Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DRFseven · 04-11-2002, 06:38 PM

Quote:

tron: Actually, I meant that cooking meat may very well be what is "natural" for humans - that we may have evolved to depend on fire.

Right; I didn't word that very well. The fact that we may have evolved to depend upon fire had not been pointed out. The point that past behavior existed or not has no bearing on whether or not present behavior should exist.

hal9000 · 04-11-2002, 06:45 PM

All this moral and gastronomic huffing and puffing and you vegetarians still have no answer for the question in<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000118" target="_blank">This thread.</a> Not very impressive on your part Spin, Shamon., The AntiChris, and the rest of you vegetarians. Hell at least MeBeMe gave it a shot. His last shot as it turned out. You guys keep hiding here, I understand your fear of the question DP posed for you.

tronvillain · 04-11-2002, 10:46 PM

DRFseven:

Quote:

Right; I didn't word that very well. The fact that we may have evolved to depend upon fire had not been pointed out. The point that past behavior existed or not has no bearing on whether or not present behavior should exist.

Yes, I understood your point, what is "natural" has no bearing on what should actually be done. I just wanted to point out that they may very well be wrong about what is "natural."

ShabbyChick · 04-13-2002, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Well, if you strike a cow it will moan in pain. Isn�t this a common sense indicator that a cow experiences pain? This doesn�t exist for fish. They avoid death like all mobile creatures, but they probably don�t feel pain, otherwise there would be an indicator for this. I can�t conclusive prove it, so please don�t ask, but neither can anyone else, it�s just common sense.

It's just common sense to a lot of us that FISH ARE ANIMALS (Animal = MEAT). Just because Catholics and some other religions say it's not meat on Fridays does not make it so! They are living animals! They move, they breathe, they eat, they BLEED, they have a nervous system, they have muscle tissue (MEAT). Muscle tissue is MEAT! By your own statements, you think killing animals for food is immoral, therefore your action of eating fish is immoral by your own beliefs.

Now, I'd REALLY like a definition of your view of a vegetarian diet. Originally you stated killing animals for food was immoral. Then you corrected yourself and said "mammals". Do you mean placental mammals or all mammals? By your stated standards I can eat fish and still be a vegetarian. So, can I eat oysters or clams? Frog legs? How about chicken? Can I eat whale or dolphin? (I know they are mammals, but they act like fish

) Marsupials as they aren't placental? Please clarify these questions for me so I can better understand YOUR original question of is it immoral to kill animals for food if you have other options.

ShabbyChick

ShabbyChick · 04-13-2002, 03:11 PM

In response to another question posed earlier in this thread: Yes, humans can and DO eat raw meat. For example, historically, Eskimos have eaten a largely raw meat diet. Would I recommend raw meat to others? That depends. If I knew the animal was free of disease (by previous testing) and knew that the meat had been processed cleanly, then yes, I would have no problem with others trying the raw meat to see if they prefer the flavor. Personally, I am a little afraid of the way most foods are processed (that includes fruits and veggies) in this country. Therefore, I eat my read meat about as close to raw as *I* feel comfortable in doing. When it comes to red meat, I like rare. The outside of the meat is seared and carmelized to kill any nasties that might have taken residence and to add a little crisp flavor. That is how I PREFER it, it does not mean that I can't or won't eat it other ways. Now, when it comes to chickens, I would never eat it raw. So, as you have previously stated that it is OK as a vegetarian to eat fish because you can eat it raw, it MUST be ok to eat red meat as a vegetarian, too. HOWEVER, vegetarians can't eat chicken. Hmmm, sounds about right to me. Now, my vegetarian friends might not agree with your description of vegetarian. Oh well.

ShabbyChick - proud member of *peta*- People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

GPLindsey · 04-13-2002, 03:27 PM

For the sake of arguement, Let's concede the first part of the question--humans do not need meat for food. Let's also concede that most animals (fish, fowl, game) experience pain on some level. Is it then immoral to eat animals for food? No.

First, I think that something that it is instinctive or in "our nature to do" cannot, at its core, be judged on moral grounds. A lion is not evil because it kills for food, because it is in his nature to do so. Everything I've seen and read about early hominids and afterwards is that meat was part of their diet. It was part of their nature and it is still part of ours. Desiring to eat meat can therefore not be judged on whether it is moral or immoral; the moral question is whether it is right or wrong to restrain our natural desire to eat meat.

Second, I think humans have every right to lay claim to their place in the animal kingdom, and to kill for food as all other carnivores do. Even if there is no strict nutritional need for meat (a point I don't concede, but it's already been debated at length), who can deny how much meat foods add to the enjoyment of life? A great steak, a mess of Hot Wings and a beer, a big turkey at Thanksgiving--should we give up these things to eat tofu and beans instead, to avoid the moral dilemmas faced by killing for food?

Finally, I think there is a moral issue involved in killing for the simple pleasure of inflicting pain, but not if you intend to use the animal in a legitimate way. A hunter who blows away a deer and leaves the carcass in the woods is a jerk, but one who takes it back, has a butcher cut up the meat for him, makes a nice skin rug--I don't have a problem with that.

I'd write more but dinner is calling...meatloaf!

droolian · 04-13-2002, 11:49 PM

We hold animals against their will. We are the oppressor. Animals, like us, are born to be free, but we enslave them. The thing that allows us think we have the right to decide is “might makes right,” or that them having freedom compromises our freedom.

I would be vegan even if it weren’t for health benefits, but I think this still stays on topic of morality and the effects of meat eating. I am not anti-human and most vegetarians aren’t. I’m not perfect and can’t claim to be. If you’re like me, and have parents just hitting 50, you may want to give some of this info a look---pass it on to them if they have a medical problem relating to all this.

Is it moral to harm myself? (Or is it wrong to feed children what is bad for them?) Smoking is bad for me, so I do not smoke. But at least packs of cigarettes have warning labels, and many people have quit smoking despite nicotine's incredible addictiveness. They've taken responsibility for their health in that regard---not all but many.

The reason prevention has not been stressed, as it should---I don’t know. You can’t make money off healthy people?

Quote:

LA TIMES:
Moreover, industry groups such as the National Dairy Council, the American Egg Board and the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. spend millions of dollars to influence nutritional advice given by the government in the form of the Food Pyramid and dietary guidelines issued by the USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services. "Eat more" is the message proclaimed by these groups, and no expense is spared to get across that message.

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/features/health/nutrition/news/la-000023429apr02.story?coll=la-health-nutrition-news" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/features/health/nutrition/news/la-000023429apr02.story?coll=la-h ealth-nutrition-news</a>

The consumption of animal products contributes to more illness and death than smoking. Heart disease is number 1 killer in USA and UK. I not only want to live a long life, I want it to be a healthy life. I don’t want to be prescribed drugs that lower this or that and have side effects.

Quote:

Cox's calculations make use of recent scientific results produced by the Oxford study into vegetarianism [2], and a similar project in Germany [3]. Both studies show that vegetarians slash their risk of cancer and heart disease by approximately 40% compared to meat-eaters. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the UK, accounting for 1 in 3 deaths among men and 1 in 4 among women. Together, both diseases kill 335,000 Britons every year. If more people were vegetarian, says Cox, this figure could be slashed by 134,000.

<a href="http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Health-problems/Heart%20Disease%20-%20researchAltTherapies.htm#Vegetarianism" target="_blank">http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Health-problems/Heart%20Disease%20-%20researchAltTherapies.htm#Vegetarianism</a> & Heart disease

Quote:

Minamoto T, Mai M, Ronai Z. Environmental factors as regulators and effectors of multistep carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 1999;20(4):519-27.
Dietary factors also play a significant role in cancer risk. At least one-third of annual cancer deaths in the U.S. are due to dietary factors.1 A recent review on diet and cancer estimates that up to 80 percent of cancers of the large bowel, breast, and prostate are due to dietary factors.

Quote:

Toronto, March 20, 2001 - A team of researchers led by Hospital for Sick Children (HSC) senior scientist Michael Dosch has determined that multiple sclerosis and type I (juvenile) diabetes mellitus are far more closely linked than previously thought, including the role cow milk protein plays as a risk factor in the development of both diseases for people who are genetically susceptible. This research is published in recent issues of The Journal of Immunology (April 1 and February 15, 2001).

<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010322074643.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010322074643.htm</a>
<a href="http://drmirkin.com/men/8334.html" target="_blank">http://drmirkin.com/men/8334.html</a>

Quote:

A recent paper from Finland shows that drinking cow's milk is associated with getting juvenile diabetes and the earlier children start to drink milk and the more they drink, they more likely they are to develop diabetes. (SM Virtanen et al: .Diabetologia 1994(April);37(4):381-387)

<a href="http://drmirkin.com/archive/6186.html" target="_blank">http://drmirkin.com/archive/6186.html</a>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1268000/1268481.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1268000/1268481.stm</a>

Quote:

Kolonel LN. Nutrition and prostate cancer. Cancer Causes and Control 1996;7:83-94.
Scientific evidence clearly shows that diet has an important influence on prostate cancer risk. Frequent consumption of meat and dairy products is linked to increased risk, due, at least in part, to the amount and type of fat they contain. Animal products also lack the protective nutrients found in vegetables and fruits.

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: droolian ]

The AntiChris · 04-14-2002, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GPLindsey:
First, I think that something that it is instinctive or in "our nature to do" cannot, at its core, be judged on moral grounds.

I think you're confusing instinct with what is learned. My experience is that most people would feel rather uncomfortable at the thought of slaughtering and preparing an animal for their own plate. We avoid this discomfort by delegating the task to commercial meat producers.

Our natural instinct is to empathise with animals and to avoid exposure to animal suffering. This is why we have animal welfare laws.

Chris

tronvillain · 04-14-2002, 03:26 AM

As I have pointed out over and over, there are countless tasks which most people would prefer not to do themselves. There is nothing inconsistent about delegating a task to others to avoid discomfort.

The AntiChris · 04-14-2002, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
As I have pointed out over and over, there are countless tasks which most people would prefer not to do themselves. There is nothing inconsistent about delegating a task to others to avoid discomfort.

I was merely suggesting that this discomfort (repulsion?) seemed at odds with any notion of meat-eating being instinctive.

Chris

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2002, 06:45 PM	#172
hal9000 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: just over your shoulder Posts: 146	All this moral and gastronomic huffing and puffing and you vegetarians still have no answer for the question in<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000118" target="_blank">This thread.</a> Not very impressive on your part Spin, Shamon., The AntiChris, and the rest of you vegetarians. Hell at least MeBeMe gave it a shot. His last shot as it turned out. You guys keep hiding here, I understand your fear of the question DP posed for you.

04-13-2002, 03:11 PM	#175
ShabbyChick Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 412	In response to another question posed earlier in this thread: Yes, humans can and DO eat raw meat. For example, historically, Eskimos have eaten a largely raw meat diet. Would I recommend raw meat to others? That depends. If I knew the animal was free of disease (by previous testing) and knew that the meat had been processed cleanly, then yes, I would have no problem with others trying the raw meat to see if they prefer the flavor. Personally, I am a little afraid of the way most foods are processed (that includes fruits and veggies) in this country. Therefore, I eat my read meat about as close to raw as I feel comfortable in doing. When it comes to red meat, I like rare. The outside of the meat is seared and carmelized to kill any nasties that might have taken residence and to add a little crisp flavor. That is how I PREFER it, it does not mean that I can't or won't eat it other ways. Now, when it comes to chickens, I would never eat it raw. So, as you have previously stated that it is OK as a vegetarian to eat fish because you can eat it raw, it MUST be ok to eat red meat as a vegetarian, too. HOWEVER, vegetarians can't eat chicken. Hmmm, sounds about right to me. Now, my vegetarian friends might not agree with your description of vegetarian. Oh well. ShabbyChick - proud member of peta- People for the Eating of Tasty Animals

04-13-2002, 03:27 PM	#176
GPLindsey Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 221	For the sake of arguement, Let's concede the first part of the question--humans do not need meat for food. Let's also concede that most animals (fish, fowl, game) experience pain on some level. Is it then immoral to eat animals for food? No. First, I think that something that it is instinctive or in "our nature to do" cannot, at its core, be judged on moral grounds. A lion is not evil because it kills for food, because it is in his nature to do so. Everything I've seen and read about early hominids and afterwards is that meat was part of their diet. It was part of their nature and it is still part of ours. Desiring to eat meat can therefore not be judged on whether it is moral or immoral; the moral question is whether it is right or wrong to restrain our natural desire to eat meat. Second, I think humans have every right to lay claim to their place in the animal kingdom, and to kill for food as all other carnivores do. Even if there is no strict nutritional need for meat (a point I don't concede, but it's already been debated at length), who can deny how much meat foods add to the enjoyment of life? A great steak, a mess of Hot Wings and a beer, a big turkey at Thanksgiving--should we give up these things to eat tofu and beans instead, to avoid the moral dilemmas faced by killing for food? Finally, I think there is a moral issue involved in killing for the simple pleasure of inflicting pain, but not if you intend to use the animal in a legitimate way. A hunter who blows away a deer and leaves the carcass in the woods is a jerk, but one who takes it back, has a butcher cut up the meat for him, makes a nice skin rug--I don't have a problem with that. I'd write more but dinner is calling...meatloaf!

04-14-2002, 03:26 AM	#179
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	As I have pointed out over and over, there are countless tasks which most people would prefer not to do themselves. There is nothing inconsistent about delegating a task to others to avoid discomfort.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.