Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Koyaanisqatsi · 03-14-2002, 09:48 AM

Spin--

I see no qualitative difference--morally speaking--from eating any form of matter. I believe all matter is conscious and all matter is self-aware, including the electrons which are right now quivering on your screen.

To me, in my moral universe, there is no difference between killing and consuming a pig and killing and consuming a head of lettuce (or killing and consuming a human, for that matter).

I don't kill and consume humans because of social indoctrination, most likely. Frankly, I've never thought about it, as there are other far more pressing concerns in our world that interest me than what's for dinner.

If you feel there is a qualitative moral difference between eating the flesh of a cow and eating the flesh of a plant, then by all means, tuck in!

But leave me out of your hypocrisy.

Mad Kally · 03-14-2002, 09:52 AM

Koy said: Hmmmm...Now where have I heard this form of fallacious "reasoning" before? Oh yeah! From a pigassed ignorant red neck.

haha Koy rules!

PJPSYCO · 03-14-2002, 10:10 AM

Something that is intesting is that the intestine argument is actually more pro-omnivorious and a bit negatively herbivoriuos. The lenght of the intestines is not the problem, it's the size of the cecum. The cecum is a pouch at the point where your small intestine ends, and your large intestine stops. Our intestines are not long enough to completely digest plant matter, but are long enough to completely digest animal matter(roting will never happen our intestine is much to long for that). In other animals this is true as well. Herbavores solve this problem with three possibilities.
1) special bacteria to break down cell walls
2) special chemical(same chemical composition as tears with minor differences making it corrosive) to beak down cell walls
3) notably large cecum to give our system enough time to break down cell walls(notably why we have an apendix, the rotting plant matter could become toxic if not for it).
Seeing as we have none of these, to be completely vegatarian, and to gain nutrition, one has to be a gluton. In other words you have to consume a terribly large amount of plant matter to gain nutrition. Though since plants are worth squat to the vegatarian. It is reasonable to assume that they think that feeding one person with the huge numbers of the offspring of a large number of plants is not more obsene than feeding a large number of people with one single cow.

SallySmith · 03-14-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
<strong>
Is that true even in third world countries?</strong>

Apparently so.

"Every country in the world has the resources to feed its own population. But free trade policies have built a world economy that puts those resources to other uses." - from foodfirst.org

Ethiopia was exporting cash crops for years while its people starved.

Yellow3 · 03-14-2002, 10:27 AM

I've been keeping half an eye on this discussion (mostly because, like most of the vegetarian arguments that periodically pass through, it's been a lot of the usual), but I tripped over this link elsewhere and thought it might be worth noting here. It's a twist to the usual 'meat is murder' argument; namely, the observation that even a vegan diet is hardly blood-free.

<a href="http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Mar02/vegan.htm" target="_blank">OSU SCIENTIST QUESTIONS THE MORAL BASIS OF A VEGAN DIET</a>

In a nutshell, Professor Steven Davis of Oregon State University points out that agricultural methods such as tilling, sowing, and mowing kill numerous animals living in the fields, and that pesticides and herbicides add to the mortality. Since the mouse of the field and the cow raised for slaughter are (to Davis, at least) morally equivalent, there is no difference between the killing of one for the meat and the killing of hundreds for the grain. The least harmful/bloody method of feeding people would then be a diet based partly on plants, partly on dairy products, and partly on the meat of grazing animals (no-till agriculture such as grazing does not kill the field animals). Since meat has more concentrated calories than many vegetable products, it would lower the plant food requirements. . . at least, I think. It's not expressly stated here.

Of course, one major problem with this is that some 80% of the world's population or something can't digest dairy products, so that would make the third staple dietary component (lots of dairy) kind of hard. The other is his assertion that mice and cows are morally equivalent, which I'm sure will go challenged by somebody. But I just thought I'd throw this in and then run for the foxholes.

- Jen

punkersluta · 03-14-2002, 11:12 AM

Bighid...

Quote:

If an animal is dead – why not eat it?

I already answered this objection when I argued why I would not find it immoral to use a vaccine that was tested on animals...

Quote:

The difference between taking a vaccination and eating meat is significant. The reason why I do not eat meat is obvious -- by refusing to buy flesh, I harm the industry based on carnage and murder. If I refuse to take a vaccination, it does not stop animal experimentation in even the slightest. For several reasons: many of those animal experimentations are funded by charities and the government; the only way to stop that kind of animal abuse is campaigning against it. If you refuse to take a vaccination, you do not harm the industry. If a vaccine is invented, for example, and it is used by 1 person or 100,000,000 people, it doesn't matter, as the same amount of animals would have been experimented on and died either way.

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

For 108,
Punkerslut

Queen of Swords · 03-14-2002, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bonduca:
If anyone has been converted by reading this thread, I would like very much to read their post.

I've been converted. Praise spin, I see the chlorophyll-colored light at the end of the caecum-shaped tunnel!

Now, I shall foist my preferences on you! And perhaps I'm beeting a dead horse here, but don't you carrot tiny bit about all those poor animals who have bean killed and processed for you? Lettuce consider their needs for a moment. If you're eating a hamburger, you artichoke on your next bite, remembering the moo-cows who gave you that meal.

Brussels and Peas,

QueenofSwords the Militant Vegetarian (Praise spin!)

brighid · 03-14-2002, 11:18 AM

Punkerslut - The question was directed at Spin in response to a question he posted.

Brighid

punkersluta · 03-14-2002, 11:30 AM

"Please stay away from my children." -- Bill Sneddon

Ah, the epitome of reason and affection.

I must take my leave. Although it has been a glorious and magnificent time debating against others, I find that it could not be any more productive to continue arguing. The arguments have gone back and forth, I have repeated myself a number of times. There was one particular individual who believed that when I use a quote, it was an argument. Hehe... I said, I believe as Lucretius does -- yet he stipulated that the quote was an argument. There was another who was offended that I compared eating meat to Racism. Well, I'm gone for now.

I invite spin, or anyone for that matter, to IM me on AIM/AOL at "Spit And Glory." If you don't have AOL/AIM, then send me an e-mail at punkersluta@excite.com

The next post of mine will be a brief list of arguments and refutations of Vegetarianism.

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

Click it -- you know you want to.

For 108,
Punkerslut

punkersluta · 03-14-2002, 11:33 AM

>> "What about plants? They're alive, too!"

1. Plants may be alive, but being alive does not mean it deserves rights. Animals deserve rights because they are conscious. They are capable of feeling suffering like any human. It is true that plants are alive, too, but they consist of matter, just like rocks -- it does not mean that either are deserving of rights.

>> "Other animals eat each other. Therefore, we should be allowed to, as well!"

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.
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.

>> "What about the needed protein and other nutrition?"

-- See stats.

>> "Animals taste good, though, and therefore I have no reason to reform my ways."

1. Whether or not an animal tastes good is not justification for killing it. If all our actions were motivated by what pleases us, then rape and murder would be justifiable. In this sense, I say that the taste of flesh does not justify murder any more than an orgasm justifies rape.

>> "God stated that animals could be consumed by humans!"

1. According to some religions, it is true that animals were created to be consumed by humans. However, many of those same religions stated that African humans were created to be enslaved by whites and that women were made to be submissive to males. Whether or not you belong to this religion ("Christianity"), its existence serves the purpose of demonstrating very well the fact that religion justifies nothing but cruelty. A religion may state that it is acceptable to rape (for example, see Deuteronomy 22:28-29). The fact is, whether or not someone's imaginary friend allows something does not mean at all that it is really justified.

>> "Animals are dumb and humans are smart. We have the right to kill and eat them!"

1. Intelligence is not a method for determining who deserves rights and who does not deserve rights. It would be rather unfair for anyone to say that humans with an IQ lower than 80 should be slaves. Similarly, should mentally retarded humans, the insane, and the senile be subjected to being our food? To state that animals are dumb is the reason why you eat them is to admit that stupid humans similarly do not have the right to existence.

>> "When you buy meat at the store, it's already dead and there's nothing you can do about it!"

1. Although it is true that meat at the store is already dead, the principle behind Veganism is that of economic boycott. By boycotting products and refusing to accept services for funds, you harm an industry. Rosa Parks knew this quite well and it worked in her situation. Since African Americans refused to take buses unless their rights were dignified, and since this method of Boycott worked, then it can also work for Veganism. If we refuse to buy the products of an industry bent on causing suffering to the lower animals, then we harm that industry. It is for this reason that I am a Vegan.

>> "Human teeth are carniverous and appearingly designed to consume flesh!"

1. The fact that human teeth may be designed to consume flesh is by no method a writ to actually consuming flesh. It is also true that a gun is designed to kill its target. Does this justify the killing of another human, simply because guns are made to kill? What of provolactics -- does the existence of the condom justify rape, simply because it is made for sex? In fact, to state that something was designed justifies it is so ridiculous, it is unworthy of being dignified with an answer.
2. If it is true that teeth are designed to consume flesh, then do not discriminate. It may be true that teeth are designed to consume flesh, but remember, this is also flesh. In that way, it is just as moral for a human to consume the flesh of a cow as it is for a human to consume the flesh of another human. After all, humans are all covered in a living robe of human flesh. (Quote of Ingersoll.) Since our teeth are designed to eat meat, then they are designed to eat any meat, which justifies cannibalism.

>> "It's the natural cycle that we eat meat! It's the Cycle of Life! It's Natural Selection!"

1. The Cycle of Life and Natural Selection are both scientific observations which have nothing at all to do with moral implications. There have been numerous Racist and Nazist groups which justify their actions by stating their purpose is to preserve their own race. As far as ethics and moral behavior goes, the Cycle of Life and Natural Selection hold no grounds.

>> "If we don't eat the animals, they will overrun the world!"

1. The animals humans consume are bred and reared for the sake of consumption. Eating the animals has little to do with preventing them from overrunning the world. The fact that humans breed them in unleveled amounts might contribute to that. To quote a poem by Henry Stephens Salt...

Mr Facing Both ways
by Henry S. Salt

When the Huntsman claims praise for the killing of foxes,
Which else would bring ruin to farmer and land,
Yet kindly imports them, preserves them, assorts them,
There's a dicrepance I fain understand.

When the Butcher makes boast of the killing of cattle,
That would multiply fast and the world over-run,
Yet so carefully breeds them, rears, fattens and feeds them -
Here also, methinks, a fine cobweb is spun.

Hark you, then, whose profession or pastime is killing!
To dispel your benignant illusions I'm loth;
But be one or the other, my double faced brother,
Be slayer or saviour - you cannot be both.

>> "Animals are not conscious beings, though."

Evidence...

Quote:

"Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, &c., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals." - Charles Darwin ["The Descent of Man," by Charles Darwin, part 1, chapter 4.]

Quote:

With Descartes, we must inquire whether the souls of animals be relations of the human soul, less perfect members in the same series of development. We must take account of what we discover in the intelligent principle of the ant, as well as what we discern in the intelligent principle of man. Where would human physiology be, if it were not illuminated by the bright irradiations of comparative physiology? Brodie, after an exhaustive consideration of the facts, affirms that the mind of animals is essentially the same as that of man. Every one familiar with the dog will admit that that creature knows right from wrong, and is conscious when he has committed a fault. Many domestic animals have reasoning powers, and employ proper means for the attainment of ends. How numerous are the anecdotes related of the intentional actions of the elephant and the ape! Nor is this apparent intelligence due to imitation, to their association with man, for wild animals that have no such relation exhibit similar properties. In different species, the capacity and character greatly vary. Thus the dog is not only more intelligent, but has social and moral qualities that the cat does not possess; the former loves his master, the latter her home.

[...]

Du Bois-Reymond makes this striking remark: "With awe and wonder must the student of Nature regard that microscopic molecule of nervous substance which is the seat of the laborious, constructive, orderly, loyal, dauntless soul of the ant. It has developed itself to its present state through a countless series of generations." What an impressive inference we may draw from the statement of Huber, who has written so well on this subject: "If you will watch a single ant at work, you can tell what he will next do!" He is considering the matter, and reasoning as you are doing. Listen to one of the many anecdotes which Huber, at once truthful and artless, relates: "On the visit of an overseer ant to the works, when the laborers had begun the roof too soon, he examined it and had it taken down, the wall raised to the proper height, and a new ceiling constructed with the fragments of the old one."

[...]

Surely these insects are not automata, they show intention. They recognize their old companions, who have been shut up from them for many months, and exhibit sentiments of joy at their return. Their antennal language is capable of manifold expression; it suits the interior of the nest, where all is dark. While solitary insects do not live to raise their young, social insects have a longer term, they exhibit moral affections and educate their offspring. Patterns of patience and industry, some of these insignificant creatures will work sixteen or eighteen hours a day. Few men are capable of sustained mental application more than four or five hours. Similarity of effects indicates similarity of causes; similarity of actions demands similarity of organs. I would ask the reader of these paragraphs, who is familiar with the habits of animals, and especially with the social relations of that wonderful insect to which reference has been made, to turn to the nineteenth chapter of my work on the "Intellectual Development of Europe," in which he will find a description of the social system of the Incas of Peru. Perhaps, then, in view of the similarity of the social institutions and personal conduct of the insect, and the social institutions and personal conduct of the civilized Indian -- the one an insignificant speck, the other a man -- he will not be disposed to disagree with me in the opinion that "from bees, and wasps, and ants, and birds, from all that low animal life on which he looks with supercilious contempt, man is destined one day to learn what in truth he really is." The views of Descartes, who regarded all insects as automata, can scarcely be accepted without modification. Insects are automata only so far as the action of their ventral cord, and that portion of their cephalic ganglia which deals with contemporaneous impressions, is concerned. - John William Draper ["History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science," by John William Draper, chapter 5.]

>> "If we offer rights to animals, what about rights of insects, mosquitos, termites, wasps, among other detested animalia which cause suffering to humans?

It is true that there may appear to be "slippery slope" problems with Vegetarianism and Animal rights. However, before I answer this, I quote a significant passage from one of Henry Stephens Salt's works...

"As for the demand so frequently made on reformers, that they should first explain the details of their scheme-how this and that point will be arranged, and by what process all kinds of difficulties, real or imagined, will be circumvented-the only rational reply is that it is absurd to expect to see the end of a question, when we are now but at its beginning. The persons who offer this futile sort of criticism are usually those who under no circumstances would be open to conviction; they purposely ask for an explanation which, by the very nature of the case, is impossible because it necessarily belongs to a later period of time. It would be equally sensible to request a traveller to enumerate beforehand all the particular things he will see by the way, on the pain of being denounced as an unpractical visionary, although he may have a quite sufficient general knowledge of his course and destination." -- Henry Stephens Salt, [Animals' Rights, Chapter 1.]

It may be permissible to kill an animal if it is for the sake of self defense or along those lines. Remember, we ought to live rationally and humanely. If there is an animal which destroys our crop fields and prevents us from feeding ourselves, then killing that animal for the sake of our survival is not cruel, but is necessary. If there is an alternative, humane method of dealing with the dilemma of that animal -- such as placing it elsewhere or acquiring better protection for crops -- it is best that we do as much as we can to foster the alternative, humane method. Also, swatting a mosquito that is trying to bite us for the sake of self-defense is also permissible, but if something such as bug repellant can be used or some other method, then it is best that we choose the humane method.

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

For 108,
Punkerslut

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

03-14-2002, 09:48 AM	#321
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Spin-- I see no qualitative difference--morally speaking--from eating any form of matter. I believe all matter is conscious and all matter is self-aware, including the electrons which are right now quivering on your screen. To me, in my moral universe, there is no difference between killing and consuming a pig and killing and consuming a head of lettuce (or killing and consuming a human, for that matter). I don't kill and consume humans because of social indoctrination, most likely. Frankly, I've never thought about it, as there are other far more pressing concerns in our world that interest me than what's for dinner. If you feel there is a qualitative moral difference between eating the flesh of a cow and eating the flesh of a plant, then by all means, tuck in! But leave me out of your hypocrisy.

03-14-2002, 09:52 AM	#322
Mad Kally Banned Join Date: May 2001 Location: LALA Land in California Posts: 3,764	Koy said: Hmmmm...Now where have I heard this form of fallacious "reasoning" before? Oh yeah! From a pigassed ignorant red neck. haha Koy rules!

03-14-2002, 10:10 AM	#323
PJPSYCO Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rolla, Missouri Posts: 830	Something that is intesting is that the intestine argument is actually more pro-omnivorious and a bit negatively herbivoriuos. The lenght of the intestines is not the problem, it's the size of the cecum. The cecum is a pouch at the point where your small intestine ends, and your large intestine stops. Our intestines are not long enough to completely digest plant matter, but are long enough to completely digest animal matter(roting will never happen our intestine is much to long for that). In other animals this is true as well. Herbavores solve this problem with three possibilities. 1) special bacteria to break down cell walls 2) special chemical(same chemical composition as tears with minor differences making it corrosive) to beak down cell walls 3) notably large cecum to give our system enough time to break down cell walls(notably why we have an apendix, the rotting plant matter could become toxic if not for it). Seeing as we have none of these, to be completely vegatarian, and to gain nutrition, one has to be a gluton. In other words you have to consume a terribly large amount of plant matter to gain nutrition. Though since plants are worth squat to the vegatarian. It is reasonable to assume that they think that feeding one person with the huge numbers of the offspring of a large number of plants is not more obsene than feeding a large number of people with one single cow.

03-14-2002, 10:27 AM	#325
Yellow3 Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Riverside, CA, USA Posts: 212	I've been keeping half an eye on this discussion (mostly because, like most of the vegetarian arguments that periodically pass through, it's been a lot of the usual), but I tripped over this link elsewhere and thought it might be worth noting here. It's a twist to the usual 'meat is murder' argument; namely, the observation that even a vegan diet is hardly blood-free. <a href="http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Mar02/vegan.htm" target="_blank">OSU SCIENTIST QUESTIONS THE MORAL BASIS OF A VEGAN DIET</a> In a nutshell, Professor Steven Davis of Oregon State University points out that agricultural methods such as tilling, sowing, and mowing kill numerous animals living in the fields, and that pesticides and herbicides add to the mortality. Since the mouse of the field and the cow raised for slaughter are (to Davis, at least) morally equivalent, there is no difference between the killing of one for the meat and the killing of hundreds for the grain. The least harmful/bloody method of feeding people would then be a diet based partly on plants, partly on dairy products, and partly on the meat of grazing animals (no-till agriculture such as grazing does not kill the field animals). Since meat has more concentrated calories than many vegetable products, it would lower the plant food requirements. . . at least, I think. It's not expressly stated here. Of course, one major problem with this is that some 80% of the world's population or something can't digest dairy products, so that would make the third staple dietary component (lots of dairy) kind of hard. The other is his assertion that mice and cows are morally equivalent, which I'm sure will go challenged by somebody. But I just thought I'd throw this in and then run for the foxholes. - Jen

03-14-2002, 11:18 AM	#328
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Punkerslut - The question was directed at Spin in response to a question he posted. Brighid

03-14-2002, 11:30 AM	#329
punkersluta Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: On the underground Posts: 45	"Please stay away from my children." -- Bill Sneddon Ah, the epitome of reason and affection. I must take my leave. Although it has been a glorious and magnificent time debating against others, I find that it could not be any more productive to continue arguing. The arguments have gone back and forth, I have repeated myself a number of times. There was one particular individual who believed that when I use a quote, it was an argument. Hehe... I said, I believe as Lucretius does -- yet he stipulated that the quote was an argument. There was another who was offended that I compared eating meat to Racism. Well, I'm gone for now. I invite spin, or anyone for that matter, to IM me on AIM/AOL at "Spit And Glory." If you don't have AOL/AIM, then send me an e-mail at punkersluta@excite.com The next post of mine will be a brief list of arguments and refutations of Vegetarianism. <a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a> <a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a> <a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a> <a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a> <a href="http://www.punkerslut.com" target="_blank">www.punkerslut.com</a> Click it -- you know you want to. For 108, Punkerslut

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.