Freethought & Rationalism Archive

shamon · 04-10-2002, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
shamon,

The question is not as simple as you believe it to be for one reason, which has already been pointed out to you: you have presented the moral principle, "It is wrong to kill something if you do not need to," as though it were a self-evident fact, which it is not. Yes, given that we accept this principle, it does follow that eating meat is, generally, immoral, but you've given us no reason to accept this principle. Can you provide some line of argument that establishes your proposed principle as a valid principle that we ought to follow?

As far as this being a subjective/objective issue, it's not even that. There are objective moral systems that do not hold shamon's proposed moral principle and there are possible subjective systems that do.

I�m asking you what YOU think? Do YOU accept my principle? I�m not (nor have I ever) asked what others think about this idea, only you the responder. What do you think? Is the unneeded killing of anything wrong? For YOU?

shamon · 04-10-2002, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
It doesn't follow from rejecting the principle "It is wrong to kill something if you do not need to" that one accepts the principle "It is right to kill something if you do not need to."

Now, why would I consider it wrong to kill something? Well, the primary reason would seem to be the empathy I would feel for it, since while there are potentially other reasons that could be more important, they don't always apply.

Now, why would I consider it right to kill something? Something would have to overcome whatever empathy I would feel for whatever is being killed. In the case of killing for meat, this could theoretically be my desire to stay alive, but generally it is the enjoyment I derive from eating meat.

Apparently this is not true in your case and you may consider me immoral as a result. Still, this does not mean that I should consider myself immoral or stop eating meat.

Your justification for killing an animal for food is taste?

brighid · 04-10-2002, 04:36 AM

Quote:

You can eat red meat RAW?

YEAP!! Haven't you heard of RARE? Although, generally I like to sear it a bit to lock in the flavors and deglazing the pan with the juices from the seared meat with a little garlic, red wine and cracked black pepper is DELICIOUS!

Mmmmmmmmmmm goooooodddddddd!!!!!

Raw meat (if it weren't contaminated with any microbes or pathogens to make you sick) is actually more nutritious then cooked meat. Cooking fruits, vegetables, or meat destroys some of the vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.

Brighid

shamon · 04-10-2002, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yellow3:


The question as posed by shamon, though (at least, insofar as I can tell from his starvation examples) is not 'would the quality of my life really suck if I was not killing animals'. It's more along the lines of 'would I drop dead if I didn't?' And the answer is no, I wouldn't. I'd probably have psychological problems in no short order; in fact, I probably already do, since a tendency towards cleanliness has shifted up several gears to 'compulsion' due to those six-legged little sonsabitches. But I'd live. Unless I'm missing some information here, they're not carrying anything lethal like bubonic plague or hantavirus, here.

People can live through a lot of conditions and on diets ranging from exclusive meat to pure vegetarian. That we can do so does not make any of these conditions some sort of moral obligation, however.

- Jen

Our moral obligation is ALWAYS to do the best we can. The best YOU can do is not eating meat b/c it�s not required for YOUR diet. Humans may be capable of any diet, but only the ethical diet reduces suffering to a minimal amount. The lowest amount of suffering YOU must be a part of is: none. Congratulations b/c you don�t HAVE to be involved in the killing of animals for food. You have the choice. They may not, but YOU do, which is all this thread is about.

The world may be unfair but YOU don�t have to be.

shamon · 04-10-2002, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Sorry Jen – but you are wrong! Perhaps you wouldn't drop dead today, but eventually you would. If you ate a strictly vegetarian diet, as found in nature without the benefit of supplementation of B-12 from a synthesized source you would die. If you were pregnant and did not get any B-12 (folate) you child would likely suffer from birth defects. That is why it is recommended to make sure you are getting adequate B-12 in your diet prior to becoming pregnant and all through your pregnancy. While pregnant your need for iron doubles and because the human body does not absorb iron or amino acids (the building blocks of life) very well from plant sources (1-8% absorbtion rate vs. 22-23% from animal protein) a naturally occurring vegetarian diet (without the benefit of synthesized supplementation) can be very detrimental to the health of the mother and the unborn baby.

So we agree that a vegetarian diet is perfectly sufficient for anyone? Pregnant women should really be more worried about folic acid rather than B12. It can be gotten from dairy/eggs so just eat that if you�re so worried about B12 and don�t be involved in the killing of an animal.

�Reabsorption is the reason it can take over 20 years for deficiency disease to develop in people changing to diets absent in B12. In comparison, if B12 deficiency is due to a failure in absorption it can take only 3 years for deficiency disease to occur.�

It takes 3 to 20 years for you B12 supply to diminish.

Also you mentioned �If you were pregnant and did not get any B-12 (folate) you child would likely suffer from birth defects.�

Are you implying that vitamin B12 is the same as folate? Leafy greens such as spinach and turnip greens, dry beans and peas, fortified cereals and grain products, and some fruits and vegetables are rich food sources of folate. Here�s some folate info:

<a href="http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/folate.html" target="_blank">web page</a>

Quote:

Therefore, prior to the advent of certain technology within this last century the human animal would have been unable to survive well (if at all) if it didn’t eat meat. Perhaps someday our bodies may evolve to better use vegetable protein and no longer require B-12 for proper muscular, organ and neural function but I am afraid we won’t live to see that day. Regardless of the spin to the contrary, the human body is designed to obtain its necessary nutrients from animal AND plant sources. The most important nutrients (amino acids, and other aforementioned nutrients) are all found in a piece of meat (fish, chicken, beef, pork, shellfish) and are absorbed at a significantly higher rate then the same nutrients found in non-animal sources. Dairy products are not sufficient sources of those nutrients, nor are they absorbed as well as a strictly animal meat source. Without those essential nutrients we would eventually become weak, more susceptible to illness and succumb to the diseases caused by the lack of, or insufficient amounts of those nutrients in our diet. There would be more children born with life threatening birth defects, more naturally aborted pregnancies, more women dieing during or after child birth, more children dieing young, and all of this is counter productive to the continuation of the species.

So what you�re saying is if you can�t be a vegetarian, then do the most ethical thing and be macrobiotic and eat saltwater fish? I agree, it�s the diet that�s required that limits suffering the most.

Quote:

Even though plant sources are rich in many of those vital nutrients the human body cannot process it efficiently and as evidenced by the poor absorbtion rates, the lack of complete protein and the absence of B-12 in all plant sources – MEAT is necessary for every human being to be healthy, hence we are going to have to kill some animals – even if we think they are cute and fuzzy.

No animal (at least mammalian animal) needs to be killed for you to get B12. You can get it from dairy or supplements.

Quote:

Therefore, even if we have enormous empathy for those animals it is NOT immoral to kill an animal for nutrients and it’s NOT murder. It’s truly unfortunate that the human animal did not evolve with some of the more fabulous survival mechanisms that the crocodile has. A crocodile can go approximately one year without eating and its body produces a natural antibiotic that heals its body amazingly well. But alas, out of the evolutionary goop we somehow managed to either turn that genetic benefit into junk DNA or we just weren’t lucky enough to get it. That is also another example of the poor design the alleged Creator of the Universe “designed” us with!

If we still had this reptilian �benefit� humans wouldn�t be as smart as they are. We�re lucky it�s not there. It�s actually a great design. Every specialization means less intelligence, which is why humans have been so successful � we�re great generalists.

Quote:

So, although in modern society that has access to the proper supplements and fortifications to the human diet, one can be healthy on a vegetarian diet and a primarily vegetarian diet should be encouraged but meat should not be perceived as the enemy. TOO much of anything is bad for the human body, so moderation is the key. And if you are sedentary you should eat sparingly so you don’t become obese!

NO meat is required as evidenced by your own post. You can get the prized B12 from some plant and certainly from dairy and eggs. Does this require killing?

shamon · 04-10-2002, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Sorry Jen – but you are wrong! Perhaps you wouldn't drop dead today, but eventually you would. If you ate a strictly vegetarian diet, as found in nature without the benefit of supplementation of B-12 from a synthesized source you would die. If you were pregnant and did not get any B-12 (folate) you child would likely suffer from birth defects. That is why it is recommended to make sure you are getting adequate B-12 in your diet prior to becoming pregnant and all through your pregnancy. While pregnant your need for iron doubles and because the human body does not absorb iron or amino acids (the building blocks of life) very well from plant sources (1-8% absorbtion rate vs. 22-23% from animal protein) a naturally occurring vegetarian diet (without the benefit of synthesized supplementation) can be very detrimental to the health of the mother and the unborn baby.

So we agree that a vegetarian diet is perfectly sufficient for anyone? Pregnant women should really be more worried about folic acid rather than B12. It can be gotten from dairy/eggs so just eat that if you�re so worried about B12 and don�t be involved in the killing of an animal.

�Reabsorption is the reason it can take over 20 years for deficiency disease to develop in people changing to diets absent in B12. In comparison, if B12 deficiency is due to a failure in absorption it can take only 3 years for deficiency disease to occur.�

It takes 3 to 20 years for you B12 supply to diminish.

Also you mentioned �If you were pregnant and did not get any B-12 (folate) you child would likely suffer from birth defects.� Are you implying that vitamin B12 is the same as folate? Leafy greens such as spinach and turnip greens, dry beans and peas, fortified cereals and grain products, and some fruits and vegetables are rich food sources of folate. Here�s some folate info:
<a href="http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/folate.html" target="_blank">http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/folate.html</a>

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid:


YEAP!! Haven't you heard of RARE? Although, generally I like to sear it a bit to lock in the flavors and deglazing the pan with the juices from the seared meat with a little garlic, red wine and cracked black pepper is DELICIOUS!

Mmmmmmmmmmm goooooodddddddd!!!!!

Raw meat (if it weren't contaminated with any microbes or pathogens to make you sick) is actually more nutritious then cooked meat. Cooking fruits, vegetables, or meat destroys some of the vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.

Brighid

You did NOT say RARE, you said RAW. Have you every bought some meat and eaten it RAW? This is what you stated. Was it delicious?

brighid · 04-10-2002, 05:10 AM

Shamon –

I completely disagree with you. And I am not going to rehash all the arguments I have thus far presented. Some killing animals IS necessary for the proper growth and development of the vast majority of the human population. MOST people, including in the US do not have access to, or have the financial ability to afford the synthetic substances necessary to fortify a vegetarian diet so they can be HEALTHY! The human body processes the necessary nutrients for life BEST from meat. Whole food sources are always the best - period - even if some of our dietary needs can come from artificial sources.

I want to address the Lysine and the vegetable sources you sighted. Although those vegetable sources are indeed rich in Lysine the problem is they are VEGETABLE sources, and lysine (one of those amino acids the human body doesn’t produce) from a vegetable source cannot be absorbed well by the HUMAN body. Because my need for it is greater MEAT is the best source because no matter how many vegetables I eat my body won’t be able to extract the necessary amount from vegetable or synthesized sources! So, despite their high content they are actual POOR sources of it if my body can’t process it efficiently.

If we NEED whole food sources to naturally achieve health and sustain life (again B-12,etc.) then killing and harvesting animals is NOT immoral, specifically because plant sources ARE deficient. As discussed ad nauseum here – we should seek to create the least amount of suffering for animals and we should conserve our resources, but that does not make the killing of animals to fulfill the dietary needs of HUMANS (because of our nature) wrong. Now, if you would like to discuss the living conditions of domesticated and harvested animals that would be great. I doubt we would find much to disagree on. Thus far, you have failed to present an accurate argument for the immorality of killing and eating animals.

So, all in all, I am afraid that I do have to be "unfair" as you put it - as do the majority of humans. If you don't want to eat meat great! I am not going to impose that upon you. Eventually though, my off spring will over take the weaker off spring of the vegetarian and vegan and as always, Mother Nature will award the prize to "the survival of the fittest!"

Brighid

shamon · 04-10-2002, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid:
Shamon –

I completely disagree with you. And I am not going to rehash all the arguments I have thus far presented. Some killing animals IS necessary for the proper growth and development of the vast majority of the human population. MOST people, including in the US do not have access to, or have the financial ability to afford the synthetic substances necessary to fortify a vegetarian diet so they can be HEALTHY! The human body processes the necessary nutrients for life BEST from meat. Whole food sources are always the best - period - even if some of our dietary needs can come from artificial sources.

I want to address the Lysine and the vegetable sources you sighted. Although those vegetable sources are indeed rich in Lysine the problem is they are VEGETABLE sources, and lysine (one of those amino acids the human body doesn’t produce) from a vegetable source cannot be absorbed well by the HUMAN body. Because my need for it is greater MEAT is the best source because no matter how many vegetables I eat my body won’t be able to extract the necessary amount from vegetable or synthesized sources! So, despite their high content they are actual POOR sources of it if my body can’t process it efficiently.

If we NEED whole food sources to naturally achieve health and sustain life (again B-12,etc.) then killing and harvesting animals is NOT immoral, specifically because plant sources ARE deficient. As discussed ad nauseum here – we should seek to create the least amount of suffering for animals and we should conserve our resources, but that does not make the killing of animals to fulfill the dietary needs of HUMANS (because of our nature) wrong. Now, if you would like to discuss the living conditions of domesticated and harvested animals that would be great. I doubt we would find much to disagree on. Thus far, you have failed to present an accurate argument for the immorality of killing and eating animals.

So, all in all, I am afraid that I do have to be "unfair" as you put it - as do the majority of humans. If you don't want to eat meat great! I am not going to impose that upon you. Eventually though, my off spring will over take the weaker off spring of the vegetarian and vegan and as always, Mother Nature will award the prize to "the survival of the fittest!"

Brighid

Please respond to the following comments :

1. You did NOT say RARE, you said RAW. Have you every bought some meat and eaten it RAW? This is what you stated. Was it delicious?
2. Why did you imply that lack of B12 (which you associated with folate) will give you baby birth defects?

I am curious about your answers. If you can digest raw meat I would certainly be interested in your experience.

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]

shamon · 04-10-2002, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid:
Shamon –

I completely disagree with you. And I am not going to rehash all the arguments I have thus far presented. Some killing animals IS necessary for the proper growth and development of the vast majority of the human population. MOST people, including in the US do not have access to, or have the financial ability to afford the synthetic substances necessary to fortify a vegetarian diet so they can be HEALTHY! The human body processes the necessary nutrients for life BEST from meat. Whole food sources are always the best - period - even if some of our dietary needs can come from artificial sources.

I want to address the Lysine and the vegetable sources you sighted. Although those vegetable sources are indeed rich in Lysine the problem is they are VEGETABLE sources, and lysine (one of those amino acids the human body doesn’t produce) from a vegetable source cannot be absorbed well by the HUMAN body. Because my need for it is greater MEAT is the best source because no matter how many vegetables I eat my body won’t be able to extract the necessary amount from vegetable or synthesized sources! So, despite their high content they are actual POOR sources of it if my body can’t process it efficiently.

If we NEED whole food sources to naturally achieve health and sustain life (again B-12,etc.) then killing and harvesting animals is NOT immoral, specifically because plant sources ARE deficient. As discussed ad nauseum here – we should seek to create the least amount of suffering for animals and we should conserve our resources, but that does not make the killing of animals to fulfill the dietary needs of HUMANS (because of our nature) wrong. Now, if you would like to discuss the living conditions of domesticated and harvested animals that would be great. I doubt we would find much to disagree on. Thus far, you have failed to present an accurate argument for the immorality of killing and eating animals.

So, all in all, I am afraid that I do have to be "unfair" as you put it - as do the majority of humans. If you don't want to eat meat great! I am not going to impose that upon you. Eventually though, my off spring will over take the weaker off spring of the vegetarian and vegan and as always, Mother Nature will award the prize to "the survival of the fittest!"

Brighid

The fittest among humans is the most generalized. Generalization (not specialization) = intelligence. Meat eating is a specialization and those that don't eat meat will be the fittest (read smartest).

Less is more it seems with humans. The greatness of humans lies more with what we don�t do rather than what we do. Generalization is the key to intelligence, which is why we�re omnivores. We CAN eat meat if we must but only when cooked and only when we�re starving. Otherwise, what�s the point?

It�s really unfair to condemn my potential children to �less fitness�. Your last paragraph can be summarized as, �If your child is a vegetarian then it will be less fit than my child and my child will over take that weakling.�

Is this really fair? What if I implied your children were going to be �less fit� and less successful than my children? What if my Dad could beat your Dad up?

free12thinker · 04-10-2002, 05:32 AM

I agree with you 100%. And though I have read that people "don't always" have access to the vegetation required to sustain a nutritious diet, I simply reply, that's because we don't try. Meat is such a staple in our diet that it only makes sense that some places, countries, societies, have enough meat products and not enough vegetatarian products. But this can change. It's addition (veggies) by subtraction (meat). But people will not give up meat. People love steak. I think steak is one of the best tasting foods ever, that said, I haven't touched it in 6 years. I grew a heart. I found it meaningless and heartless to eat a being that was breathing as I am. That was moving as I am. That had a family as I do. To argue that we need meat is to disregard scientific facts. To argue that animals are put here for us would require one to answer the following questions. Why do they have defense mechanisms? Why do they have feelings at all? If animals have defense mechanisms and we are stronger than them and therefore able to kill them, than we can certainly kill each other. If animals have feelings and squashing those feelings because we can is acceptable, than our own feelings are rendered meaningless.

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

04-10-2002, 05:10 AM	#67
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Shamon – I completely disagree with you. And I am not going to rehash all the arguments I have thus far presented. Some killing animals IS necessary for the proper growth and development of the vast majority of the human population. MOST people, including in the US do not have access to, or have the financial ability to afford the synthetic substances necessary to fortify a vegetarian diet so they can be HEALTHY! The human body processes the necessary nutrients for life BEST from meat. Whole food sources are always the best - period - even if some of our dietary needs can come from artificial sources. I want to address the Lysine and the vegetable sources you sighted. Although those vegetable sources are indeed rich in Lysine the problem is they are VEGETABLE sources, and lysine (one of those amino acids the human body doesn’t produce) from a vegetable source cannot be absorbed well by the HUMAN body. Because my need for it is greater MEAT is the best source because no matter how many vegetables I eat my body won’t be able to extract the necessary amount from vegetable or synthesized sources! So, despite their high content they are actual POOR sources of it if my body can’t process it efficiently. If we NEED whole food sources to naturally achieve health and sustain life (again B-12,etc.) then killing and harvesting animals is NOT immoral, specifically because plant sources ARE deficient. As discussed ad nauseum here – we should seek to create the least amount of suffering for animals and we should conserve our resources, but that does not make the killing of animals to fulfill the dietary needs of HUMANS (because of our nature) wrong. Now, if you would like to discuss the living conditions of domesticated and harvested animals that would be great. I doubt we would find much to disagree on. Thus far, you have failed to present an accurate argument for the immorality of killing and eating animals. So, all in all, I am afraid that I do have to be "unfair" as you put it - as do the majority of humans. If you don't want to eat meat great! I am not going to impose that upon you. Eventually though, my off spring will over take the weaker off spring of the vegetarian and vegan and as always, Mother Nature will award the prize to "the survival of the fittest!" Brighid

04-10-2002, 05:32 AM	#70
free12thinker Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: DC Metropolitan Area Posts: 417	I agree with you 100%. And though I have read that people "don't always" have access to the vegetation required to sustain a nutritious diet, I simply reply, that's because we don't try. Meat is such a staple in our diet that it only makes sense that some places, countries, societies, have enough meat products and not enough vegetatarian products. But this can change. It's addition (veggies) by subtraction (meat). But people will not give up meat. People love steak. I think steak is one of the best tasting foods ever, that said, I haven't touched it in 6 years. I grew a heart. I found it meaningless and heartless to eat a being that was breathing as I am. That was moving as I am. That had a family as I do. To argue that we need meat is to disregard scientific facts. To argue that animals are put here for us would require one to answer the following questions. Why do they have defense mechanisms? Why do they have feelings at all? If animals have defense mechanisms and we are stronger than them and therefore able to kill them, than we can certainly kill each other. If animals have feelings and squashing those feelings because we can is acceptable, than our own feelings are rendered meaningless.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.