Vegetarianism

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Chris I dont know if this has been posted or not, but I came across this video. (Graphic violence warning) Meat.org: The Video That the Meat Industry Doesn't Want You to See The most disturbing is seeing the animals have their throats slit while still alive and moving around. I was thinking to myself, How can thay guy do that job? It amounts to murder.

Well, not quite murder, but anything is justifiable for a paycheck, in my experience

[Chris]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready He probably watches Fox and CNN and C-Span all day, and then looks forward to work.

heh and also probably listens to Rush

Quote by: sevendogs Yes, to have meat on table you must kill alive animals or pick up dead ones, if you wish. Animal can be butchered by cutting its throat, stabbing in the heart or shooting. Anyway, the idea must be to kill it fast and drain more blood to make meat more attractive as food for humans. If this is very disturbing to you to see, go to a psychiatrist or to another soul and mind healing person to get help.

No. Its disturbing to see the animals treated this way. Its one thing to hunt something in the wild, where animals have lived a good life in fresh air, but its another thing to just grow these animals like one would grow a crop. I will assume you didnt watch the video.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Well, not quite murder, but anything is justifiable for a paycheck, in my experience

Where do you even begin with a statement like that?... noting all the wrongs of society and their causes by people who justify anything for financial gain.

"... anything is justifiable for a paycheck."

I wonder what course in ethics at a university level instructs their students with such a thought; be it in context of something or even standing on its own. Do parents actually instruct their children with those values? Of all the thousands of books on child rearing and self help, has that idea ever been put forth by a reputable person and then wholly embraced?

I mean, think what the word "anything" entails.

I am not sure if someone who believes the quoted above is comical or just downright scary. Perhaps doctors or non-doctors who lie about their credentials to get positions at hospitals as doctors would agree with the quote. I can think of many more examples as well.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin I wonder what course in ethics at a university level instructs their students with such a thought; be it in context of something or even standing on its own.

Utilitarianism. Or maybe the course would actually be called "Teleological Ethics" course. Of course, I'm not voicing my opinion on whether or not that's right in this particular post, but I was just responding to your question. Actually, maybe it was rhetorical. :)

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Epistemologist Utilitarianism. Or maybe the course would actually be called "Teleological Ethics" course. Of course, I'm not voicing my opinion on whether or not that's right in this particular post, but I was just responding to your question. Actually, maybe it was rhetorical. :)

Yes, I am quite aware of utilitarianism. However, utilitarianism does not simply state that "anything is justified for a paycheck." Something surely can be justified at the expense of something else if the greater good is served. However, the word "anything" used above without qualifying it, except with for the trite "for a paycheck" falls far short of utilitarianism.

[Epistemologist]

Well, yes, perhaps the mention of "anything" suggests a sort of deontological ethical application of the principle of greediness, if we even qualify that as a boa fide "principle" in the first place. Perhaps a more correct way of saying it is "often we must compromise deontological applications of the principles for money," or something along those lines. Of course, I'm not saying that's a correct outlook or anything; I'm just saying that it would possibly qualify as "utilitarian" per se.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Fair enough, E.

Thanks for adding that.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Where do you even begin with a statement like that?... noting all the wrongs of society and their causes by people who justify anything for financial gain. I wonder what course in ethics at a university level instructs their students with such a thought; be it in context of something or even standing on its own. Do parents actually instruct their children with those values? Of all the thousands of books on child rearing and self help, has that idea ever been put forth by a reputable person and then wholly embraced? I mean, think what the word "anything" entails. I am not sure if someone who believes the quoted above is comical or just downright scary. Perhaps doctors or non-doctors who lie about their credentials to get positions at hospitals as doctors would agree with the quote. I can think of many more examples as well.

Well see, there you go, anyway, mercenaries commit murder for a paycheck, that's pretty close to anything. Justifiable does not mean ethical, it means that the person is able to make it seem O.K. to themselves. By the way, I prefer not to learn about ethics at a university. My point was, everyone has their price.

When did I suggest my parents instructed me to do anything as long as i was paid? I never even made a personal statement, it was a cynical observation of people's tendencies to do anything so long as they're paid.

[StrongHeartsWin]

GM, I re-read your original post on the point. I see just how the wording and perhaps the different parts I gave more emphasis to translated with me differently from what you meant. Sorry on that point, if an apology is necessary for you. Just a misunderstanding, ... but, in your explantion something stuck out that I don`t agree with.

My point was, everyone has their price.

I am part of the group "everyone," but yet, I would not hire myself out to kill 10 unknown people for any amount of money to someone who wants those persons dead. I am sure there are many who would not sell themselves or their principles/ethics out for any amount of money. You may hold that world view, but I can assure you not everyone agrees with that and there have been many who have died for not believing as you -- even when their price meant their life, in which they paid with it, rather than let to be able to keep it as some kind of perversion of payment.

When did I suggest my parents instructed me to do anything as long as i was paid? I never even made a personal statement, ...

No personal statement as was directed at you. If you feel so, then report it and let the mods be the final judge on it, rather than us going back and forth with disagreeing about it.

[sevendogs]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Not quite in all cases. Caring for animals rests on the dignity awarded to life. I am pretty sure that you will find in the religions that avoid the general consumption of meat , that it rests on a dignity given to life. In religions in which there is partial avoidance of meat, such as pork, you will find it is not due to respect or dignity for that animal species' life, but due to a feeling that it has been deemed unclean by their God. That is the difference. The economics of avoiding meat consumption is however different. Value added in meat production simply puts it out of reach of the impoverished so caring for animals is moot on that point.

Eating meat or eating vegetables is our personal choice. Novody can make us herbivores, if we are not. Relifions can go only so far. When they do not fit our daily life too much, they extinct and become replaced with better ones. People interpret their religions the way they wish. Wild boar hunting is a favorite hunting in many Muslim countries. They eat wild boar meat, because they believe wild boar is not a pig.

Here is a spendid example of one "overcivilized" AR leaders:
"If you haven't given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species ... Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." "Les U. Knight" (pseudonym), "Voluntary Human Extinction," Wild Earth, Vol. 1, No. 2, (Summer 1991), p. 72.

I agree, the last compliment to the environment each of us makes, when his life ends. The question remains : "To be, or not to be?"

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Fair enough, E. Thanks for adding that.

You're welcome.

And sevendogs, it's become a sort of personal/cultural choice simply because evolution doesn't really apply to humans anymore. Sure, a few may starve in the desert or lose in a bear fight without the benefits of a carnivorous diet, but our species won't die out because of our diets. Thus, there is no evolutionary imperative for humans to be carnivorous, so ethological comparisons with other species are rather futile.

So, I guess it's up to cultural views on what constitutes a pure or impure consumption. The question of vegetarianism/non-vegetarianism, then, becomes a question of culture, and it all stems back to parallel the questions of what's the best form of government, what's the best language, what's the best way of life, etc.

[Eclipse]

Eating meat or eating vegetables is our personal choice. Novody can make us herbivores, if we are not.

I've seen this a lot and this was the nearest quote to the end. I had to think about this. Are we naturally herbivores? I've been taking an anthropological course in uni and I remember hearing that our previous views of hunting were skewered. Hunting is in fact a supplement when the diet was not sufficient. But it was not by natural means. We are not able to digest uncooked meats, in fact it can kill us or at the least make us very sick. Where we can naturally pick an apple off of a tree and eat it with no problems. We can't really tear through skin or hide unless it is prepared, via teeth or hands. Not only that, but we would not be able to muster up the psyche needed to actually tear through a live animal with our teeth and if we did we would die or become sick because the food was unprepared. No human activity in the past has shown that humans actually attack an animal with their bare hands and then dig into it with their teeth. It disgusts us where as a natural carnivore or even omnivore would have no problem.

Hunting is a bad term for it actually. That came recently with the production of tools. Before that we scavenged in order to survive if necessary and it did not provide healthy benefits but atleast kept us alive when those circumstances were forced upon us by nature or bad luck.

All that aside, a vegetarian diet is much healthier not only to us, but our environment. What kind of resources and energy go into farming animals? Lots. Enough to put effort into creating a vegetarian diet for a culture? Most likely, and on top of that probably left overs enough to aid undeveloped countries into restoring balance. That's just my speculation though. What comes out? Lots of junk. A vegetarian diet is not so wasteful and the waste that is produced can in return be used to aid the environment.

Population has become a huge issue but in reality we would be doing ourselves and the world good by transitioning over and we have the productive means to produce such a diet for everyone. Herbivore is a proper name for us, naturally.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Omnivore, our ancestors became scavengers and ate not only raw meat but the tough leftovers, then we became the hunters ourselves, and different populations developed different diests to suit their environment. Current humans lack the ability to eat raw meat because we are not accustomed to the digestive implications, but our ancestors could, and di eat raw meat, we are omnivorous, in every sense of the word.

[Eclipse]

Really? They ate raw meat and it was beneficial to them? Sure it kept them alive but scavenging in itself was not common. More so in harsh environments with low populations. Meat as an actual part of the diet only came in because humans created tools and cooked the meat. Even when that occurred, our diet was largely vegetarian until industrialized meat came into the picture or fish.

Dogs can eat veggies, does that make them omnivorous? If they lack the available meat maybe they will eat more because they are starving but it has negative health benefits as eating raw meat does for us. Dogs are naturally carnivorous. They have the means to eat raw, live meat in every sense. Just because they can eat veggies, does that make them suited to? No.

Fossils of early human ancestors may fill chimp lineage gap

Wear on the teeth suggests the hominids were herbivores, the team reported after a four-year dig that started in 1999. Paleoanthropologist Sileshi Semaw of Indiana University Bloomington and colleagues also found evidence the human ancestors lived near a menagerie of antelope, rhinos, monkeys, giraffes and hippos.

A herbivorous diet with plenty of animals around. I think this is an interesting topic and I am not sure where I lay on the subject myself but further discussion may help. After all, asking questions is the only way to find answers.

The only raw meat that I've heard a person eating is seafood. I'll come back to this but even raw seafood is not entirely good for the human body. Meat is not required naturally for protien, enzymes or the likes and does our body harm unless unnaturally tended and even then it is not always good.

Of course, it does not mean meat should be removed from the diet entirely as I will no doubt hear. Still, I wish to touch on the subject and will do so at a later time.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Really? They ate raw meat and it was beneficial to them? Sure it kept them alive but scavenging in itself was not common. More so in harsh environments with low populations. Meat as an actual part of the diet only came in because humans created tools and cooked the meat. Even when that occurred, our diet was largely vegetarian until industrialized meat came into the picture or fish.

I'm pretty sure that our ancestor's were extremely well equipped as scavengers, at least that's what the discovery channel thinks. Your vegan ancestor is nice, but if you haven't noticed, it's a link between us and chimps, who are herbivores. the transition to real omnivorousness would have happened after them.

[Pockets]

I like steak. I crave red meat when I don't get it. It does not make me a carnivore. I like vegies too, but never crave them. All this does not prove anything other than I am probabably conditioned to miss red meat when I don't get enough protein and I am omniverous. If pressed I can prove not a soul on this site was around when the first Homosapiens walked the Earth. To argue if those here first were herbivore, omnivore or carnivore is senseless. It does not apply to the present. It does not mean I should or shouldn't eat the flesh of an animal.That being said I believe our ancestors ate red meat and found it to be the best source of protein. The advent of fire and the ability to cook the meat, aides the ease of digestion and absorbtion, fueled our evolution.
All that being said I think a vegetarian diet is cheaper and more practical for the simple fact it is more renewable than livestock and digestion is easier. That does not mean we were herbivores in the beginning. It does not mean a vege diet has more protein, is better for you, or taste better. It is my choice. If the time comes and I must become vegetarian I will live. I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. It sure won't be to placate someone who thinks animals have more right to live than me.

[sevendogs]

You are not alone. Our ancestral apes were omnivores. All purely herbivorous apes or monkeys became specialized too fast and lost a chance to continue in a thinking tool making species. Only omnivore could do it. Diverse diet, including meat obtained by hunting, stimulated brain-hands interaction, making tools, inventiveness and domestication of the dog -all factors, which made us humans and brought us where we are now.

[sevendogs]

No, no! Evolutions never stops. In fact, it is simply inescapable. We continue to evolve, but our way of life under balmy conditions created by our technologically achieved conveniences makes our further physical evolution degenerative one. We degenerate genetically, because we save human lives indiscriminately, helping to procreate many individuals born genetically defective. They pass their bad genes and increase frequency of deleterious alleles in the population.

[Eclipse]

True, we are omnivorous to an extent. Perhaps, when looking at myself, I realize that meat does more harm then good when compared to a purely herbivorous diet. That is not true to all but purely to myself and possibly others but not all. Humans are a diverse species with many diverse adaptations. This is explained well with the contact between the native americans and the Europeans and the problems with such things as diabetes and such.

Diverse diet, including meat obtained by hunting, stimulated brain-hands interaction, making tools, inventiveness and domestication of the dog -all factors, which made us humans and brought us where we are now.

Agreed. The production of tools seems to be quite evident to have begun with hunting and progressed from there. But it is not necessary.

[Pockets]

Hey GM are you out taking away points for God? I want a receipt!