Vegetarianism

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos StrongHeart, I believe I can ask you a series of questions that will proove that innate tendencies drive your desire to protect animals.

If I ask enough whys, you either have to give a circular set of answers, or answer by saying "it is within my nature" or something similar.

So, when I asked why we should apply equal consideration of interest to animals, you said:

Quote by: StrongHeart
Whether I am killed painlessly without suffering, I still have an interest in beingn left to live my life unmolested or taken away from me. Animals, too, have an interest in keeping what is theirs and being unmolested.

No, that was not my specific answer to your question. My answer was:

Because reason tells us that suffering is an unpleasant state to be in and might does not make right.

Why do you care about respecting an animal's interest in keeping what is theirs and being unmolested?

Because reason tells me I would not like that to happen to myself and that might does not make right. You keep asking the same questions and you will keep getting the same answers. Do you have some different questions for your series you alluded to above?

Btw, did you see my question to you in the Animal Testing thread? I would like to know if you think animals willingly submit themselves for tests as Kubedawg ludicrously suggested. Please go there and offer your opinion if you think they do or don`t. Nothing tricky about it. Just want to see what you think on that point.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeart Because reason tells me I would not like that to happen to myself and that might does not make right. You keep asking the same questions and you will keep getting the same answers. Do you have some different questions for your series you alluded to above?

Why do you apply to animals the same concerns that you apply to yourself?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Above, I asked you to comment on the point of telling someone to prove a negative. I am interested in you take on that in regards to science and debate.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Why do you apply to animals the same concerns that you apply to yourself?

Because reason tells me suffering is a bad state to be in and that no one wants to be the target of a force that exerts it. My empathy, which you are trying to get me declare, rests on the reasoning I know that suffering is a bad state. You may want to go up and review what I said about Animal Welfarists and Animal Rightists. Animal Rightists use reason non-prejudicialy. At one time, when I was an AWist, empathy is what anchored my beliefs on being kind to animals. Becoming an ARist changed what anchors my belief from that to reason -- hence no special refuge in reason for considering the interests of dogs and cute little kittens any differently from pigs or chickens.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeart Because reason tells me suffering is a bad state to be in and that no one wants to be the target of a force that exerts it.

Right. Animals do not wish to die. I understand that you are respecting their wish to not be killed. What I do not yet understand is why you do that.

You say your reason tells you so. What does that mean? What reasoning tells you that the desire of animals to live is important?

[SpideySpirit]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Right. Animals do not wish to die. I understand that you are respecting their wish to not be killed. What I do not yet understand is why you do that. You say your reason tells you so. What does that mean? What reasoning tells you that the desire of animals to live is important?

Actually reason is necessary only up to the point where your sense of intimate connectedness with these beautiful creature is again felt..........this connectedness is not in your head(reasoned), but your heart(feeling)..... As a child I had this feeling, we all did, they were our friends, it's really sad what we discard to establish our status as an adult. Captain ask yourself what your 'signature' really means to you

Do all things with love......................

[SpideySpirit]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I would say that would be very difficult - unless one is practicing a love of torture. But, you can kill a creature instantaneously, so that it does not die flailing and screaming. I had a friend who once worked in a slaughter house. He said it was horrible - that the impact rods they used to strike pigs in the brain did not always kill them instantly, so the pigs would writhe around in pain for a while. But, if the animal is raised in a happy and healthy environment, then killed instantaneously, not in front of other animals, then it seems little suffering would take place. I realize this is hypothetical.

Even if you could kill without inflicting suffering on the animal, then you would have to address another suffering issue, as established by the scientific research community, & that is, that consumption of animal products is directly attributable to many chronic lifestyle related diseases, e.g. coronary heart disease, many forms of cancer, osteoporosis, impotence (a huge issue for men.....or not .........etc). So we have premature mortality, the children coming into the world today will probably have children that won't know their grandparents....more suffering.......

[Captain Chaos]

Spidey...

You and StrongHeart have two differing approaches to this issue. I really want to understand the underlying drives for his belief.

Your belief is something I can understand. His is foreign to me.


As for health conerns - I have premature high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Any flesh I eat needs to be fish or fowl, and only subsets of those two groups.

[Kamehameha34]

Spidey:

Speaking of signatures, there have been much stronger animals than gorrilas whose diets consisted of nothing BUT meat. Just had to point that out.

[kubedawg]

Plants have a nervous system. Why else would a sensitive plant react to something when it's touched. It's the fact that since we are not able to empathize or communicate with these plants that removes the morality from killing a plant. And the argument that we consume more plant life from that which was been made up of produced meat, is bogus too, because of the fact that We didn't kill the plant, the animal did, therefore, we did not partake in any sort of killing other than that of the animal. Which brings me to this conclusion. If the lives of an animal are equal to that of a plant, then don't vegetarians consume more life by eating plants, than they do an animal? An animal can feed a lot more than one plant can. Oh and plants provide oxygen for us to be able to survive. Therefore, you are not only removing their lives, but quite possibly removing the airflow from other human beings. Of course, this is only hypothetical.

[SpideySpirit]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Spidey: Speaking of signatures, there have been much stronger animals than gorrilas whose diets consisted of nothing BUT meat. Just had to point that out.

The largest land animal alive today is an elephant, it's vegetarian, which animal did you have in mind??. Anyway I was using gorillas as a test subject (funny me saying that as I am opposed to animal testing..lol) as they are primates & share over 90% of our genes, additionally, they don't suffer from the lifestyle related diseases that we do, with the exception of those kept in captivity.

[SpideySpirit]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Spidey... You and StrongHeart have two differing approaches to this issue. I really want to understand the underlying drives for his belief. Your belief is something I can understand. His is foreign to me. As for health conerns - I have premature high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Any flesh I eat needs to be fish or fowl, and only subsets of those two groups.

If I needed someone to represent me in a court of law, StrongHeart would be my first choice, he makes very compelling arguments, I'm sure his approach appeals to some.

Speaking of high blood pressure & cholesterol, I lost my dad to coronary heart disease & cancer, and almost lost a sister & brother to cancer & obesity respectively, hence my advocacy. My brother finally decided it was time to change after a very recent health scare, he was diagnosed with MS. Anyway part of the change he made was to adopt a vegan diet. My sister is a bit of a harder coconut to crack..... but I love her.

If you are curious to explore vegetarianism, I recommend learning to prepare your own meals. They can be very tasty. During my transition period from meat to veg I discovered a temple full of hare Krishna's, anyway, I learnt to cook veg food from them, was quite a cultural experience too. If you have never visited a Hare Krishna restaurant I recommend it, they are internationally famous for their gourmet veg cuisine. I can hear your reluctance, so I challenge you, when was the last time you did something for the first time..........

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Spidey If I needed someone to represent me in a court of law, StrongHeart would be my first choice, he makes very compelling arguments, I'm sure his approach appeals to some.

It is just that I feel we are still circular.

His reason for applying equal consideration of interest to animals is that Reason tells him to do so - because he would not want to be treated differently if he were an animal. But... If he were an animal he would not be capable of such thoughts to begin with, and so it would not be so important.

So, well, I do not feel we have gotten under the surface of that reasoning yet.

If you are curious to explore vegetarianism, I recommend learning to prepare your own meals. They can be very tasty. During my transition period from meat to veg I discovered a temple full of hare Krishna's, anyway, I learnt to cook veg food from them, was quite a cultural experience too. If you have never visited a Hare Krishna restaurant I recommend it, they are internationally famous for their gourmet veg cuisine. I can hear your reluctance, so I challenge you, when was the last time you did something for the first time..........

I have kids. There is no end of times when I do something for the first time!

I am not that far from being a vegetarian myself. For example, my supper last night was a cucumber!

I am still not convinced that a chicken's suffering, at the moment it is slaughtered, is a thing that should worry me overly much. I place much greater importance on sentient beings.

Also, is it better for a chicken to have existed and been slaughtered than never to have existed at all? Because, if we all give up poultry, there won't be a lot of chicken raising going on ('cept maybe for the Larry Flynts of the world).

[Kamehameha34]

And the largest mammal alive today is an omnivore, if I am not mistaken.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And the largest mammal alive today is an omnivore, if I am not mistaken.

Yup, the blue whale is omniverous. Even if it wanted to go veggie with a mouth that big I don't think it's got a choice, whatever swims to close is going down the hatch.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: SpideySpirit Incidently the 2005 title holder & record holder of the Badwater Ultramarathon "the world's toughest foot race", Scott Jurek is a vegan. You can decide for yourself if consuming meat is a help or hinderance.

Incidentally, the 2006 winner of the "World's Strongest Man" title spoke of his diet thusly:

Quote by: Story about Phil Pfister But in a restaurant, he will still knock off a platter of seafood for an appetizer, a T-bone steak the size of the plate, a heap of mashed potatoes, and large crepes for dessert. (He often eats the dessert first. “It’s the best part of the meal, why wait for last?” he said.)

See why anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything?

I believe if children had exposure to these wonderfully beautiful creatures they would connect the dots and also choose a veg*n lifestyle.

Your belief is unfounded. Plenty of children have experience with animals, it certainly does not make them vegetarians.

Personally, my experience with animals made me more of a meat eater - I came to appreciate the circle of life for what it was.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos It is just that I feel we are still circular. His [StrongHeartsWin`s] reason for applying equal consideration of interest to animals is that Reason tells him to do so - because he would not want to be treated differently if he were an animal. But... If he were an animal he would not be capable of such thoughts to begin with, and so it would not be so important. So, well, I do not feel we have gotten under the surface of that reasoning yet.

We are animals, aren`t we? I think we are mammals, right?

Retarded persons and those in vegetative states are not capable of such thoughts or extending equal consideration of interests, but yet we still do extend it to them. Reason tells us that the ability of the target to reciprocate is not necessary in order to extend it. That point is moot for we DO do it.

Captain Chaos, I have to ask you, what would it matter if my reason were one mainly based on empathy rather than equal consideration of interests and reason? What difference does that matter to you or the argument either for or against animal exploitation?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeart Reason tells us that the ability of the target to reciprocate is not necessary in order to extend it. That point is moot for we DO do it.

Reason tells us? What reason? That is what I am trying to get you to explain.

My reason is that I have a strong innate drive to protect other members of my species. What is your reason?

Captain Chaos, I have to ask you, what would it matter if my reason were one mainly based on empathy rather than equal consideration of interests and reason? What difference does that matter to you or the argument either for or against animal exploitation?

I believe your use of equal consideration of interest and reason is rooted in sympathy and empathy.

The difference it makes is this - not everyone has that same sympathy and empathy for animals, especially animals of low intelligence, like oysters.


If you are trying to convince others of a set of rules, you need to convince them that they should believe in those rules. But, if your belief is rooted in emotions or innate tendencies (or some complex combination of them) that others do not share, then how will you convince them?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: StrongHeart
Reason tells us that the ability of the target to reciprocate is not necessary in order to extend it. That point is moot for we DO do it.

Quote by: Captain Chaos Reason tells us? What reason?

Revising that sentence of mine above, it should have just read, "As it regards extending the Principle of The Equal Consideration of Interests, the ability of the target to reciprocate is not necessary in order to extend it to them. That point is moot for we DO do it.

My reason is that I have a strong innate drive to protect other members of my species. What is your reason?

Not all have that drive. Many kill one another and war against groups within their species, showing more of a drive to protect members of their subgroups and destroy the others. Perhaps your drive is one more of empathy and sympathy since your reason does not translate to what history has thus far depicted for us. It seems we have an inate drive to protect our interests more so than any altruistic sense of duty to our species. If not, then why are we so fractured and conduct ourselves in ways that are not beneficial in protection to all?

I believe your use of equal consideration of interest and reason is rooted in sympathy and empathy. The difference it makes is this - not everyone has that same sympathy and empathy for animals, especially animals of low intelligence, like oysters. If you are trying to convince others of a set of rules, you need to convince them that they should believe in those rules. But, if your belief is rooted in emotions or innate tendencies (or some complex combination of them) that others do not share, then how will you convince them?

All that is exactly what I was suspecting you were getting at. I am well aware that convincing with empathy and sympathy makes a task much harder. That is why I reject that as the main bases for an argument. Reason cuts across, or it should cut across, groups with special interests.

Reason is what has appealed to people in the growth of the Animal Rights movement and has propelled it. Empathy and sympathy is what grows the Animal Welfare movement. They are different creatures but often morph into each other.

Sorry for those who argue against social movements (of which after they have taken root, have never failed to achieve the winning of rights), but reason is a hard thing to skirt around in that it is to be used non-prejudicial. And, that is what grows movements.

I did not become an Animal Rightist based on the arguments of sympathy or empathy. It brought me to the topic with interest while I was an Animal Welfarist, but the decision to give up flesh and eliminate as much exploitation of animals from my life as possible was impacted by reason as outlined in The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests and Utilitarianism.

Have you read any literature or books on Animal Rights that uses reason for their argument?

[kubedawg]

Humans have reasons for everything, even killing other people.

I don't agree with the suffering these animals have to go through day to day, but people continue to eat meat every day, and by people, I mean most people, as in 80+% of the people who voted here eat meat. Regardless of that, woudln't you rather live just to die, as opposed to not living at all? My point is that people do things that they normally wouldn't if it weren't for something that affected their life in a big way, such as a family member passing due to something caused directly by eating meats or fats. That's where the reason comes into play. People don't just wake up one day to say, "I think I'll be a vegetarian from now on." Even watching videos of animals being beaten, rocks dropped on their heads and bodies, etc, still I eat meat, and so do others. Why do I still eat meat? Because I care about myself. People are selfish. We all care about ourselves more than we do our own species, mainly because we all try to achieve some sort of degree of excellence in everything we do, therefore, activists for this cause are always going to consistently be for this issue due to 2 main facts. Something caused their life to change in order for them to become an activist, and the second, is because they strive for excellence. It's hard to change a person's mind about certain issues, which is why some things are resorted to by only telling half truths, or one side of the story, or the negative side of the story, etc. But even as hard as one may try, there is often at least one main flaw in their method of thinking, hell even Einstein said he was apt to be wrong 99% of the time... I don't support the system by eating meat. I didn't make the animals suffer, which is why activism should always be settled at it's core. That's how issues get resolved.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: kubedawg Humans have reasons for everything, even killing other people.

And those reasons underline the point that we do not really have any specific aversion to killing our own. It has been a mark of our species.

I don't agree with the suffering these animals have to go through day to day, ...

Hypocracy and inconsistancy are things I strive to eliminate from my life. What I don`t agree with I do not support financially when I am able to do without what is being offered.

...woudln't you rather live just to die, as opposed to not living at all?

Many people would choose death if life meant an endless state of suffering at the hands from another. Even when people have to bear the chronic pain of certain diseases they choose suicide becuase the suffering is horrendous.

Even watching videos of animals being beaten, rocks dropped on their heads and bodies, etc, still I eat meat, and so do others. Why do I still eat meat? Because I care about myself. People are selfish.

Well, at least you finally came out and admitted your reason for eating meat -- selfishness. But that is a choice and people need not choose to be selfish.

I don't support the system by eating meat. I didn't make the animals suffer, ...

If you are part of the demand that financially rewards the companies that do cause animal suffering by purchasing their products, then you are complicit in that. I don`t see how you can say you don`t support the system when everytime you purchase flesh you open your wallet and send money to the companies where your meat comes from. Does anyone at all see the inconsistant thought pattern here in Kubedawg`s statement above -- regardless of whether you agree with me or not -- economic reality begs for honesty on this point.

...which is why activism should always be settled at it's core. That's how issues get resolved.

I have no idea what you mean by this part I have underlined. What "core?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From tomorrow I will be disconnected from the internet due to moving. Hopefully, after unpacking and after everything settles down I will be on line shortly. The earliest I may be back on could be 5 days from now. The latest could be up to two weeks later -- depending on how soon the telephone company is going to get out to our place and put the telephone jack in the room the computer is going to be in. I will place this message on the animal threads I am ivolved in so that those I am in an ongoing debate with will know the reason for my not replying and long silence. Don`t think I have disengaged. I will be back and when I am will catch up on all the comments in the threads. Feel free to bury me under more posts. I don`t mind. It will give me more to work with when I get back.