Freethought & Rationalism Archive

punkersluta · 03-11-2002, 03:30 PM

bonduca...

Quote:

There is still the issue of the cat, who, were I to offer him salad, would poop in my bathtub.

Yes, I understand that many cat foods are full of meat. However, there are alternative cat foods that are meatless. <a href="http://www.veganstore.com" target="_blank">www.veganstore.com</a> is a good place to look, and <a href="http://www.peta.com" target="_blank">www.peta.com</a> if you can't find what you want at the first listed site.

Mageth...

Quote:

Reread my post. Consciousness as we know it arises from the brain. But note that some plants have primitive nervous systems, and there's evidence that some plants are capable of limited communication (e.g. trees sending out chemical signals when being attacked by a parasite; other trees responding by building up chemicals resistant to the parasite). So, as I said, at least some plants may be capable of something like emotions at some level. We really don't know for sure.

Trees REACT to their environment, which has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. If you had the slightest education in biology, you would understand that you would have to respond to your enviroment to qualify as a life form and that it is something completely irrelevant of consciousness.

Quote:

So now it's gone from anti-meat eating to anti-hunting. Different topic, IMO. I eat meat and also disapprove of the above hunting scenario (even though all forms of hunting aren't as inhumane, and I've participated in some.)

Actually, although the topic of this thread is "A Plea for Vegetarianism," it actually addresses that animals have rights, including the right not to be killed (be it for your pallete or hunting hobby).

Quote:

BTW, quoting antique writings isn't much of an argument, IMO.

It's not an argument.

"A good man will take care of his horses and dogs, not only while they are young, but when old and past service. We ought certainly not to treat living beings like shoes and household goods, which, when worn out with use, we throw away." - Plutarch [Quoted from Animals' Rights Considered In Relation To Social Progress, by Henry S. Salt, chapter 2, 1894.]

<a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a>

For 108,
Punkerslut

tronvillain · 03-11-2002, 03:31 PM

echidna:

Quote:

If one assigns a degree of worth to consciousness to justify protecting all humans, then the value should surely extend beyond humans as well.

Doesn't it now? The suffering of a dog seems to bother people more than the suffering of a fly.

tronvillain · 03-11-2002, 03:32 PM

Mageth:

Quote:

BTW, quoting antique writings isn't much of an argument, IMO.

Yes, does anyone else find that annoying?

echidna · 03-11-2002, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notto:
So if we were to develop a breeding animal without a brain (or removed the brain) you would have no problem if we raised it and I ate it, correct?

Can we hurry up and do this please.

Seriously though, in the teleological moral progress of humanity, it seems quite likely that this may not be so far off. If we had suggested 200 years ago that organisations like the various SPCA�s would be have million dollar budgets and laws would control cruelty to animals, potentially imprisoning people for cruelty to an animal, then it would also have seemed ridiculous.

echidna · 03-11-2002, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
echidna

oesn't it now? The suffering of a dog seems to bother people more than the suffering of a fly.

This is often where the degree of consciousness is the loosely important concept.

It also goes with the creature�s relationship to the myself. If the fly�s buzzing around minding its own business, I�ll be a lot less bothered by it than the rotweiller who�s chewing on my leg.

Mageth · 03-11-2002, 03:50 PM

I believe the term "soul" was not used in the spiritual sense.

In what sense was it used, then?

Apparently, you failed to read my opening topic subject post in this thread. The reasons for promoting Vegetarianism are in there, and all you have done so far is to claim that plants may hold consciousness -- an absolutely absurd idea in the face of modern science.

No, I read it and responded to it earlier, remember? Like I said, it's full of unfounded assumptions. Not much to base anything on, IMO. If you assume your assumptions are correct and demand you to be a vegetarian, then be a vegetarian by all means. I don't assume the assumptions are correct, and see no moral wrong with eating meat.

Personal choice, dude.

Further, I've never said "plants may hold consciousness." What I said was how do you know that plants don't experience something akin to emotions? It's not as cut-and-dried as you wish to think.

1. It does not matter that animals eat each other. This holds no reflection on morality. Primates are known to steal from each other, salamanders are known to cannibalize each other, and some Galapagos lizards are known to rape each other. However, it does not give us any right to steal, to cannibalize, or to rape other humans. Then, certainly, if animals consume each other, it does not give humans any right to consume animals.

Stealing, cannibalizing and raping have absolutely no meaning to the animals you mentioned above. To them, there is no "morality" involved. No lizard has ever raped another lizard, period, from a lizard's point of view. All of this is human invention, designed to help us get along together.

Certain human tribes in the past held no morals against one or more of the above mentioned "sins" (for lack of a better word). Some things that we do today within the limits of our moral system, however, would have been against their moral system.

You wish to add not eating meat to your moral system. Fine; by all means do so. But it is not a universally-accepted moral, and you have given no evidence as to why it should be; only unfounded assumptions and antique quotes.

2. It is true that lions and other predators must hunt to kill. However, humans are certainly not in that situation. We do not need to kill other conscious animals to keep ourselves alive. In fact, humans will live longer and survive longer if we STOP eating meat, as proven by numerous studies in science and nutrition. However, lions do not have an option to stop eating meat. If the same situation were for humans, then eating animals would be justified. If a human was trapped on an island with no consumable vegetation, then hunting and killing an animal to consume would be justifiable, as no other option would be present. However, in today's world, we do not need to kill any animals to survive.

I don't have to drive a car, watch TV, learn to read, drink orange juice or do any other number of things to survive. Hell, I don't even have to work. So what? I enjoy doing those things, and some of them make my life easier. The same goes with meat; I enjoy eating it, and it's a better source of proteins and other substances than any plants (in spite of any vegetarian propaganda you may have at hand). We evolved with meat in our diets, and our bodies have adapted to it. The real health problems come from eating too much meat, and a person who watches how much meat they eat will be every bit as healthy, if not more so, than a vegetarian. (anecdote: I'm on limited meat intake due to a kidney condition. I asked my nephrologist if it would be better if I became a vegetarian, and she said "Not at all! There's no need to go overboard!" Apparently she didn't think giving up meat was particularly beneficial).

3. Consider the fact that the animals that we do cultivate - cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc., etc. - do not kill each other. Therefore, if you truly follow your own reasoning that you eat animals because they consume each other, then you will abstain from consuming the Vegetarian animals and thus stop eating beef, poultry, and ham.

Hmm, haven't spent much time around the farm, have you? I know for a fact that chickens will kill other chickens. I can't speak for the rest, but if they don't it's because we've bred it out of 'em.

Besides that, pigs, chickens and turkeys are not vegetarians. They're omnivores.

My reasoning isn't "I eat other animals because they consume each other." I was merely pointing out that you're attributing human traits to animals. One of those traits which you left out is that animals don't have any morals about killing other animals. I wasn't using this to justify eating meat, merely pointing out something you seemed to ignore.

"I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." - Thomas Paine [The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine, chapter 1.]

More ancient quotes. So now I not only can't eat a cow, I have to make it happy?

OK, I'm fine with that. I'll treat the cow nicely before I butcher it.

Mageth · 03-11-2002, 04:08 PM

Trees REACT to their environment, which has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. If you had the slightest education in biology, you would understand that you would have to respond to your enviroment to qualify as a life form and that it is something completely irrelevant of consciousness.

???Trees aren't "life forms"???

One more time, I've never said trees have "consciousness" as we understand it. And I do have an extensive education in biology [edited to add: college level plus a lifelong interest and reading].

Since you didn't seem to know that chickens, turkeys and pigs are not vegetarians, I could make the same charge, no? And that's a much more fundamental thing than debating whether some plants may have some form of primitive emotion, is it not?

Where is the line between "reacting" and "responding", BTW? (I could attempt to define it myself, but I want to hear your definition). And what gives you the right to cross the boundary and say that it's all right to eat plants because they react and not eat animals because they respond? Could not someone else propose a moral system to extend the eating ban to plants and other life forms that don't "respond"? Why whould their moral system be less justified than yours?

It's purely a subjective decision on anyone's part, IMO, whether to be a vegetarian or not.

BTW, you've never defined "consciousness." Is it solely based on "responding to the environment?"

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

alek0 · 03-11-2002, 04:32 PM

I have been a vegeterian for 16 years. Humans do not have to eat meat. However, I would never consider trying to persuade someone not to eat meat, especially not in a manner of the first post. Does anyone see double standards in there?
Humans are not so much better than animals which are also conscious and have emotions and feel pain, but than humans should be so much better than animals to realize that it is morally wrong eating other conscious beings.

I don't see anything inherently morally wrong with eating and being eaten. That is how nature works. Or would you try to make every omnivore a strict vegeterian? What about obligatory carnivores? Oh, I forget, you would have us feed tofu to our cats. Yeah, right. Cats are obligatory carnivores and need meat. Cats cannot process beta carotene into vit. A, they need to get already processed vit. A from meat. They need taurine, found only in meat, or else they'd go blind. I think that it is much, much better to get a nutrient from natural source than from a supplement. Also, what about your issue of forcing your choice on a cat, who is another conscious, capable_of_suffering being?

On the other hand, I do have an issue with factory farming and am strongly against it. Not only because of enormous suffering of animals (has anyone read about veal?) but also because of what it does to the environment.

Mageth · 03-11-2002, 04:36 PM

Well said, alek0. I pretty much agree with your sentiments. Like I said, it boils down to personal choice.

Aethernaut · 03-11-2002, 05:32 PM

I consider forcing a cat to eat a vegetarian diet unnatural and cruel to the animal.

As for meat eating, I am a ovo-lacto vegetarian that occasionally indulges in seafood (mmm... fried catfish or shrimp & crawfish etouffee preferably

) but I have absolutely no problem with anyone eating meat if they so choose. Humans are omnivores, it's up to the individual what they eat.

Pushing vegetarianism on people and telling them how horrible they are for eating animals is as bad as shoving xianity down their throat.

-SK

03-11-2002, 04:08 PM	#27
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Trees REACT to their environment, which has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. If you had the slightest education in biology, you would understand that you would have to respond to your enviroment to qualify as a life form and that it is something completely irrelevant of consciousness. ???Trees aren't "life forms"??? One more time, I've never said trees have "consciousness" as we understand it. And I do have an extensive education in biology [edited to add: college level plus a lifelong interest and reading]. Since you didn't seem to know that chickens, turkeys and pigs are not vegetarians, I could make the same charge, no? And that's a much more fundamental thing than debating whether some plants may have some form of primitive emotion, is it not? Where is the line between "reacting" and "responding", BTW? (I could attempt to define it myself, but I want to hear your definition). And what gives you the right to cross the boundary and say that it's all right to eat plants because they react and not eat animals because they respond? Could not someone else propose a moral system to extend the eating ban to plants and other life forms that don't "respond"? Why whould their moral system be less justified than yours? It's purely a subjective decision on anyone's part, IMO, whether to be a vegetarian or not. BTW, you've never defined "consciousness." Is it solely based on "responding to the environment?" [ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ] [ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

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

03-11-2002, 03:50 PM	#26
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I believe the term "soul" was not used in the spiritual sense. In what sense was it used, then? Apparently, you failed to read my opening topic subject post in this thread. The reasons for promoting Vegetarianism are in there, and all you have done so far is to claim that plants may hold consciousness -- an absolutely absurd idea in the face of modern science. No, I read it and responded to it earlier, remember? Like I said, it's full of unfounded assumptions. Not much to base anything on, IMO. If you assume your assumptions are correct and demand you to be a vegetarian, then be a vegetarian by all means. I don't assume the assumptions are correct, and see no moral wrong with eating meat. Personal choice, dude. Further, I've never said "plants may hold consciousness." What I said was how do you know that plants don't experience something akin to emotions? It's not as cut-and-dried as you wish to think. 1. It does not matter that animals eat each other. This holds no reflection on morality. Primates are known to steal from each other, salamanders are known to cannibalize each other, and some Galapagos lizards are known to rape each other. However, it does not give us any right to steal, to cannibalize, or to rape other humans. Then, certainly, if animals consume each other, it does not give humans any right to consume animals. Stealing, cannibalizing and raping have absolutely no meaning to the animals you mentioned above. To them, there is no "morality" involved. No lizard has ever raped another lizard, period, from a lizard's point of view. All of this is human invention, designed to help us get along together. Certain human tribes in the past held no morals against one or more of the above mentioned "sins" (for lack of a better word). Some things that we do today within the limits of our moral system, however, would have been against their moral system. You wish to add not eating meat to your moral system. Fine; by all means do so. But it is not a universally-accepted moral, and you have given no evidence as to why it should be; only unfounded assumptions and antique quotes. 2. It is true that lions and other predators must hunt to kill. However, humans are certainly not in that situation. We do not need to kill other conscious animals to keep ourselves alive. In fact, humans will live longer and survive longer if we STOP eating meat, as proven by numerous studies in science and nutrition. However, lions do not have an option to stop eating meat. If the same situation were for humans, then eating animals would be justified. If a human was trapped on an island with no consumable vegetation, then hunting and killing an animal to consume would be justifiable, as no other option would be present. However, in today's world, we do not need to kill any animals to survive. I don't have to drive a car, watch TV, learn to read, drink orange juice or do any other number of things to survive. Hell, I don't even have to work. So what? I enjoy doing those things, and some of them make my life easier. The same goes with meat; I enjoy eating it, and it's a better source of proteins and other substances than any plants (in spite of any vegetarian propaganda you may have at hand). We evolved with meat in our diets, and our bodies have adapted to it. The real health problems come from eating too much meat, and a person who watches how much meat they eat will be every bit as healthy, if not more so, than a vegetarian. (anecdote: I'm on limited meat intake due to a kidney condition. I asked my nephrologist if it would be better if I became a vegetarian, and she said "Not at all! There's no need to go overboard!" Apparently she didn't think giving up meat was particularly beneficial). 3. Consider the fact that the animals that we do cultivate - cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc., etc. - do not kill each other. Therefore, if you truly follow your own reasoning that you eat animals because they consume each other, then you will abstain from consuming the Vegetarian animals and thus stop eating beef, poultry, and ham. Hmm, haven't spent much time around the farm, have you? I know for a fact that chickens will kill other chickens. I can't speak for the rest, but if they don't it's because we've bred it out of 'em. Besides that, pigs, chickens and turkeys are not vegetarians. They're omnivores. My reasoning isn't "I eat other animals because they consume each other." I was merely pointing out that you're attributing human traits to animals. One of those traits which you left out is that animals don't have any morals about killing other animals. I wasn't using this to justify eating meat, merely pointing out something you seemed to ignore. "I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." - Thomas Paine [The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine, chapter 1.] More ancient quotes. So now I not only can't eat a cow, I have to make it happy? OK, I'm fine with that. I'll treat the cow nicely before I butcher it.

03-11-2002, 04:32 PM	#28
alek0 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 640	I have been a vegeterian for 16 years. Humans do not have to eat meat. However, I would never consider trying to persuade someone not to eat meat, especially not in a manner of the first post. Does anyone see double standards in there? Humans are not so much better than animals which are also conscious and have emotions and feel pain, but than humans should be so much better than animals to realize that it is morally wrong eating other conscious beings. I don't see anything inherently morally wrong with eating and being eaten. That is how nature works. Or would you try to make every omnivore a strict vegeterian? What about obligatory carnivores? Oh, I forget, you would have us feed tofu to our cats. Yeah, right. Cats are obligatory carnivores and need meat. Cats cannot process beta carotene into vit. A, they need to get already processed vit. A from meat. They need taurine, found only in meat, or else they'd go blind. I think that it is much, much better to get a nutrient from natural source than from a supplement. Also, what about your issue of forcing your choice on a cat, who is another conscious, capable_of_suffering being? On the other hand, I do have an issue with factory farming and am strongly against it. Not only because of enormous suffering of animals (has anyone read about veal?) but also because of what it does to the environment.

03-11-2002, 04:36 PM	#29
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well said, alek0. I pretty much agree with your sentiments. Like I said, it boils down to personal choice.

03-11-2002, 05:32 PM	#30
Aethernaut Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 422	I consider forcing a cat to eat a vegetarian diet unnatural and cruel to the animal. As for meat eating, I am a ovo-lacto vegetarian that occasionally indulges in seafood (mmm... fried catfish or shrimp & crawfish etouffee preferably ) but I have absolutely no problem with anyone eating meat if they so choose. Humans are omnivores, it's up to the individual what they eat. Pushing vegetarianism on people and telling them how horrible they are for eating animals is as bad as shoving xianity down their throat. -SK

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.