tronvillain

Yes, it would be a perfectly reasonable argument for him to make. So?

bonduca

Dahner lured members of his own species to his dwelling with implied promise of social activity, then killing and consuming them. His behavior violated the taboo against consuming member of one's own species.

Please explain how this example parallels that of the man at the Wendy's drive-through, who, like other predators or omnivores is consuming a creature not of his species.

I'd also like to know if you think anyone will be converted to vegetarianism from reading this thread, since it seems to have amused or alienated most of the participants.

spin

"Yes, it would be a perfectly reasonable argument for him to make. So?"

Just as, "I have no reason to change my diet" would be.

The general topic is not what is reasonable to your stomach. It is about the ethics of eating dead animals. Most of the people writing here -- including you, tronvillain --, don't deal with the topic. (They merely say things that defend their own appetites, hence the Dahmer reflection.)

bonduca

Has anyone been coverted from reading this thread?

spin

Humans have often been known to have consumed humans, but then so have chimpanzees consumed young chimpanzees, and numerous other animal species. What taboo is being talking about?

Dahmer faced his food more honestly than most average meat eaters.

Sensitization is the key to talking about the ethics of eating dead animals. It's hard for people who have been indoctrinated into meat eating from birth to stop. It's like getting Christians to stop thinking like Christians.

The more people are faced with the cruelty and the unnecessary nature of eating our fellow animals, the more sensitive they will become. Just think about the smoking campaign which has lasted generations and will continue for generations. Smoking though is plainly dangerous to humans: meat eating is mainly dangerous for the animals. So humans tend to vote with their stomachs rather than with their conscience.

Bill Snedden

However, some of the people writing here, PB for one, have dealt with this and you, in turn, have neglected to deal with their positions.

Many of us (myself included) feel that human animals are specifically and materially different from non-human animals; so different that ethical treatment of non-human species does not preclude their consumption by humans.

From what I have read, the only response that you or punkersluta have offered to this line of argument is "are not". That's fine insofar as it indicates that you obviously disagree with the foundation of the ethical systems against which you argue, but unfortunately neither of you have yet provided any rational basis for your disagreement.

Again, I suggest that if you wish to continue to argue that a proper human ethical system precludes the killing and eating of non-human species, you must provide a rational basis for that system. And, to be completely clear, "rational" doesn't mean "but we're all just animals inside".

Regards,

Bill Snedden

bonduca

Whatever your opinion of primeval man's dietary habits may be, the fact remains that for hundreds of years they have eaten the flesh of other species. They will most likely not be moved by appeals to return to a primeval diet. Comparisons to Dahmer or Nazis, as well expressions of ill-will will most likely anger and offend rather than convert. A reasonable and compassionate statement would be listened to with greater respect.

tronvillain

I think the problem here may be that we have entirely different conceptions of what morality is.

1) The enjoyment I derive from eating specific animals outweighs the empathy I feel for those animals.

2) The enjoyment others derive from eating specific animals outweighs the empathy I feel for those animals.

3) The displeasure of those who do not hold positions one and two does not outweigh the enjoyment other and I derive from eating specific animals.

As a result, I do not consider eating meat "wrong."

brighid

Spin

If an animal is dead – why not eat it? Wouldn’t it be wasteful to do otherwise and if a dead animal is not disposed of properly it would cause further harm to the human, plant and animal populations through its rotting carcass.

Man cannot change his biology. We are omnivores, plain and simple. Man can lead a healthy life either as an herbivore or as an omnivore, if each eats a well balanced diet containing the proper nutrients, etc. There is no morality in what one eats, eating is a necessary for survival. There is a morality in what we choose to kill and how we choose to kill it when we live in an environment that allows such control. A humane death of an animal protein/nutrient source is the most ethical, respecting the environment, taking steps to improve and protect it, recycling – all these things are good. But you have not made any sound argument for the lack of ethical behavior or immorality of eating meat. You personally choose to eat a diet that does not contain meat, and you have described your diet – which is VERY poor – lots of carbs, very little protein and hardly any food rich in vitamins and minerals! That a diet designed to give you an early heart attack or cancer – good job dude! But that really isn’t relevant to the discussion about the morality or ethics of eating meat.

And cannibalism is taboo for a reason – evolutionary reasons. Cannibalism is counterproductive in evolutionary terms because it limits the gene pool and weakens that species (also why inbreeding is taboo). Cannibalism tends to lead to premature death and the stunting of growth with that species. It heightens the probability of contracting parasites and pathogens at a higher rate then of non-cannibalistic predators. That is why it is rare in the animal kingdom – because it’s bad for the propagation and survival of a species. Although cannibalism can and is used to limit population growth among some marine species. And that’s why cannibalism and inbreeding are taboo in the human-animal species – we have simply taking an evolutionary survival imperative and made it into a moral imperative to keep our higher brain functioning species from doing stupid things to kill us off.

So you are going to need to come up with a more sound argument for the moral and ethical pitfalls of maintaining meat in the diet of an omnivore – one that excludes those logical fallacies of ad hominem, ad nauseum and other fallacies you are fond of employing.


Brighid

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

brighid

And let me add that we have not been “trained” like some sort of circus animal to eat meat – it is a part of our evolutionary make up – we are OMNIVORES! And it is only because our current environment, with it’s technological advances that allows you the chose to truly be a vegetarian. Unless of course you live in an environment that supports the year round growth of fruits and vegetables to support a healthy vegetarian diet. Most of the world does not live in such climates and therefore must adapt their diets to what is available. And if you don’t live in an industrialized nation that has access to adequate transportation, diverse climates for year round harvesting of food, and refrigeration methods – guess what – you are S.O.L. Therefore, there is no objective standard with which to measure the moral or ethical nature of food consumption for the human species. There are subjective standards that can be applied to specific situations, but the universal adoption of vegetarianism is neither realistic or in evolutionary terms – beneficial to the fitness and survival of our species.

Brighid