Vegetarianism

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister P Would the sight of a Sequoia Tree being cut down moraly impact you in the same fashion that the sight of a Dandylion Flower being cut down would? Most people would say,no. An apparent moral variation given within the same demography for they are both plants and possess the same fundamental physiological traits.

Yes, many humans would be more impacted by the sight of the tree being cut down over the flower..however, this has little if anything to do with the perceived 'consciousness' or ability to suffer of either one of them. Factors such as years of growth, contribution to oxygen and environment, beauty, etc. are far more likely to come into play when such considerations are being made.

If I had to choose one to dispatch of to eat ,because thats what we are talking about here, then Rover is history I'm affraid. The lesser of two evils would be myself not starving vs. myself starving. I may make a salad out of the flower, depending on what variety of dressing were available.

But if 'starving vs. not starving' were taken out of the equation...'most' people would find it much harder to kill the dog due to the fact that they'd feel empathy for it. If you're honest, I'm sure even you'd admit that forced to kill one over the other for no particular purpose other than being forced to do this, you'd find it easier to kill the flower. Why? If you answer this honestly...you'll likely admit that a dog evokes a greater empathic response within you due to the fact that it exhibits behaviors of suffering and a will to live, that mirror those a human exhibits under the same circumstances...then again...perhaps I'm wrong and you'd just as soon kill as dog as a flower...if so, you are different than most normally empathic humans.

I find it very hard to belive that someone who is capable of feeling limited empathy for animals could feel large amounts of empathy towards plant life...however, anything's possible.

Much like reflexive responses within humans, empathy is also to some extent, at its basis 'hard-wired'.....this includes a greater ability to empathize with those organisms who display behaviors that mirror our own. Scientific studies on empathic development have proven this.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Healthydose See, like I've already said. You choose not to believe, that's fine. I'll not argue the point. I choose to believe. Let's leave it at that, since neither will convice the other. I assume that possibly part of your derision comes from seeing mostly "fakers", and the in your face types. Well, good day. It has been a nice discussion, compared to many others who can't control their verbal attacks.

I'm sorry if you found my post to be an 'attack', Hd, it wasn't meant to be more than an opening for you to defend your ideas, which one is expected to do here as a rule. I'm also sorry that you choose not to "argue the point", as that can be constructive.

The word derision is also emotive, suggesting lack of respect. I do respect your views, but I don't consider religion to be sacrosanct on a debate forum.

But thanks for answering...

[Healthydose]

No, no, no, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Yours was not an attack at all. :) I was just mentioning that others have been : /

Oh, I enjoy a good debate, but as you quite succiently pointed out I was getting periously close to appearing to be proselytizing--which I'm quite sure you'd be completly impervious too :) .

I just didn't see the reason in continuing when both participants are immobile on their salient points.

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an inmovable object...nothing.

[Elminister]

[QUOTE=inri;663567]

I didn't realize I'd mentioned any 'plan'. human mental/emotional evolution is happening, but it is happening very slowly....no danger of the above scenario occuring anytime soon. Like those of us who have difficulty feeling empathy for organisms who appear devoid of consciousness....many humans apparently have difficulty empathizing with organisms who although they have consciousness, are of a different species. No amount of shaming, or arguing is going to suddenly make these people develop empathic responses where they simply do not exist. Animals can be protected by law, but empathy itself certainly cannot be legislated.

To measure the full value of your argument can we not take its implications to the fullest extent thereof, if even hypothetically, and mull over what may be?

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri Yes, many humans would be more impacted by the sight of the tree being cut down over the flower..however, this has little if anything to do with the perceived 'consciousness' or ability to suffer of either one of them. Factors such as years of growth, contribution to oxygen and environment, beauty, etc. are far more likely to come into play when such considerations are being made.

The point I was trying to make was the differential alotment of care or compassion to ,whatever degree, for living things within the same group bassed on ones personsal percived notions of worth. The only one you brought up that would not be subjective to me would be in the production of oxygen but I think the overall ranking of,if polled, peoples reasons for the difference would show the oxygen bit comming in near the bottom of the list.

At any rate, we need not go around in circles with these opinons and moral veiws any more.

Quote by: inri But if 'starving vs. not starving' were taken out of the equation...'most' people would find it much harder to kill the dog due to the fact that they'd feel empathy for it. If you're honest, I'm sure even you'd admit that forced to kill one over the other for no particular purpose other than being forced to do this, you'd find it easier to kill the flower. Why? If you answer this honestly...you'll likely admit that a dog evokes a greater empathic response within you due to the fact that it exhibits behaviors of suffering and a will to live, that mirror those a human exhibits under the same circumstances...then again...perhaps I'm wrong and you'd just as soon kill as dog as a flower...if so, you are different than most normally empathic humans. I find it very hard to belive that someone who is capable of feeling limited empathy for animals could feel large amounts of empathy towards plant life...however, anything's possible.

If I were forced to kill one or the other it would be the flower, sure. I have not really said anything to the contrary, as far as I can tell. Aside from your own or anybody elses empathy towards the subjects we are fundamentaly talking about the same thing. Damaging/harming and causing the early termination of living things.

Because I would kill a flower over a dog when, in having to make the choice for no other apparent reason than to kill something doesn't mean that under all other circumstances, which this decision would most likely entail some of some sort, I would make the same choice.

Quote by: inri Much like reflexive responses within humans, empathy is also to some extent, at its basis 'hard-wired'.....this includes a greater ability to empathize with those organisms who display behaviors that mirror our own. Scientific studies on empathic development have proven this.

A good time to bring up reflexive responses and ingrain "hard-wired" behaviours.


I have and I'm sure I'm not alone, a feral, primal hunger that has been seeded and nurtured through thousands and thousands of years of evolution. The aroma,the texture and the taste fufill a hardwired urge within me to eat meat, as the human race has always done. Our bodies show conclusive proof of being designed to eat meat as well as plant material.

With the soucres of meat on this planet being what they are I'm choosing the lesser of two evils in endorsing actions that use animals to produce this meat that I need in a primordial fashion. Per obtaining this meat that I need I think it a much easier moral pill to swallow in the killing of animals versus humans for meat.

Animals, as far as we know do not have as higly a developed sense of self and self worth as humans. Therefor the feelings of pain and loss of the human are potentially far greater and can even be conveyed in a mannor in which another human can understand explicitly without need for interpretation. The feeling of empathy would be brewed not out of simularity of reaction, as perceived, but out of a direct one to one mutual communication event wherein it would be most apparent that only circumstance separates the two.

You see, to fufill this need that has been with us as long as we have been the only real moral option is to utilize animals and not humans in this fashion. Most people would agree with that and that agreeance is most apparent as it echoes throughout the actions and legalities of society as a whole.

[inri]

[QUOTE=Elminister;664249]

Quote by: inri To measure the full value of your argument can we not take its implications to the fullest extent thereof, if even hypothetically, and mull over what may be?

What is it you believe my argument to be? To date...for the most part,you and I have been debating the ability of plants to experience suffering and how this compares to this ability in animals and humans.

[Elminister]

[QUOTE=inri;663258]

Imo..there's no doubt that this is far better than a life and death of great suffering ...however, it could be argued that a great wrong occurs when the life of any sentient being is taken for frivolous reason. Again....this scenario sits far better with me personally than the alternative...the least amount of suffering the better...always....however, the idea that humans can choose to take the life of another sentient being for a mere preference, simply because we possess the power to do so, is one that most ethical vegans simply cannot abide by.

Here, as I see it, is the basis for your interaction in this thread.

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister The point I was trying to make was the differential alotment of care or compassion to ,whatever degree, for living things within the same group bassed on ones personsal percived notions of worth. The only one you brought up that would not be subjective to me would be in the production of oxygen but I think the overall ranking of,if polled, peoples reasons for the difference would show the oxygen bit comming in near the bottom of the list. At any rate, we need not go around in circles with these opinons and moral veiws any more

.

what do you belive to be the biggest reason 'most' people would feel higher amouts of empathy towards the death of a tree vs. the death of a flower?

Because I would kill a flower over a dog when, in having to make the choice for no other apparent reason than to kill something doesn't mean that under all other circumstances, which this decision would most likely entail some of some sort, I would make the same choice.

But when we take it down to this basic choice, it becomes evident that you DO value the life of the dog over the flower.. it would be more distasteful to wantonly take the life of a dog over the life of the flower. Why? I belive it is because the dog demonstrates a closer representation of behavior to what YOU would yourself exhibit under the same distressful circumstances. ie; it is easier to empathize with the dog...?

A good time to bring up reflexive responses and ingrain "hard-wired" behaviours. I have and I'm sure I'm not alone, a feral, primal hunger that has been seeded and nurtured through thousands and thousands of years of evolution. The aroma,the texture and the taste fufill a hardwired urge within me to eat meat, as the human race has always done. Our bodies show conclusive proof of being designed to eat meat as well as plant material.

Indeed, this may be a primal reflexive response in some, that is common to many other 'animals'...however, humans...at least those who are normal and mentally/emotionally developed, possess the (somewhat) reflexive response of empathy when faced with the suffering of another sentient being.
Clearly, in normal humans, any hardwired, primal reflex to kill animals and eat their meat, exists side by side with another major, primal reflex to feel empathy at the thought of causing another sentient being to suffer and lose it's life. Which one wins out, is likely indicative of the level of mental/emotional develpment of the individual in question.

Empathic ability is what sets us apart from most other animals.

With the soucres of meat on this planet being what they are I'm choosing the lesser of two evils in endorsing actions that use animals to produce this meat that I need in a primordial fashion. Per obtaining this meat that I need I think it a much easier moral pill to swallow in the killing of animals versus humans for meat.

Wow...so If animals were not available to fulfill your primal, 'reflexive' need for meat....fellow humans would be targeted for your plate?

Animals, as far as we know do not have as higly a developed sense of self and self worth as humans. Therefor the feelings of pain and loss of the human are potentially far greater and can even be conveyed in a mannor in which another human can understand explicitly without need for interpretation. The feeling of empathy would be brewed not out of simularity of reaction, as perceived, but out of a direct one to one mutual communication event wherein it would be most apparent that only circumstance separates the two.

I have no argument for what you've stated above. Being that we ARE human...we will likely have an easier time relating empathic feelings to other humans. But...does this mean that we disregard all other species, simply because they are not human, despite the fact that most of us are capable of also empathizing with their plight?..despite the fact that they clearly suffer in a manner similar to us?

You see, to fufill this need that has been with us as long as we have been the only real moral option is to utilize animals and not humans in this fashion. Most people would agree with that and that agreeance is most apparent as it echoes throughout the actions and legalities of society as a whole.

so....in your mind only two options exist. Eat animals for food or eat humans?? Believe it or not, humans do exist who are not slaves to a primal urge to kill and consume flesh. Some humans actually are capable of placing their feelings of empathy over their animalistic nature...in fact many vegans would tell you that in choosing a vegetable based diet over an animal product based diet, there is very little or nothing within themselves to overcome. This animal-like reflexive urge for animal flesh is not something that exists in ALL humans.
for those in which it does.....Vegetarianism is obviously very unlikely. However, there are some who although they enjoy meat and animal product, are capable of overriding these urges due to a highly developed empathic response coupled with a high level of integrity.

Those who choose a vegan diet for ethical reasons generally have highly developed empathic responses, and high levels of ability for integral action. Empathic response, much like IQ, varies from individual to individual...and is to some extent genetically based. Imo..humans are slowly evolving mentally and emotionally and high emotional IQ...for which empathic response plays a major role, is indicative of those humans who have reached higher levels of evolvement than most of us.

Those humans who are still basically 'animals' in terms of allowing their reflexive urges to guide them towards day to day behaviors....obviously are examples of those humans who are less evolved in this area.

[inri]

[QUOTE=Elminister;664296]

Quote by: inri Here, as I see it, is the basis for your interaction in this thread.

If I had to sum up my general argument or stance on this issue is would be this;
Those who choose to eschew meat and animal products based upon ethics are highly developed emotionallly and mentally. These individuals have empathic abilities that are more developed than most of us, as well as an extremely high level of integrity to follow this empathic response with congruent action...Many vegans are able to choose this action based upon ethics despite the fact that they 'may' actually enjoy the tastes of these products.

Not everyone is of this level of development, therefore, expecting veganism from all humans is currently unrealistic....however, this should not stop those who feel passionately about this issue to continue educating others about it. Obviously, from where we now sit, the issue cannot be foreced. imo, gentle education is the best means for changing minds and triggering empathic responses that perhaps have been latent.

Those who are incapable of empathizing with an animal to the extent that they feel compassion when witnessing animal suffering, are imo, less developed emotionally/mentally than those who can...they have less capacity for empathic ability. Those, like myself and many others I know, who 'feel' these things, yet lack the will to follow through with action, are lacking in integrity and willpower.

These are not traits that we can will into others by force. They either exist or they do not. When these traits are low to non-existent, all the educating in the world will likely do little to affect change of attitude.

For many, despite the fact that they feel empathy towards animal suffering, it is simply too easy to go along with crowd. It is currently an accepted practice amongst most societies to consume animal product...this makes it easy for most to dismiss empathic nigglings that may tell them it's cruel to contribute to this industry...everyone else is doing it...we've always done it this way, kind of mentality.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: inri If I had to sum up my general argument or stance on this issue is would be this; Those who choose to eschew meat and animal products based upon ethics are highly developed emotionallly and mentally. These individuals have empathic abilities that are more developed than most of us, as well as an extremely high level of integrity to follow this empathic response with congruent action...Many vegans are able to choose this action based upon ethics despite the fact that they 'may' actually enjoy the tastes of these products. . . etc.

Very, very well said, inri.

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri . what do you belive to be the biggest reason 'most' people would feel higher amouts of empathy towards the death of a tree vs. the death of a flower?

The specific answer would probably be as varied as the individuals questioned.

Quote by: inri But when we take it down to this basic choice, it becomes evident that you DO value the life of the dog over the flower.. it would be more distasteful to wantonly take the life of a dog over the life of the flower. Why? I belive it is because the dog demonstrates a closer representation of behavior to what YOU would yourself exhibit under the same distressful circumstances. ie; it is easier to empathize with the dog...?

In turn, when you add the purpose for the choice the answer will vary. I don't view the utilizing of beef cattle to be "wanton" therefore your question is too far removed from the scenario I'm arguing for and does not apply.

Quote by: inri .Indeed, this may be a primal reflexive response in some, that is common to many other 'animals'...however, humans...at least those who are normal and mentally/emotionally developed, possess the (somewhat) reflexive response of empathy when faced with the suffering of another sentient being.

You mean like Hitler? Using broad, characteristical blanket terms when relating the overall contents of a persons mental and moral state when talking about being a vegetarian is kind of silly. As I just pointed out.

Quote by: inri .Clearly, in normal humans, any hardwired, primal reflex to kill animals and eat their meat, exists side by side with another major, primal reflex to feel empathy at the thought of causing another sentient being to suffer and lose it's life. Which one wins out, is likely indicative of the level of mental/emotional develpment of the individual in question. Empathic ability is what sets us apart from most other animals.

So you argue that the hard-wired reflexive behaviour of empathy supercedes that of the hard-wired reflexive urge to want to consume meat. Considering that, as long as man has existed he has been hunting and eating animals? Can you prove that a strictly vegetarian diet was adhered to in the earliest days of man out of some need for or of empathetic consideration for animals? If you could, you could say these two "hard-wired" traits are on equal terms as far as longevity and intensity goes. Good luck.

In fact it has been in the advances of nutritional study and comprehension through science that being strictly a vegan, as you have adequately supported with your sharing of information about the B-12 vitamin and the use of Brewers Yeast, has become as viable as it is today. It is not tied explicitly to the biological or moral evolution within any single individual.

Do not kid yourself. Or try to kid me.

Quote by: inri .Wow...so If animals were not available to fulfill your primal, 'reflexive' need for meat....fellow humans would be targeted for your plate?

Hardly... But if animals were not available through circumstaces the urge would still be there and would intensify over time and yes when there is no food available at all people will and have eaten other people to survive.

If there should only be plant material to eat then,for me, the urge would be supressed to the best of my ability as I vew the killing of people for consumption purposes when there are other alternatives available to be moraly wrong and I would eat the plants.

If animals were not available due to plainly not existing within the ecology then either the long-stemmed hard-wired reflexive urge to eat meat would be brought about by the eating of other humans. When, then,your sceptical question would only be considered silly and redundant. Or, there would be no hard-wired modus for wanting to consume meat due to animals not being available to eat and the utilizing of humans for meat had not come to pass. Subsequently, my deep-rooted need or desire would not be there and along with the value and implication of moral empathy that you are using in your argument.

Go ahead and pick one.

Quote by: inri .I have no argument for what you've stated above. Being that we ARE human...we will likely have an easier time relating empathic feelings to other humans. But...does this mean that we disregard all other species, simply because they are not human, despite the fact that most of us are capable of also empathizing with their plight?..despite the fact that they clearly suffer in a manner similar to us?

Yes. I view it to be wrong/wasteful/detrimental to society to kill people to fufill an ancient, deep rooted desire to consmue meat when there are other alternatives available.

Quote by: inri .so....in your mind only two options exist. Eat animals for food or eat humans??

In order to consume meat, yes. Is there a third way to aquire meat that you know of?

Quote by: inri .Believe it or not, humans do exist who are not slaves to a primal urge to kill and consume flesh. Some humans actually are capable of placing their feelings of empathy over their animalistic nature...in fact many vegans would tell you that in choosing a vegetable based diet over an animal product based diet, there is very little or nothing within themselves to overcome. This animal-like reflexive urge for animal flesh is not something that exists in ALL humans. for those in which it does.....Vegetarianism is obviously very unlikely. However, there are some who although they enjoy meat and animal product, are capable of overriding these urges due to a highly developed empathic response coupled with a high level of integrity.

We are animals, like it or not. These "enlightened" individuals represent the exception and not the rule, you do realize, right? This moral and empathetical and subjective compass possesed be these individuals, of the highest integrity, should be placed apon the majority in order to support your argument for why people shouldn't consume meat. So you consider it, with a notion of superior integrity, immoral/without any empathy or morals that the majority of your fellow humans abide by an intergral notion or desire -that is as old as our species is- to consume meat? Equating them to being somehow emotionally/empithetically/morally inferior?

WOW. Placing the apparent hypocrisy of your 'encompasing empathy for other sentient living things' argument aside. Just how far ahead of your fellow humans in the evolutionary race do you see vegetarians being?

Quote by: inri .Those who choose a vegan diet for ethical reasons generally have highly developed empathic responses, and high levels of ability for integral action. Empathic response, much like IQ, varies from individual to individual...and is to some extent genetically based. Imo..humans are slowly evolving mentally and emotionally and high emotional IQ...for which empathic response plays a major role, is indicative of those humans who have reached higher levels of evolvement than most of us. Those humans who are still basically 'animals' in terms of allowing their reflexive urges to guide them towards day to day behaviors....obviously are examples of those humans who are less evolved in this area.

Yes, highly evolved. In situations where the eradicating of animals due to over-population or a higly negative impact on people cannot be avoided these 'enlightend ones' would just kill animals and let them rot offering up no gains at all in the forefit on the animals life. Empathy in its truest form, I would imagine.

My moraly underdevoloped, ethically crippled sense of perception tells me that a pound of meat will fuel my body longer with more intesity than a pound of celery will. Or was that just a pragmatic,common sense view of how the human body works.

[inri]

Quote by: Elminister The specific answer would probably be as varied as the individuals questioned.

I don't think it would be as varied as you apparently believe. I'm quite sure that 'most' people would not feel worse for the tree being cut down due to feeing empathic compassion for it's fear, pain and suffering. Most humans do not attribute sentience to plants.

In turn, when you add the purpose for the choice the answer will vary. I don't view the utilizing of beef cattle to be "wanton" therefore your question is too far removed from the scenario I'm arguing for and does not apply.

Taking life for a mere food preference could said to be 'wanton' when compared to killing in self defence or because one would starve without doing so.

You mean like Hitler? Using broad, characteristical blanket terms when relating the overall contents of a persons mental and moral state when talking about being a vegetarian is kind of silly. As I just pointed out

.

I'm talking about 'normal' humans here.

I most certainly don't consider Hitler to be classified as a 'normal' human. Scientific study in the area of human psychology and behavior has determined that 'normal' humans develop empathic ability relatively early in life. Those who do not achieve this developmental milestone and marker of 'normal' development are considered abnormal....."psychopathic" is a term that applies to someone completely devoid of empathic ability.

So you argue that the hard-wired reflexive behaviour of empathy supercedes that of the hard-wired reflexive urge to want to consume meat.

I did not say it 'supercedes' the urge to consume meat. Merely that in 'most' humans, it exists alongside it.

Whether or not the empathic response supercedes this reflexive urge to eat meat, clearly depends upon the person.

Considering that, as long as man has existed he has been hunting and eating animals? Can you prove that a strictly vegetarian diet was adhered to in the earliest days of man out of some need for or of empathetic consideration for animals?

Evidence exists that historically 'some' humans followed strict vegan diets...surely 'some' of those humans did so based on ethics. Once again...my argument is not to say that 'all' humans are predisposed to this, or capable of this.

In fact it has been in the advances of nutritional study and comprehension through science that being strictly a vegan, as you have adequately supported with your sharing of information about the B-12 vitamin and the use of Brewers Yeast, has become as viable as it is today.

I was not the one who shared this information...but yes, current technology, modern practice in food development DOES make it easier to follow a vegan diet.

Hardly... But if animals were not available through circumstaces the urge would still be there and would intensify over time and yes when there is no food available at all people will and have eaten other people to survive.

Sure, those animalistic types, who follow their physical urges with little mental/emotional contemplation...those with very low empathic ability, likely would resort to this.

If animals were not available due to plainly not existing within the ecology then either the long-stemmed hard-wired reflexive urge to eat meat would be brought about by the eating of other humans. When, then,your sceptical question would only be considered silly and redundant. Or, there would be no hard-wired modus for wanting to consume meat due to animals not being available to eat and the utilizing of humans for meat had not come to pass. Subsequently, my deep-rooted need or desire would not be there and along with the value and implication of moral empathy that you are using in your argument.

...sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

In order to consume meat, yes. Is there a third way to aquire meat that you know of?

There is certainly a third way to receive sustenance and that is veganism.

We are animals, like it or not. These "enlightened" individuals represent the exception and not the rule, you do realize, right? This moral and empathetical and subjective compass possesed be these individuals, of the highest integrity, should be placed apon the majority in order to support your argument for why people shouldn't consume meat.

Once again...my argument here is not that All people should or should not eat meat. And btw....veganism is a rapidly growing diet choice....as I've said before, imo, humans are evolving to higher capabilities for empathy and empathic based action.

So you consider it, with a notion of superior integrity, immoral/without any empathy or morals that the majority of your fellow humans abide by an intergral notion or desire -that is as old as our species is- to consume meat? Equating them to being somehow emotionally/empithetically/morally inferior?

Yes. I consider any human who, like a sheep follows traditions that harm fellow living creatures without thinking, or who does so out of a lack of empathic ability/integrity, to be emotionally/mentally and morally inferior.

WOW. Placing the apparent hypocrisy of your 'encompasing empathy for other sentient living things' argument aside. Just how far ahead of your fellow humans in the evolutionary race do you see vegetarians being?

Obviously, when determining levels of emotional development and empathic ability/integrity, other factors would have to be figured in such as; is this empathic ability/integral action applied across the board to humans and animals alike?...but in general, I'd say that those who choose to follow a vegan diet for ethical reasons are generally more emotionally evolved than those who do not. Most vegans I know apply their ethics to all sentient living beings. ie; their moral code applies to humans and animals alike.

Yes, highly evolved. In situations where the eradicating of animals due to over-population or a higly negative impact on people cannot be avoided these 'enlightend ones' would just kill animals and let them rot offering up no gains at all in the forefit on the animals life. Empathy in its truest form, I would imagine.

Here you've offered a hypothetical situation as proof that ALL vegans are actually cold hearted...? Can you give a real life example of where this has happened?

My moraly underdevoloped, ethically crippled sense of perception tells me that a pound of meat will fuel my body longer with more intesity than a pound of celery will. Or was that just a pragmatic,common sense view of how the human body works.

Those who have very high empathic ability coupled with strong will power, appear to be capable of putting physically based cravings on the back-burner in favor of honoring feelings of empathy and fulfilling their drive towards integral behavior.

Many vegans have proven that a vegan diet can fuel a body just fine.

[Elminister]

Quote by: inri Taking life for a mere food preference could said to be 'wanton' when compared to killing in self defence or because one would starve without doing so.

I'm saying the preferance is anything but "mere". I am explaining the reasoning behind the motivation therefore 'wanton', by definition, does not apply.



.

Quote by: inri I'm talking about 'normal' humans here. I most certainly don't consider Hitler to be classified as a 'normal' human. Scientific study in the area of human psychology and behavior has determined that 'normal' humans develop empathic ability relatively early in life. Those who do not achieve this developmental milestone and marker of 'normal' development are considered abnormal....."psychopathic" is a term that applies to someone completely devoid of empathic ability.

So then we agree that your stated, all encompassing, values of moral character regarding this topic is silly, I see.

Just for the fun of it; Would you be so kind as to define a 'normal' human if you would

Quote by: inri I did not say it 'supercedes' the urge to consume meat. Merely that in 'most' humans, it exists alongside it. Whether or not the empathic response supercedes this reflexive urge to eat meat, clearly depends upon the person.

So your argument cannot be applied as a whole because it is, in fact, subjective. So what makes you think your stance is any more correct then mine?

Quote by: inri Evidence exists that historically 'some' humans followed strict vegan diets...surely 'some' of those humans did so based on ethics. Once again...my argument is not to say that 'all' humans are predisposed to this, or capable of this.

Show me this evidence that man made such life choices as far back, that it is evident,that man has been killing and eating animals.

Quote by: inri I was not the one who shared this information...but yes, current technology, modern practice in food development DOES make it easier to follow a vegan diet.

This provides moreso that it has been advances of and in information then that of moral and ethical evolution of individuals that has bolstered the growth of vegetarianism. Contrary to what your saying.

Quote by: inri Sure, those animalistic types, who follow their physical urges with little mental/emotional contemplation...those with very low empathic ability, likely would resort to this.

The ones that weren't 'animalistic' in these situations died of starvation as a result. Now, apply the laws of Natural Selection and tally up what can be construed as a strength and a weakness within the scope of the purpose of life.

Quote by: inri ...sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

Ok, you get the first bit I see.

If people have the urge to eat meat like I'm supporting and we have covered the lack of animal meat due to circumstance, then we are left with a few other scenarios as it relates to your question.

Quote by: inri . Wow...so If animals were not available to fulfill your primal, 'reflexive' need for meat....fellow humans would be targeted for your plate?

Moving on. The second scenario ,as I see it where animals were not available to consume at all but in us still having this deep reflexive desire to eat meat would be that animals never existed side by side with us. If we still had this deep rooted desire for meat then it would entail that humans eating other humans would be behind this desire. In this case your statement ,as quoted, would be moot and not applicable.

The third scenario ,as it see it, would be that this urge does not exist because animals do not exist or have not been utilized for meat and neither has humans. Thus my point would not exist.....along with yours.

Quote by: inri There is certainly a third way to receive sustenance and that is veganism.

A trait within the human species psyche is a deep rooted, relfexive urge or need to eat meat. Explain this third way to obtain meat if you would.

Quote by: inri Once again...my argument here is not that All people should or should not eat meat. And btw....veganism is a rapidly growing diet choice....as I've said before, imo, humans are evolving to higher capabilities for empathy and empathic based action.

Oh,ok. So you are just making indirected statements of opinion, in a debate forum, then. That makes sense. The 'soap-box' forum is two more doors down the hall on the same side though, I think.

Quote by: inri Yes. I consider any human who, like a sheep follows traditions that harm fellow living creatures without thinking, or who does so out of a lack of empathic ability/integrity, to be emotionally/mentally and morally inferior.

You see sheep following traditions wherein I see a natural order to things. What makes your opinion more valid than mine, herein?

Quote by: inri Here you've offered a hypothetical situation as proof that ALL vegans are actually cold hearted...? Can you give a real life example of where this has happened?

An example of applied logic used here, yes. An omnivorous human would have the moral/ethical option of utilizing the animals that had need to been exterminated wherein the vegan would not. Subsequently just letting the bodies of the animals just rot to serve no purpose at all. Applying the premis that a vegan would not utilize an animal or animal products in any fashion ,whatsoever.

Quote by: inri Many vegans have proven that a vegan diet can fuel a body just fine.

They have proven that a pound of celery can sustain them better than a pound of meat?

[SoylentGreen]

Meat-eating far worse than thought: study - World - NZ Herald News

In a paper published by a respected United States think tank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent. They claim United Nations figures have severely underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: methane, land use and respiration. "If this argument is right," write Goodland and Anhang, "it implies that replacing livestock products with better alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. "In fact, this approach would have far more rapid effects on greenhouse gas emissions and their atmospheric concentrations than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."

[Lostinlife]

You have GOT to be kidding me... 51%?! This is astonishing! I find the Worldwatch Institute to be a realiable source, but JEEZ they better have HARD numbers to back this up.

I've always said that you can't be an environmentalist and still eat animal products. Whew. It may not matter if we decide to drasticly change our habits in the near future, this decision is likely to made FOR us. I wonder what they mean by "alternatives" exactly though... a vegan soceity? Can ANY relatively large soceity become sustainable on animal products and still be able to AFFORD said products?

For me personally however its always been about the ethical reasons to abstain from animal products first and foremost. The environmental and health aspects of a vegan diet are merely a bonus to me of this paradigm shift to come.

Moving Beyond Environmental Veganism - Written by Bob Torres, Ph.D.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Elminister I They have proven that a pound of celery can sustain them better than a pound of meat?

It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just one pound of meat

16 pounds of grain would feed a lot of hungry people.

Feeding large amounts of grain to farmed animals in order to produce a small amount of meat is an inefficient waste of limited resources.

According to Cornell ecologist David Pimentel, animal protein demands tremendous expenditures of fossil-fuel energy—-about eight times as much for a comparable amount of plant protein.

Raising animals for food is grossly inefficient, because while animals eat large quantities of grain, they only produce small amounts of meat, dairy products, or eggs in return. This is why more than 70 percent of the grain and cereals that we grow in this country are fed to farmed animals.

It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just one pound of meat

GoVeg.com // Meat and the Environment // Wasted Resources // Food

[DEEJ85]

We can always feed cows grass instead.


Farmers only feed grain to cattle because it supposedly increases the quality of the meat.

while grain can be used more efficiently to feed people, I know of no group of humans that can live off grass.

I'm almost certain that grass would kill you anyway if you tried to live off it.

If you take 17 pounds of grass to make 1 pound of beef it wouldn't matter, seeing as you cannot consume that 17 pounds of grass.

Have you heard of the subsistence method known as pastoralism? It is a method of deriving food from animals within environments that have little in the way of edible vegetation for humans.

In these environments the humans cannot farm as no crops can survive there. What little vegetation is there is also inedible to humans.

this vegetation though is edible to the livestock. So the humans raise animals (which they can eat) off of bare vegetation that they cannot.


Also lostinlife you have yet to respond to my last post. Are you ignoring me for some reason? Anyone else can feel free to respond to it as well.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: DEEJ85 We can always feed cows grass instead. Farmers only feed grain to cattle because it supposedly increases the quality of the meat. while grain can be used more efficiently to feed people, I know of no group of humans that can live off grass. I'm almost certain that grass would kill you anyway if you tried to live off it. If you take 17 pounds of grass to make 1 pound of beef it wouldn't matter, seeing as you cannot consume that 17 pounds of grass. Have you heard of the subsistence method known as pastoralism? It is a method of deriving food from animals within environments that have little in the way of edible vegetation for humans. In these environments the humans cannot farm as no crops can survive there. What little vegetation is there is also inedible to humans. this vegetation though is edible to the livestock. So the humans raise animals (which they can eat) off of bare vegetation that they cannot. Also lostinlife you have yet to respond to my last post. Are you ignoring me for some reason? Anyone else can feel free to respond to it as well.

if grass grows in a paddock well enough to feed animals then it also possible to grow grain, vegetables or fruit. and grow much more food than can be produced from grazing livestock.

the type of pastoralism you mention takes vast quantities of land. very few countries have this kind of land. australia does this kind of animal raising.
farmers there can own thousands of acres of land to raise sheep and cattle. but the land itself is desert and can sustain maybe three or four sheep or cattle per acre if lucky.

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: Elminister I'm saying the preferance is anything but "mere". I am explaining the reasoning behind the motivation therefore 'wanton', by definition, does not apply.

By it's very definition the word 'preference' is mere as compared to a 'need.' I've also explained that most humans possess an ability, that if highly enough developed, will allow them to supercede any such animalistic preferences.


.

So then we agree that your stated, all encompassing, values of moral character regarding this topic is silly, I see. Just for the fun of it; Would you be so kind as to define a 'normal' human if you would

My position is not that ALL vegans necessarily have higher developed ethics than those who are not. Undoubtedly, not all vegans follow such a diet based upon ethical reasons. Some do so, solely for reasons of health. For these people, little consideration is given to the plight of animals. Therefore, clearly not ALL vegans are of higher emotional development.

Also, someone like Hitler, who although vegetarian, clearly did not extend his empathy towards humans. Obviously his empathic ability then was not highly developed.

What constitutes a 'normal' human has been pretty much defined by behavioral science. Reaching a certain level of empathic ability by a certain age is an example of someone who has reached a 'normal' milestone of human development.

Show me this evidence that man made such life choices as far back, that it is evident,that man has been killing and eating animals.

As long as humans with empathic abilities have existed, it's very likely that ethical vegans have existed.

The concept of veganism can be traced back to ancient Indian and Mediterranean societies. Pythagoras (500 BC) promoted benevolence towards all species. Buddhists, Hindus and Jainists all practiced this as well.
http:/www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1854996,00.html

This provides moreso that it has been advances of and in information then that of moral and ethical evolution of individuals that has bolstered the growth of vegetarianism. Contrary to what your saying.

How about.....they work in tandem? When it becomes easier, ie; less personal sacrifice is necessary, it becomes easier to follow the nigglings of one's conscience. As not all humans possess the higher levels of empathic ability coupled with integrity, 'most' will find it difficult to make personal sacrifice in order to deny themselves a preference that is currently considered by most to be 'politically correct.' Currently, much support exists for people to override their empathic reactions and continue to eat meat. Those who have perhaps high levels of empathic ability, yet low levels of integrity DO find it easier to follow such a diet when supporting factors are in place. ie; meat/dairy substitutes, a prevalence of options to replace animal product...an environment and surrounding peer who do not readily accept abuse of animals.

The ones that weren't 'animalistic' in these situations died of starvation as a result. Now, apply the laws of Natural Selection and tally up what can be construed as a strength and a weakness within the scope of the purpose of life.

Wherever plant based foods exist for sustenance....no starvation need ever exist.

The third scenario ,as it see it, would be that this urge does not exist because animals do not exist or have not been utilized for meat and neither has humans. Thus my point would not exist.....along with yours.

Okay.....

A trait within the human species psyche is a deep rooted, relfexive urge or need to eat meat. Explain this third way to obtain meat if you would.

How do you explain the fact that some humans do not have this deep rooted, reflexive urge? I don't know of a third way to obtain meat, however, there are ways to ingest protein without killing animals.

also..as deep as this reflexive urge may be to consume animal flesh, in 'most' humans, empathic ability also exists. In many humans in which both these traits exists, a war or sorts exists between them. ONe could say this is the element that designates one living organism as being at a higher developmental level than another....conscience and a desire to act out of respect for it.

Oh,ok. So you are just making indirected statements of opinion, in a debate forum, then. That makes sense. The 'soap-box' forum is two more doors down the hall on the same side though, I think.

do you deny that the possession of empathic ability is a defining factor in man's development upwards from organisms devoid of it?

You see sheep following traditions wherein I see a natural order to things. What makes your opinion more valid than mine, herein?

When a living being possess the ability to think, reason, feel empathy and choose action, those who blindly follow their urges as many animals do, are either not living up to their full potential as a human or they simply do not possess these potentials. You seem to want to discount completely our human ability to think, reason, feel emotions and choose behaviors.

An example of applied logic used here, yes. An omnivorous human would have the moral/ethical option of utilizing the animals that had need to been exterminated wherein the vegan would not. Subsequently just letting the bodies of the animals just rot to serve no purpose at all. Applying the premis that a vegan would not utilize an animal or animal products in any fashion ,whatsoever.

This is an assumption you are making. The response amongst vegans to a field of already dead animals would likely vary greatly. Ethical vegans are opposed to contributing in any way to the suffering and/or death of other sentient beings. If animals were already lying dead....no potential to suffer...no potential for being at the cause of death exosts/

They have proven that a pound of celery can sustain them better than a pound of meat?

Most vegans I know consume far more than celery.

[Elminister]

[QUOTE=inri;665614]

By it's very definition the word 'preference' is mere as compared to a 'need.' I've also explained that most humans possess an ability, that if highly enough developed, will allow them to supercede any such animalistic preferences.

Touche. Ultimately, preference is used to fufill a need on your part and mine. Yours is more noble or moral because you choose to kill and consume things of a lower caliber of sentience as gaged apon outward appearance and your perception of a displayed pain.

Mine is less moral or noble because I endorse the killing and utilizing of sentient things that are capable of displaying pain ,or preception thereof, more conveyingly than a head of Cabbage.

Just wanted to stack that up and see how it looked.

.

Quote by: inri What constitutes a 'normal' human has been pretty much defined by behavioral science. Reaching a certain level of empathic ability by a certain age is an example of someone who has reached a 'normal' milestone of human development.

This certain level of empathetic ability, eh? That value would be what? Say 40 percent of the potential 'kisses-N-hugs' emotional apex? Sounds pretty good to me, being that you bring up the certainties of an overall value of an emotion, I would have to assert that 'love' can never be achieved untill at least 44 and 3/4 of the total available percent of the 'warm-N-fuzzy' emotional apex.

Quote by: inri As long as humans with empathic abilities have existed, it's very likely that ethical vegans have existed. The concept of veganism can be traced back to ancient Indian and Mediterranean societies. Pythagoras (500 BC) promoted benevolence towards all species. Buddhists, Hindus and Jainists all practiced this as well. http:/www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1854996,00.html

Humans or homo-sapiens have been felling and eating animals for over two-hundred and fifty-thousand years and counting. As pertaining to being a contributing factor in the underlying/driving qualities within the human psyche, the reflexive urge to eat meat is one-hundred times more in reaching into mans developmental past than the moraly driven vegan view you have offered up.

Quote by: inri How about.....they work in tandem? When it becomes easier, ie; less personal sacrifice is necessary, it becomes easier to follow the nigglings of one's conscience. As not all humans possess the higher levels of empathic ability coupled with integrity, 'most' will find it difficult to make personal sacrifice in order to deny themselves a preference that is currently considered by most to be 'politically correct.' Currently, much support exists for people to override their empathic reactions and continue to eat meat. Those who have perhaps high levels of empathic ability, yet low levels of integrity DO find it easier to follow such a diet when supporting factors are in place. ie; meat/dairy substitutes, a prevalence of options to replace animal product...an environment and surrounding peer who do not readily accept abuse of animals.

Working in tandem through necessity or circumstance? Scientific and moral evolution are not dependent apon each other. They may coincide, but they are not dependent. You could say that advances in dietary technology have allowed you to convey this level of moral/empathetical compass in a more convenient and displayed by the perticular choice in life style.

Einstein split the atom though he didn't bomb Hiroshima. The discovery of the bodies need of B-12 and other essentials and obtaining of such allows you more ease of expression of dietary choice, to whatever ends you take it. The discovery did not make you moraly superior to anybody else. I will say this again, morals are subjective.

Quote by: inri Wherever plant based foods exist for sustenance....no starvation need ever exist.

You seem to have forgotten how this,your particular statement has come about.

Allow me to refresh your memory.

Quote by: Elminister Hardly... But if animals were not available through circumstances the urge would still be there and would intensify over time and yes when there is no food available at all people will and have eaten other people to survive. If there should only be plant material to eat then,for me, the urge would be supressed to the best of my ability as I vew the killing of people for consumption purposes when there are other alternatives available to be moraly wrong and I would eat the plants. .

I would allow you to let yourself starve to death if you wished. I am not completly devoid of respect for ones moral views.

Sure, these would be rare and dire situations but they do, can and will continue to happen.

Humans cannot readily process all or even most forms of plants. Factually speaking; what we can eat and sustain off of with success, within the overall scope of vegetation, we humans are greatly limited.

Those cases in which I referred to,however being the crisis situations they were, entailed a scenario in which plant matter was not a means of sustenance. Though people or even a small woodland creature here or there would be available.

Quote by: inri Okay.....

The whole prose related this this particular comment was a longwinded explanation in how your misleading question is not only.........

Quote by: inri . Wow...so If animals were not available to fulfill your primal, 'reflexive' need for meat....fellow humans would be targeted for your plate?

..... woefully redundant but also a feeble attempt to add a level of insanity or irrationalism to what I'm saying. I am not surprised that I have reduced the value of your retort to what it is, as quoted above.

Quote by: inri How do you explain the fact that some humans do not have this deep rooted, reflexive urge? I don't know of a third way to obtain meat, however, there are ways to ingest protein without killing animals.

Exceptions and not the rule. I know of ways to kill animals in which they would feel or perceive no pain.

Quote by: inri also..as deep as this reflexive urge may be to consume animal flesh, in 'most' humans, empathic ability also exists. In many humans in which both these traits exists, a war or sorts exists between them. ONe could say this is the element that designates one living organism as being at a higher developmental level than another....conscience and a desire to act out of respect for it.

This doesn't refute what I'm saying but I can understand the logic.

Quote by: inri do you deny that the possession of empathic ability is a defining factor in man's development upwards from organisms devoid of it?

Not at all, but I don't prop 'man' up to be more that he actually is either.

Quote by: inri When a living being possess the ability to think, reason, feel empathy and choose action, those who blindly follow their urges as many animals do, are either not living up to their full potential as a human or they simply do not possess these potentials. You seem to want to discount completely our human ability to think, reason, feel emotions and choose behaviors.

Again, not at all do I wish to discredit the qualities that make man the alpha predator of the planet.

Quote by: inri This is an assumption you are making. The response amongst vegans to a field of already dead animals would likely vary greatly. Ethical vegans are opposed to contributing in any way to the suffering and/or death of other sentient beings. If animals were already lying dead....no potential to suffer...no potential for being at the cause of death exosts/

I do believe I was talking in a 'before hand' sort of tone when I first offered this thought.

Quote by: inri Most vegans I know consume far more than celery.

They would surely have to, as far as I know.