[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Ricksp Which I guess is why we are not strictly carnivores any more than we need to be strictly vegetarian.

Who said anything about "need"? Haven`t you understood that "vegetarianism" is a "choice"?

but I have zero desire to eat a vegetarain diet and I do not share your anquish regarding the death of cows, lambs, chickens or fish.

Yes, I know. The majority of mankind has always been reluctant to expand their circle of compassion. It takes time. In the future, though, flesheaters will in all probability be looked upon as slave traders of the past are now.

Why the obvious lack of any sense of humor?

Humor is fine, however, I would not call a flesh eater a Jeffry Dalmer, or animalize a human by calling a black person a gorilla, therefore, I would expect a person I am debating with to not animalize me or the argument in a mocking manner. It is of note that most societies when persecuting the minority often dehumanize them by referring to them as animals. Nazis called the Jews swine, dogs, and caucasions have referred to asians as monkeys, to name just a couple examples.

I find no compelling nutritional nor moral argument for vegetarianism.

Quote by: strongheartswin
Have you read the position paper by the worlds largest association of professional nutritionists on the topic and the benefits that a vegetarian diet has?

Yes and why should as I care? Again, I have no interest in a strictly vegetarian diet.

You were the one who said you had found no "compelling nutritional" argument for vegetarianism. The position paper clearly outlines the "compelling benefits" of a vegetarian diet. You are free to ignore it -- but it stands and the benefits are clearly outlined.

I obviously have a far greater regard and respect for our species and our "nature" than you do.

"Obviously"? Well, if you declare it so, perhaps we all know it to be true, huh? <snicker snicker>

Our species' nature is rather scary. Haven`t you paid attention to your history classes and the news? Though, to extend compassion to animals is in no way diminishes respect for universal life.

"To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being,"

-- Mahatma Ghandi

Are you regarded in higher esteem than Ghandi? Somehow, I view his respect for all life more than your narrowly defined respect for it.

An interesting if somewhat unfocused rant.

Ricksp, do you know what a debate is? This site even explains that heated discussion is due to the controversial aspects of the issues. I, too, could label all your personal views and how you put them forth as a rant. Address the issues and let the onlookers decide whose points on the issues are better. Usually those who focus on the mechanics are bankrupt in how to respond to points. Focus, please.

Your religious regard for other species while showing contempt for your own is strange.

Passionate and dedicated -- yes. I am not religious in the least. Perhaps you were just using "religious regard" to mean "zeal." But, where have I shown "contempt" for humans?

We are reasoning animals, yet I see nothing particularly rational in your argument.

Yes, we are -- and I am not worried about you. Like I said, you are just a sounding board. I am more concerned with the onlookers. The trend towards "vegetarianism", however, is on the rise. Sure, it is a slow trend. But it is one whose numbers are steadily increasing. We are under no illusion that this world will be vegetarian within a short time. Slavery itself took 1000s of years to be seen as moraly repugnant and finally rejected. Why should we expect that flesh consumption would be much sooner (though with the spread of information technology, in all likelyhood it will be faster)? In the end, though, you will be standingg on the side of history that has been consigned to the wastebin <snicker snicker>

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." --Albert Einstein

I am guessing his thought on the issue will be proven right -- like so many of his insights. Btw, what have you had insight into that has been a monumental revelation to mankind? Anything comparable to his?

I clearly do not consider eating animals for food to constitute unnecessary cruelty.

The action of eating them does not! If an animal died from old age and someone ate it, there is no cruelty in that. A person that lives in the arctic circle needing to consume something -- anything at all -- just to survive is not cruel in taking the life of an animal that has lead a free life as part of the ecosystem. A sow in a factory farm however is a different story. So is a cow having its legs chainsawed off alive because the knocker machine didn`t have enough voltage is a different story. A chicken being crammed into a battery hen cage with only the size of an A4 sheet of paper to live out its entire life whilee other hens canibolize it is a different story. That is the reality of the cruelty which many animals face -- of which in the U.S. 80% of meat supplied is from factory farms and that number is growing.

As I asked before, is a wolf cruel in eating other animals?

No. A wolf is captive to its natural passions. The distinguishing difference between humans and the animal world is that we can make moral decisions, control our urges, and have the ability to extend compassion through reason.

Is a cow morally superior to the wolf?

Not at all. A cow, too, is captive to its nature.

Why shouldn't omnivores be omnivores?

It is quite fine for a bear to be an omnivore. It eats within the ecological structures of its ecosystem. It does not pervert an animals life by frustrating its natural urges for years from birth to death. It lives within its natural constructs. Humans have stepped outside the natural constructs that were meant to control us, so what is "natural" no longer constrains us. We do the opposite to animals as for example of what a bear does when it obtains its meat.

Superimposing a wholly artificial ethical structure over the natural order makes no particular sense.

Haven`t you noticed? We have stepped outside the "natural order"?

LOL. Were you not so humourless and pompously pious you might have a clue why flesh eaters leave the debate. It is boring.

No need to flame, Ricksp. Ad hominem arguments are the worse of all and just a sign of frustration. Just address the isssues, please. If you are done with addressing the issues, just end the post.

Your self righteousness adds nothing to the discussion...

When you believe you are right, you do have to speak as if you believe so. I am sure your phrasology above has been thrown at anti-abolitionists when they spoke "self-righteously" against slavery. Your attitude is the expected one from those who are receiving some pleasure or benefit from the status quo. Your "rant" above (since you like mechanics) has been played out above by many in the past who felt threatened that their life-style was being challenged.

Your suggestion that this sort of bloviation will drive up the cost of meat, however, is actually quite funny.

lol. Ricksp, it is not just me who has stated it. The meat industry and other animal exploiters have also voiced their concern for this. It really is just simple economics. Haven`t you ever taken a unversity course in economics?

Your view is fundamentally religious, based of emotional rather than rational considerations.

lol. You seem to be repetitious here, Ricksp. If you are so against repetition, then I would sugest don`t be a hypocrite. But to indulge your penchant for repetition, I am not "religious" at all. Soon I will enter the religion forums and you can see for yourself.

My arguments are quite rational. You on the other hand are trying to add masera to man to make him look like some "natural" animal here living in harmony with the ecosystem so his meat eating habits are just fine. Like I said, we are outside of natures eco-system and do not contribute to it as we were meant to. There is nothing wrong with bringing emotions into a debate when suffering is a large part of the issue. Abolitionists were quite emotional in their arguments and reasoning as to why slavery should be ended.

If you won't eat meat, fine by me, but you will make very [few] converts to your position by boring people to death.

I am not concerned with primariliy entertaining people. I am sure there are many visitors to this site like myself who can whatch a serious debate without having to be made to laugh and who come to catch some serious points on issues. If you have a low attention span because I am not appeasing your standards in humor, then don`t read my posts. There are many topics here to entertain you, and if that fails, there is always the cartoon network.

You still haven`t explained: How moral considerations can be divorced from unecessary cruelty.

and

Why should just humans be the sole target of moral considerations? What do you base that on?

and

Human nature in its natural form is pretty scary. That is why we have laws to protect us from the anarchy that if it were left unrestrained would surely develope. Even as canibalism is still alive in some corners of the world, anthropologists will tell you it was more widespread in the past. So, if we seem to have naturally consumed our fellow man, then why should we not continue doing so? After all, according to your reason we shouldn`t try to repress our "nature."