ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags diet , veganism , vegetarianism

Reply
Old 27th December 2009, 04:04 PM   #81
jadey
Master Poster
 
jadey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Merry Land
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by yy2bggggs View Post
Actually, that's not true. There's an entire niche of animals that survive without killing things (scavenging).
Ooops All animals eat other (previously) living things.
jadey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 04:09 PM   #82
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
There are arguments for moderation in a diet including meat which I am in full agreement with, and always have been. Arguments which insist that everyone practice a completely exclusionary diet leave me unimpressed. I'd be very surprised if you have any which I am unfamiliar with.
Environmental, economics and efficiency:
Several WHO studies have shown that meat and lifestock farming is significantly more energy intensive and polluting than plain old grain and vege/fruit farming. If you are enviro conscious, it is a valid reason to consider efficient sustainable vegetarianism(and not this "organic", backyard farming, locavore nonsense).

I'm not one of those. I'm selfish and care about flavor. Good thing is that some vegetarian locavore fine dining places are getting really good at flavor.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 04:13 PM   #83
yy2bggggs
Master Poster
 
yy2bggggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by jadey View Post
Ooops All animals eat other (previously) living things.
You haven't caught up yet! What about PixyMisa's example? (Unless you're going to count individual cells)

Last edited by yy2bggggs; 27th December 2009 at 04:15 PM.
yy2bggggs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 04:17 PM   #84
jadey
Master Poster
 
jadey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Merry Land
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by yy2bggggs View Post
You haven't caught up yet! What about PixyMisa's example? (Unless you're going to count individual cells)
I don't know of any animal that doesn't feed off of living or previously living organisms. Are there some?
jadey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 04:20 PM   #85
Cavemonster
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,756
I think organic, vegetarian, and yes, even Kosher dietary restrictions have one advantage that some people may count as a disadvantage.

They all force you to be more thoughtful about the food you put into your body. Yes, of course we could be more thoguhtful without buying into any system... theoretically. But myself personally, and many people I know, we're busy folks, we're sometimes spacey and find it hard to be 100% intellectually engaged in everything at all times. I'm not a vegetarian now, but when I have been, I ate better then I do now, and actually spent less money. I'm not a localvore, and I don't believe in the hype around organic, but my local, organic farm where I get my CSA has incredibly tasty heirloom veggies, far cheaper and fresher than the grocery store.

Vegetarianism, and a lot of other dogmatic approaches to diet are often a good shortcut to eating better.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 04:30 PM   #86
Exzyleph
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
Environmental, economics and efficiency:
Several WHO studies have shown that meat and lifestock farming is significantly more energy intensive and polluting than plain old grain and vege/fruit farming. If you are enviro conscious, it is a valid reason to consider efficient sustainable vegetarianism(and not this "organic", backyard farming, locavore nonsense).
But it also appears that optimal land-use is not purely vegetarian, but also includes meat-production in order to take advantage of lower-quality farmlands: sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008130203.htm
Exzyleph is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 04:33 PM   #87
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,465
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
Environmental, economics and efficiency:
Several WHO studies have shown that meat and lifestock farming is significantly more energy intensive and polluting than plain old grain and vege/fruit farming. If you are enviro conscious, it is a valid reason to consider efficient sustainable vegetarianism(and not this "organic", backyard farming, locavore nonsense).

I'm not one of those. I'm selfish and care about flavor. Good thing is that some vegetarian locavore fine dining places are getting really good at flavor.

As I said. There is content in what you mention which supports a diet with moderate meat consumption, no convincing arguments that such moderation should be taken to an extreme of total exclusion, and nothing which is not part of the standard repertoire.

Your second paragraph can be summed up easily.

Bacon.

For those who are nuance challenged, there is not a TVP analog which is a satisfactory replacement.

There are TVP efforts to duplicate meat products which in and of themselves are good, even tasty. I use, cook, enjoy, and often recommend some of them. But in the final regard they are not equal replacements.

Show me a TVP aged prime rib roast that I can cook rare, carve, and watch the bloody meat juices drip into the Yorkshire Pudding I've made in the pan around the still cooking roast. Then we'll talk.

Show me a side of TVP bacon I can carve slices from to my own taste in thickness and prepare and serve without anyone being able to tell the difference. Then we'll talk.

I'm going to have to stop. This is making me hungry, and there are leftovers to be dealt with.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 04:48 PM   #88
six7s
veretic
 
six7s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,716
Originally Posted by beeksc1 View Post
Obvious cases supporting a vegetarian diet include:
2. Ethics
Originally Posted by Exzyleph View Post
But if we grant "'ethics' is synonymous with 'group think'", and therefore a logical fallacy, then we have no moral grounds for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, murder, the crimes of religions or of their gods, the holocaust, and SPAM.
Originally Posted by Exzyleph View Post
Why is it a fallacy to appeal to ethics in the case of vegetarianism, but not with regards to the examples I gave? Or is there some other difference that I have failed to grasp? Please, explain your reasoning.
You're erroneously conflating the logical fallacy of using a flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity (in support of a diet) to encompass the valid (robust, consistent, rational) arguments for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, etc
__________________
Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!
six7s is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 04:52 PM   #89
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,465
I protest the unfounded and irresponsible denigration of Spam.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 04:55 PM   #90
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I protest the unfounded and irresponsible denigration of Spam.
Spam is a great argument for Vegetarianism.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:01 PM   #91
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Drudgewire View Post
http://i45.tinypic.com/34fe6xg.jpg


If we give cows the upper hand we're all DOOMED!
Indeed:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/cowswithguns

ETA: I see Lionking did it first

Last edited by tsig; 27th December 2009 at 05:05 PM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:15 PM   #92
Exzyleph
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by six7s View Post
You're erroneously conflating the logical fallacy of using a flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity (in support of a diet) to encompass the valid (robust, consistent, rational) arguments for condemning lying, theft, rape, slavery, etc
You'll have to forgive me, but your reasoning is rather impenetrable to me.

Can you perhaps explain on what grounds you come to the conclusion that the ethical arguments for vegetarianism constitute a "flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity", given the premise that ethics is group-think. Perhaps then I can understand your arguments.
Exzyleph is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:17 PM   #93
yy2bggggs
Master Poster
 
yy2bggggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by jadey View Post
I don't know of any animal that doesn't feed off of living or previously living organisms. Are there some?
Well in post #39, it was "no animal can survive without killing things". In #81, all animals eat other previously living things. In this post, #84, it's feed off of living or previously living organisms. 81 was a correction to 39, so that's fair. But 84 is different than 81.

PixyMisa's example was certain parasites.

It's kind of nit picky, but there's an actual point here... which is that eating doesn't entail killing anyway. If eating is wrong "because" of killing, then really the eating per se isn't the thing that's wrong, but rather, the killing.

Besides, I don't think you're really addressing the general moral argument for vegetarianism. They aren't against killing living things--they're against killing a subset of them that they consider particularly special. So ignoring the fact that not every animal kills living organisms (unless you're going to count individual cells or something), the point that they do is sort of a straw man.
yy2bggggs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:23 PM   #94
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by yy2bggggs View Post
It's kind of nit picky, but there's an actual point here... which is that eating doesn't entail killing anyway. If eating is wrong "because" of killing, then really the eating per se isn't the thing that's wrong, but rather, the killing.
I don't think killing to eat is wrong.

I think the suffering and causing pain part is wrong. I have no issue with a nice happy cow grazing in the fields and then killing it with no pain. I do have issue with keeping cows cooped up and having them suffer in tight filthy conditions.

But that's the only ethical issue that I even find a bit compelling.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:23 PM   #95
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by beeksc1 View Post
Squeamishness is not the ethical decision being discussed here. You said you would kill a cow. Have you ever done this?

You think ‘Corporations are irrelevant in this discussion.’ I beg to differ. Big business is a significant factor leading to the unconscionable conditions that many livestock are raised. Personally raising livestock is not inefficient; how long did humanity raise they own animals? And your attempted rebuttal to the appeals to emotion is entirely invalid.
It is your choice to rely on ‘professional’ corporations to provide you with what you need to live.



Wow, you sound so disempowered and weak. You do not have to feel so helpless. Try to let go of your conditioning and empower yourself.

Growing your own food is common sense, not an idealistic view of the world. And you are so wrong about ‘I can’t, I can’t…’; you can, you just have been mislead to believe you cannot.

I can teach students at the University level. I can recommend ways in which a person can be healthier. I can grow my own food. And so can you, if you actualize your full potential.
As usual vegetarianism is just another way to say holier-than-thou.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:28 PM   #96
six7s
veretic
 
six7s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,716
Originally Posted by Exzyleph View Post
You'll have to forgive me, but your reasoning is rather impenetrable to me.

Can you perhaps explain on what grounds you come to the conclusion that the ethical arguments for vegetarianism constitute a "flimsy, insubstantial argument from popularity", given the premise that ethics is group-think. Perhaps then I can understand your arguments.
Please, re-read the pertinent part of the OP and get back to me if you can devise a way of making it anything other than a logical fallacy

TYIA
__________________
Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!
six7s is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:30 PM   #97
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,465
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
Spam is a great argument for Vegetarianism.

Spam got a bum rap. If it wasn't so flavorful and delicious that the Brits were offended by it then it never would have gotten all that bad press.

Spam has saved hundreds of thousands of Boy Scouts from death by starvation while lost in the impenetrable forests.

(Out of curiosity. If a forest is "impenetrable" how does someone get into it to get lost in the first place?)
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:45 PM   #98
Exzyleph
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 16
Is there perchance anyone else who can explain to me the nature of six7s' argument? I am lost in his impenetrable reasoning, and unlike the Boy Scouts I have no Spam on me with which to stave away starvation.
Exzyleph is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:48 PM   #99
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by Exzyleph View Post
Is there perchance anyone else who can explain to me the nature of six7s' argument? I am lost in his impenetrable reasoning, and unlike the Boy Scouts I have no Spam on me with which to stave away starvation.
I don't really get it either.
May I suggest you try some grass? Chew for at least an hour before swallowing.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:49 PM   #100
six7s
veretic
 
six7s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,716
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
I don't really get it either.
May I suggest you try some grass? Chew for at least an hour before swallowing.
So 'ethics' (as per the OP) makes sense to you?
__________________
Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!
six7s is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 05:50 PM   #101
Red3
Muse
 
Red3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 891
Originally Posted by beeksc1 View Post
Thank you for your constructive input. In most ways, I agree with where you are coming from. I am all for personal responsibility; nonetheless, the effects produced by corporations and their assembly-line production of farm animals is another big problem.
I agree. But how would you feed the population of the earth? I myself am skeptical when it comes to the ethical standpoints of the big corps, but their ability to function within dubiously malleable ethical boundaries - in some respects - again comes from the species' apathy and unwillingness to take on the less pleasant jobs society asks of us. If someone's willing to take on the not very pleasant job of mass slaughter, then you have an ethical problem; do you leave them to it or call them for all their mistakes and moral blackspots? And if you do call them, what would be the repurcusions? The issue of whether to eat meat or not goes a lot deeper than health and ethics, it's a choice of survival for most folks. If you ask someone if they would raise, kill, prepare their own meat, the answer would be no; purely for the fact that they don't know how, and that it would risk theirs and their family's lives trying. Most anti meat people will not look at the issue objectively, and will more than likely have some woo belief about death - that seem to conveniently or callously miss the human equation - or some quasi-religious "enlightenment" ********. If you can think of a realistic, workable solution to end huge scale cattle farming and feed the world I'd be all for it (as I think it has environmental, ethical and health issues) but until then, we're pretty much stuck with what we've got. We live in a f&*ked up time in the world where we have to settle for less than what's ideal. We can only expect small changes.

If the vegesquad want it their way - us all eating non animal foodstuffs - then they need to think about the question of human survival...A hell of a lot of people would die without meat/dairy, simple as that. The majority of this world have not the time, resources nor the know-how to sustain a healthy vegetarian diet.

Like I said earlier, the more important issue is supplying people with information about healthy diets and looking after themselves. We eat far too much meat & dairy and the rate of disease associated with it proves this. But imo vegetarianism, in this day and age would be a disaster (unless you advocate mass human deaths). Cutting down on consumption instead of creating "converts" is the answer for now.

Edit: The issue of self reliance is ludicrous; vegetarian or no, if I was stuck for food in the wilderness for example, the first thing i would look for is meat.


beeksc1, I noticed your "introduce yourself" post, where you mentioned consciousness studies; I was wondering what that entailed? And what do you think of Dean Radin? (off topic I know).
__________________
"I want to be cremated, and I want my ashes blown in Uri Geller's eyes." - James Randi.

IT'S A TRAP!

Last edited by Red3; 27th December 2009 at 06:40 PM.
Red3 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 06:08 PM   #102
jadey
Master Poster
 
jadey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Merry Land
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by jadey View Post
Ooops All animals eat other (previously) living things.
Originally Posted by jadey View Post
I don't know of any animal that doesn't feed off of living or previously living organisms. Are there some?
Originally Posted by yy2bggggs View Post
Well in post #39, it was "no animal can survive without killing things". In #81, all animals eat other previously living things. In this post, #84, it's feed off of living or previously living organisms. 81 was a correction to 39, so that's fair. But 84 is different than 81.
So you are saying that:
"eat" is not the same as "feed off of"
and/or
"living thing" is not the same as "living organism".

Okay. So would the following response/question be better?

I don't know of any animal that doesn't eat other (previously) living things. Are there some?


Originally Posted by yy2bggggs View Post
PixyMisa's example was certain parasites.

It's kind of nit picky, but there's an actual point here... which is that eating doesn't entail killing anyway. If eating is wrong "because" of killing, then really the eating per se isn't the thing that's wrong, but rather, the killing.

Besides, I don't think you're really addressing the general moral argument for vegetarianism. They aren't against killing living things--they're against killing a subset of them that they consider particularly special. So ignoring the fact that not every animal kills living organisms (unless you're going to count individual cells or something), the point that they do is sort of a straw man.
So the argument is that it is immoral for a human to kill (and/or eat) deer because there are many animals that don't kill and/or eat deer? Is it then immoral for all animals to kill/eat deer, or just for humans?
jadey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 06:59 PM   #103
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,241
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
As usual vegetarianism is just another way to say holier-than-thou.
It doesn't have to be. But some people seem to want to make it so.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 07:46 PM   #104
yy2bggggs
Master Poster
 
yy2bggggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by jadey View Post
So you are saying that:
"eat" is not the same as "feed off of"
and/or
"living thing" is not the same as "living organism".
No, I'm saying that "eating another living being" is not equivalent to "killing another living being", and doesn't even require the other living being die for that matter. It could be feeding off of a currently living thing, as opposed to a previously living thing.

This is critical for a number of reasons. First, if it's the killing that is wrong, that's what the focus should be on--so if you don't eat the meat, but you kill the animal, that would be equally as wrong for the same exact reason (e.g., you shouldn't set terminal mouse traps). Second, if it's the killing that's wrong, and we find a way to eat meat without killing, then it cannot be condemned. Either way, putting the focus on the eating of flesh is at best a rule of thumb, and at worst a distraction from the real problem.
Quote:
So the argument is that it is immoral for a human to kill (and/or eat) deer because there are many animals that don't kill and/or eat deer?
The general argument isn't against killing things, but is against killing certain kinds of things. What particular kinds depends on what more particular sorts of arguments are drawn up--usually it's "things that feel pain" or "sentient beings" or something along that nature.
Quote:
Is it then immoral for all animals to kill/eat deer, or just for humans?
Well, that implication is a leap as well. If you grant that killing the particular kinds of entities is immoral according to one of these arguments, that doesn't automatically lead to other animals killing it being immoral. So if you were to use this argument, I would say that would be a straw man as well (furthermore, even if it were argued to be immoral for a cat to kill a mouse, I don't see what that changes... the cat's still going to kill the mouse, and it would still be immoral, so I'm not even sure how you could connect this to anything).
yy2bggggs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 07:48 PM   #105
Cimerian
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 View Post
As intimated in my last post, fat also creates fat in humans. There is probably a very good (almost certainly, actually) evolutionary reason for this. Care to guess? Cold? Adaptation? Anyone?
Well, the membranes of all your cells (and actually, of all cells we know) are made out of fat, the oily nice one. All structural cell components are mostly fat (lipids), proteins and some carbs (sorry, forgot the ribonucleic acid).

If you actually meant adipose tissue (cell the store cells) it is extremely useful to store energy. Fat has as nearly as twice energy as proteins or carbs, so if you want to store energy, fat is your choice. Of course I am talking about a world where you have to hunt or collect your food from the woods, and famine starvation is the rule.

Adipose tissue also holds our guts in place, and fills spaces in some joints (knee for example), so it is an important structural body component too.

Cold, definitely yes, great heat insulator and babies (and some adults too) have something called brown fat which actually produces heat from the fat.
Cimerian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 09:23 PM   #106
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
I eat meat, but after reading book like "The Omnivores Dilemma" I was forced to ask what may be a better question:

Is it ethical to herd animals into unsafe, dirty, unnatural conditions because it makes it easier for us to kill and eat them?

Anyone here ever have to annually behead chickens? What about in a factory setting where you see 2000+ cattle per day getting a metal rod slammed into their skull, and their bodies dressed while the muscles are still twitching? Then there is the bush meat trade, and the tendency for some cultures to eat any kind of animal...like boiled alive kittens who have their skin flayed off while they still draw a breath.

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

I think persons who immediately write...

Quote:
Yes, and yes. End of thread.
...probably only think of meat as that red and pink and white stuff in the plastic wrap at a grocery store.

You could argue that free range is more in line with nature and thus more acceptable(thats usually what I do), but in most cases free range means a shed with access to the outdoors that isn't always available depending on the needs of the animal farmer.

Yes, life feeds on life. So does that make all of our farming practices hunky dory because there is no easy or super rational/ethical explanation as to why we shouldn't be eating meat?
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 09:43 PM   #107
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,465
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
<snip>

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

Viewed over any span longer than, say, the last century I'd have to think that many if not most people had indeed done their own killing, and cleaning, and butchering. At least enough to be very clear about what was entailed. Even in times as recent as that the practice is hardly rare. If you include fishing it's downright common. It really isn't all that much more gruesome to kill and clean a bunny than it is a bass.

I see no reason why the cessation of a practice for a handful of decades would make it that difficult for people to begin again should the need arise.

Quote:

I think persons who immediately write...



...probably only think of meat as that red and pink and white stuff in the plastic wrap at a grocery store.

<snip>
I think you're making assumptions without evidence.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."

Last edited by quadraginta; 27th December 2009 at 09:45 PM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 10:12 PM   #108
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Viewed over any span longer than, say, the last century I'd have to think that many if not most people had indeed done their own killing, and cleaning, and butchering. At least enough to be very clear about what was entailed.
Sure, but I wasn't talking about a span of 100 years. I am talking about posters in this thread and people currently living in our contemporary era where animal farms are actually an environmentally degrading fact of reality.

Quote:
Even in times as recent as that the practice is hardly rare. If you include fishing it's downright common. It really isn't all that much more gruesome to kill and clean a bunny than it is a bass.
Bunnies, Bass and Straw. We are talking about the wholesale creation amd mass destruction of multiple species. Like I said, have you ever stood in a factory line and killed 2000 cows every day? It's just not quite the same as catching and cleaning a bass.

Quote:
I think you're making assumptions without evidence.
That may be. I am not really sure you actually know what I am talking about though.
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 10:22 PM   #109
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,465
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
<snip>

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

<snip>
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Sure, but I wasn't talking about a span of 100 years. I am talking about posters in this thread and people currently living in our contemporary era where animal farms are actually an environmentally degrading fact of reality.



Bunnies, Bass and Straw. We are talking about the wholesale creation amd mass destruction of multiple species. Like I said, have you ever stood in a factory line and killed 2000 cows every day? It's just not quite the same as catching and cleaning a bass.



That may be. I am not really sure you actually know what I am talking about though.

Well you got me there. I doubt that very many posters in this thread are eating 2000 cows a day.

Wait. Shemp posted in this one, didn't he?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 10:31 PM   #110
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Well you got me there. I doubt that very many posters in this thread are eating 2000 cows a day.
Nor do they work in one of the thousands of meat processing centers around the world, which is what I was getting at.
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 10:53 PM   #111
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,465
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Nor do they work in one of the thousands of meat processing centers around the world, which is what I was getting at.

See? There's where I made my mistake. 'Cause when I quoted you as saying ...


Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

... I made the silly mistake of thinking that I was responding to the part of your post that I quoted. Especially that itty bitty "any" part.

Certainly you can understand my confusion.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."

Last edited by quadraginta; 27th December 2009 at 10:54 PM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2009, 11:57 PM   #112
six7s
veretic
 
six7s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,716
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Anyone here ever have to annually behead chickens?
Yes - although it's typically a weekly or fortnightly activity... and humanely killing poultry is as easy as a very, very easy thing

I actually catch a few fish, too

Fresh is best
__________________
Evolution and the rest of reality fascinates the be-jeebus out of me!
six7s is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2009, 07:53 AM   #113
jadey
Master Poster
 
jadey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Merry Land
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by yy2bggggs View Post
No, I'm saying that "eating another living being" is not equivalent to "killing another living being", and doesn't even require the other living being die for that matter. It could be feeding off of a currently living thing, as opposed to a previously living thing.

This is critical for a number of reasons. First, if it's the killing that is wrong, that's what the focus should be on--so if you don't eat the meat, but you kill the animal, that would be equally as wrong for the same exact reason (e.g., you shouldn't set terminal mouse traps). Second, if it's the killing that's wrong, and we find a way to eat meat without killing, then it cannot be condemned. Either way, putting the focus on the eating of flesh is at best a rule of thumb, and at worst a distraction from the real problem.

The general argument isn't against killing things, but is against killing certain kinds of things. What particular kinds depends on what more particular sorts of arguments are drawn up--usually it's "things that feel pain" or "sentient beings" or something along that nature.
My position is that eating animals is not immoral/unethical. Therefore, killing them for that purpose is not immoral/unethical.

You question seems to be "assuming that it is immoral, which part is immoral, the killing or the eating (or both)"? Would that be a correct assessment?

Originally Posted by yy2bggggs View Post
Well, that implication is a leap as well. If you grant that killing the particular kinds of entities is immoral according to one of these arguments, that doesn't automatically lead to other animals killing it being immoral. So if you were to use this argument, I would say that would be a straw man as well (furthermore, even if it were argued to be immoral for a cat to kill a mouse, I don't see what that changes... the cat's still going to kill the mouse, and it would still be immoral, so I'm not even sure how you could connect this to anything).
Agreed. Animal behaviour is no justification for human behaviour.

If you look about the animal kingdom, you see that life feeds upon life; both animal and plant. It seems unfair, but it is certainly the way nature works and I am willing to accept that it is natural behaviour in humans. I realize that this is rather weak logic because there are other animal behaviours that I couldn't justify among humans.

If one were to presume that killing animals for food is immoral, I would be interested to hear at what point in our evolution it became so.
jadey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2009, 08:23 AM   #114
Rasmus
Philosopher
 
Rasmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,372
Originally Posted by jadey View Post
If one were to presume that killing animals for food is immoral, I would be interested to hear at what point in our evolution it became so.
At the point where an alternative became possible and it was understood to be so, of course.
__________________
"Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg
Rasmus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2009, 08:34 AM   #115
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
 
Drudgewire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,421
Originally Posted by Rasmus View Post
At the point where an alternative became possible and it was understood to be so, of course.

So the day it's possible to grow a cheeseburger that tastes like Fuddruckers rather than Boca burgers () I'll feel bad about eating meat.
__________________
"You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc."
-lapman describing every twoofer on the internet
Drudgewire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2009, 09:38 AM   #116
Symbol
Scholar
 
Symbol's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 117
The ethics thing.

There has been some comparison here between the eating habits of animals and humans, and I think that's quite shaky ground to use as a platform to argue for eating meat.

Yes, we are part of the animal kingdom, technically, but there is a reason that your animal neighbours living in the house next door aren't hyena or chicken families. We have a level of consciousness (yes I know, don't go there) and concern with ethics and improvement of human society generally, or our own localised societies, that has seen human society evolve for the better over time.

So ethics aren't absolutely "right or wrong" laws of the universe, but rather ways to be better animals at our current stage of animal development.

A simplistic example: in animal herds, like in some ancient human tribes, the elderly of the species are considered useless to the survival of herd or tribe, and left to die, or certainly not cared for. While in most 21st century societies we venerate the elderly, or at least try to increase their life spans, or keep them comfortable until they die.

So ethically (not absolute "right or wrong" ethics, but "best practice at being a human" ethics) when faced with a choice of "Mom and dad, you're old and useless now, go and live under a bridge, goodbye" or providing healthcare and love and continued respect and confirmation of shared memories, well, we tend to feel, collectively, that it's more ethical to do the latter.

The relevance to the discussion on killing other animals to eat is this: no, it's not technically unethical to eat another previously living animal, and in fact this extends to all living animals, so we can't rationally pronounce "wrong" about kittens casserole, roasted monkey, grilled dog, horse mince or other animals dishes that upset some Western sensibilities.

But at another level of ethics, let's call it being-better-humans-because-we-CAN ethics, that level at which we know not to leave our aging parents out in the snow to die, we have to debate whether it is truly necessary to kill to live, for us, right now, in whatever society we currently live.

I propose that for most of us here it's not necessary for our healthy survival, and any step towards reducing support of killing-for-food industries is a step in a more evolved direction.

Last edited by Symbol; 28th December 2009 at 09:49 AM.
Symbol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2009, 09:46 AM   #117
Hux
Graduate Poster
 
Hux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Spam got a bum rap. If it wasn't so flavorful and delicious that the Brits were offended by it then it never would have gotten all that bad press.

Spam has saved hundreds of thousands of Boy Scouts from death by starvation while lost in the impenetrable forests.

(Out of curiosity. If a forest is "impenetrable" how does someone get into it to get lost in the first place?)
Where the hell did you get that stupid idea from? We yield to no one in our love of Spam fritters. Some kids were brought up on Spam. Little kids thought a Spam was a particular animal. Dont get so self righteous
__________________
Drinking alcohol never solves anything. But neither does drinking milk.
Hux is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2009, 10:13 AM   #118
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 19,465
Originally Posted by Hux View Post
Where the hell did you get that stupid idea from? We yield to no one in our love of Spam fritters. Some kids were brought up on Spam. Little kids thought a Spam was a particular animal. Dont get so self righteous

It's Monty Python's fault.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2009, 10:56 AM   #119
Rasmus
Philosopher
 
Rasmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,372
Originally Posted by Drudgewire View Post
So the day it's possible to grow a cheeseburger that tastes like Fuddruckers rather than Boca burgers (http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/barf.gif) I'll feel bad about eating meat.
Yes, because we all know things are ethical no matter what, as long as they are fun.
__________________
"Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg
Rasmus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2009, 11:21 AM   #120
Tiktaalik
Half True Scotsperson
 
Tiktaalik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
I eat meat, but after reading book like "The Omnivores Dilemma" I was forced to ask what may be a better question:

Is it ethical to herd animals into unsafe, dirty, unnatural conditions because it makes it easier for us to kill and eat them?

Anyone here ever have to annually behead chickens? What about in a factory setting where you see 2000+ cattle per day getting a metal rod slammed into their skull, and their bodies dressed while the muscles are still twitching? Then there is the bush meat trade, and the tendency for some cultures to eat any kind of animal...like boiled alive kittens who have their skin flayed off while they still draw a breath.

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

I think persons who immediately write...



...probably only think of meat as that red and pink and white stuff in the plastic wrap at a grocery store.

You could argue that free range is more in line with nature and thus more acceptable(thats usually what I do), but in most cases free range means a shed with access to the outdoors that isn't always available depending on the needs of the animal farmer.

Yes, life feeds on life. So does that make all of our farming practices hunky dory because there is no easy or super rational/ethical explanation as to why we shouldn't be eating meat?
This is the crux of it for me.

Does our desire to eat things that taste good overwhelm the ethics of factory farming?

I am not a vegetarian. I occasionally eat chicken and fish, and even more occasionally turkey. I have not eaten beef, pork or lamb in more than 25 years. This was originally because of digestive problems, but the more I consider, given that 60 - 90% (depending on species) of American meat comes from factory farms where animals live in deplorable conditions for short and tortured lived, the less able I am to reconcile my desire for a chicken sandwich with what I have been taught, and accept, about living things.

If I was regularly able to get meat from a family farm where I could see that the animals lived reasonable-quality lives until slaughter, and where I could be assured that slaughter methods were as humane as possible, I would have no qualms about eating some meat. but I can't, even though I live in a rural ranching area.

As has been noted above, we're omnivores. That means we're quite capable of surviving on vegetable matter, not that we have to eat meat.

Add to this the production and pollution issues, and I'm grading closer and closer to complete vegetarianism, if not veganism.
Tiktaalik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:01 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.