99Percent

spin: I really don't understand why you decided to stop the discussion before.

Maybe you haven't read <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000424&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

emphryio

Bokonon,

If you are getting no exercise than you don't need anywhere near as much protein. Hence, a vegetarian diet isn't so bad. But with vigorous exercise, (not aerobics), a vegetarian diet is inferior for increasing strength.

When I was a vegetarian for 8 months I gradually got thicker through the middle and thinner in the arms and shoulders despite heavy weightlifting and 2 hours of jogging a week. When I switched back to meat I quickly lost so much flab around my midsection and gained so much muscle back around my arms/shoulders, I was seriously accused of taking steriods.

BTW, my last post was ignored. I thought I really had something of interest to say. But I'm not surprised it was ignored. I probably should quit posting.

Corwin

It isn't exactly the most relevant, but here you go....

<a href="http://www.veganoutreach.org/health/b12.html" target="_blank">http://www.veganoutreach.org/health/b12.html</a>

Spin.... we haven't lost our biological imperatives simply because we aren't 'in the jungle' anymore. (Although we never really were. h. Sapiens most likely evolved on the savannahs.) Our most basic moral impulses are determined by our biological imperatives. What happens to morality if you forget the survival imperative? Gee.... you're no longer around to be moral or immoral. What happens if you ignore the 'women and children first?' Gee... no more species, ergo no more morality.

So what moral justification do you give for vegetarianism/veganism? I argue that you are ignoring our most basic biological imperatives, and therefore are in conflict with the root impetus for human morality. All other morality is based on the aformentioned two points. You're also arguing with several million years of evolutionary development. Most people would agree this just ain't a great idea. Now.... to do this you should have a pretty damned good moral reason. You have yet to show one other than 'I don't like hurting animals...'

Well if it takes hurting animals to promote healing among my own species, (with medical research) and to live a healthy life, (with eating a proper diet) then so be it.

Go PETA! (People Eating Tasty Animals.)

spin

spin:
------------
I really don't understand why you decided to stop the discussion before.
------------

99%
------------
Maybe you haven't read this thread.
------------

You are surely right. Had I read it I might have told the idiots that they are not forced to read things that don't appeal to their delicate sensibilities. They could run along and join something else for a while, while people discussed what they were discussing.

[Pre-edited to remove more nasty reactions to people who probably belong in the salvation army.]

Viti

emphryio, yes, you have interesting and valid posts but for whatever reason this topic, FOR THE THIRD TIME has become "You are an immoral monster if you eat meat" vs "No I am Not".

Truthfully, Spin, nobody is going to switch to vegan based on your insults and assertions; and those of you trying to argue against veganism will never sway the anti-meat eaters (at least those that are posting here). If you think you are helping out an undecided lurker or two, you are wrong...I have heard from several people on this issue who have simply stopped reading any thread with "meat eating" or "vegetarian" in it.

Every thread on this issue has degenerated into a flame war and I predict every thread will...this issue is simply too emotional for some to consider any opposing viewpoint as valid.

I suggested a formal debate so ONE person on each side could present their best arguments in a structured setting. This debate is going forward, perhaps everyone could email the proponent of their "side" with any ideas or points they would like to see argued? Everyone is sick of this mudslinging and I still do not see anyone budging one way or the other.

Corwin

Look at PETA, (you may cyncially be willing to use them.... but you can hardly call them 'stable' in any meaningful sense of the word.) As well as the easy willingness of most of the vegan community to rewrite both biology and history to make veganism seem like the natrual normal and historical diet of humans....

Does this really look stable to you?

spin

Corwin:
--------------
Spin.... we haven't lost our biological imperatives simply because we aren't 'in the jungle' anymore. (Although we never really were. h. Sapiens most likely evolved on the savannahs.)
--------------

When we talk about the jungle we have a particular idea we normally share. It has little to do with the actual late part of our evolution, though obviously before the formation of the great riff we did live in the jungle.

Biological imperatives are getting fewer all the time. I don't see that they are particularly relevant here. You don't need to eat meat. You can survive without it. You are not a slave to your impulses. You have the ability to choose.

Corwin:
----------------
What happens to morality if you forget the survival imperative?
----------------

You what?

Corwin:
----------------
Gee.... you're no longer around to be moral or immoral. What happens if you ignore the 'women and children first?' Gee... no more species, ergo no more morality.
----------------

You what?

Corwin:
----------------
So what moral justification do you give for vegetarianism/veganism?
----------------

Ummm, I have stated it numerous times and good old Pompous Bastard has taken up quoting it for me. It is basically, morality involves the protection and benefit of the most sentient beings; where this fails morality involves picking up the pieces with the minimum damage to the protection and benefit of the most sentient beings.

Corwin:
----------------
I argue that you are ignoring our most basic biological imperatives, and therefore are in conflict with the root impetus for human morality.
----------------

You have no basis for saying this in 2002.

Corwin:
----------------
All other morality is based on the aformentioned two points.
----------------

Crap. Apply your view of morality to mine above.

Corwin:
----------------
You're also arguing with several million years of evolutionary development.
----------------

You have the ability to choose. You don't have to oppress women, as had been the case for the previous millions of years. This was partially resolved in the previous century. You are not a slave to all your biological makeup.

Corwin:
----------------
Most people would agree this just ain't a great idea.
----------------

Who cares. When most people think the world is flat, do you want me to agree? When most people int he world are religionists, do you want me to agree? Come of it.

Corwin:
----------------
Now.... to do this you should have a pretty damned good moral reason. You have yet to show one other than 'I don't like hurting animals...'
----------------

The Golden Rule: do not do to others what you don't want done to yourself. (A rough translation of the Hillel version.)

Corwin:
----------------
Well if it takes hurting animals to promote healing among my own species, (with medical research) and to live a healthy life, (with eating a proper diet) then so be it.
----------------

This means that you think its alright to perform often irrelevant tests on animals whose physical makeup is very different from ours on the assumption that it might just be useful but then again as I don't know what I'm doing it may not. Scientific tests are often inconsequential money wasters that kill animals and have little value.

Your eating meat just means that you are not prepared to think of your position in this world. You support a disgusting industry who makes its money on animal torture and slaughter. You can go to macdonalds and never see the results of your support. You just get it after all the nasty bits have been done. The animal grown in questionable conditions to please your guts -- though it is not necessary for you.

There are no biological impulses to wear clothes. It's just that humans have left their natural habitat. They've done a lot of leaving natural this and that in the past few million years and here you are insisting that we are ruled by biological impulses. You're only a few million years behind the times.

If you feel no responsibility to the other animals in the world, then you will feel no responsibility toward the human animals in the world, except maybe for a biological impulse or two. What's the difference between killing a non-human animal and killing a human one? Count the genes.

Corwin

And your entire argument hinges on your (rather overly broad) definition of 'sentient.'

Let me bring up another issue you dodged.

You insist that animals have 'rights.' Now I can accept this on a basic level. But for anything more detailed.... please explain what responsibilities animals have?

spin

LadyShea:
------------
Truthfully, Spin, nobody is going to switch to vegan based on your insults and assertions; and those of you trying to argue against veganism will never sway the anti-meat eaters (at least those that are posting here). If you think you are helping out an undecided lurker or two, you are wrong...I have heard from several people on this issue who have simply stopped reading any thread with "meat eating" or "vegetarian" in it.
------------

That is their prerogative. That's what choice is all about, and here they are not forced to look at the debate/mudslinging or however you feel like calling the discussion.

LadyShea:
------------
Every thread on this issue has degenerated into a flame war and I predict every thread will...this issue is simply too emotional for some to consider any opposing viewpoint as valid.
------------

Interesting that it is too emotional. I use language as I do without getting hot under the collar, despite your (and others') perceptions of the matter. I don't mind if people get emotional over the subject. It may be worthwhile. I don't know. But simply cutting off the discussion is not going to change much other than putting things in the shed. (When Tito covered the differences between the different members of his Yugoslavia, it only hid the problems.)

LadyShea:
------------
I suggested a formal debate so ONE person on each side could present their best arguments in a structured setting.
------------

This debate is useless in my eyes. A formal debate talking with a "moral subjectivist" is not a debate that deals with moral anything. I don't care a fig about it.

LadyShea:
------------
Everyone is sick of this mudslinging and I still do not see anyone budging one way or the other.
------------

Again we are not dealing with minors, I would hope.

spin

I suggest you get a new dictionary, Corwin. Here's the Shorter Oxford definition of the adjective:

adj. 1 That feels or is capable of feeling; having the power or function of sensation.

2 Of organs or tissues: responsive to sensory stimuli.

3 Characterized by the exercise of the senses.

------------

Animals have rights, as young children have rights. What responsibilities do children have?