Morality"?) that encourages murder and see how it works. If the society fails as predicted, we have a piece of evidence to support the moral theory that murder is immoral.

How is the breaking down of society evidence that murder is immoral? Remember we have no morals yet, and are trying to determine the rules empirically... so you can't assume that breaking down of society is immoral...

 

[plusaf]

stomach acid and alkali?

Excellent post Sir.
(snipped)

In essence it says eat fruit on an empty stomach so as it can be quickly digested, and don't dump fruit on top of other foods as the stomach will have to secrete both acid and alkaline to digest differing chemical natures, thus neutralizing the stomach juices and forcing increasing amounts of secreted digestive juices which cost the body energy from it's limited daily energy budget and also prolonging the time taken to digest the stomach contents allowing for putrefaction of the protein and fermentation of any carbohydrates.

ah, help me with this, please? did human physiology change since i was a kid?
i learned that saliva was alkaline, breaking down some chemicals in some foods before they went on to the stomach, and the stomach's main chemical reaction was acidic, breaking down (i.e, digesting) the chemicals in foods that were best broken down by acids.

so, today, the stomach secretes both acid and base? makes a lot of those tv commercials look pretty silly, doesn't it?

i don't think so...
+af

 

[JonahHex]

What IS this thread about?

This thread is nothing more than a variation of the abortion debate. The veggies, like fundamentalist christians, know that they are soooo correct that they are justified in wanting to impose their view on everyone else, by law if necessary. The carnivorous, like the 'pro choice', are sufficiently concerned about appearing to be sensitive and politically correct that they are willing to argue with morons whose minds couldn't be changed by brain replacement.

Nature doesn't value life. People don't value life and the veggies don't value life. It is impossible to survive without killing. Generally speaking, carnivores are not prey for other carnivores. The 'natural order' of things is for carnivores to eat herbivores...vegitarians qualify as herbivores...no wonder they are so concerned.

After 75 pages now, perhaps this thread should address the morality of masturbating in public.

 

[plusaf]

rotgut!

(snip) If you want to eat dead, rotting flesh and have it sit around in your gut for days, weeks, even years . . . be my guest! One thing I can agree with Dan about is to work for more compassionate treatment of slaughter animals.

baloney!

will the vegans and vegetarians who keep claiming that stuff collects in the human digestive system PLEASE GET OFF IT!

it doesn't.

it takes a few days, maybe 3-4, for most food to get through the human digestive system, but it doesn't set up camp there for months!
+af

 

[Dissident Dan]

baloney!

will the vegans and vegetarians who keep claiming that stuff collects in the human digestive system PLEASE GET OFF IT!

it doesn't.

it takes a few days, maybe 3-4, for most food to get through the human digestive system, but it doesn't set up camp there for months!
+af

I'm not going to agree with Les that it will sit around for weeks or months, but a few days at internal body temperature is enough to make animal matter rot.

 

[learningphysics]

This thread is nothing more than a variation of the abortion debate. The veggies, like fundamentalist christians, know that they are soooo correct that they are justified in wanting to impose their view on everyone else, by law if necessary. The carnivorous, like the 'pro choice', are sufficiently concerned about appearing to be sensitive and politically correct that they are willing to argue with morons whose minds couldn't be changed by brain replacement.

Nature doesn't value life. People don't value life and the veggies don't value life. It is impossible to survive without killing. Generally speaking, carnivores are not prey for other carnivores. The 'natural order' of things is for carnivores to eat herbivores...vegitarians qualify as herbivores...no wonder they are so concerned.

After 75 pages now, perhaps this thread should address the morality of masturbating in public.

If the pro-meat eaters are pro-cannibalism, then there is no inconsistency in their position. If they are against cannibalism, then there's an inconsistency in their position that needs to be addressed.