Rusting Car Bumper

I didn't say "eat." I said "use." So again... There's more to it than empathy.

Even if I had only suggested this in diet then your comment confirms mine. That is, there is more than empathy.

The point is that the moral arguments don't wash. You even said it yourself by deflecting the moral argument and shifting to a pragmatic one. The moral argument requires a bizaare twisting of what's reasonable or simply arbitrary categorization.

Boy you love the straw man dont you?

I didn't dismiss vegans as irrational fundies. I said the one's I met are like fundies and i fact I said it was a condition subject to new evidence.

I didn't invent the argument I am pushing so calling it "individual" is false, a non-sequitar and an attack.

Further I suggest that the vegan is not empathetic as I am. I have empathy for the plants and all species but as a conclusion I see the problem as intractable. You again (and again and again) connect empathy to a specific action even though you claim otherwise.

DC

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

Valmorian

[/b]

At one point in North American history, there were so many buffalo that it was unthinkable that they would ever disappear.

There's hardly any now. This extreme decrease in population was due to the demand for animal byproducts.




This is true, they would probably die out. Although there ARE "wild cows".

brighid

Male bodybuilders generally stay away from soy protein because it is a natural estrogen and prefer whey protein as a supplement, and is generally not largely based on either soy or whey protein. Their diets do contain a large amount of chicken, egg whites and fish because of the quality of protein and the completeness of the amino acids and other nutrients that can only be found fully in animal products. Those that aren’t lactose intolerant find casein to be an awesome protein and it is found in large quantities in cottage cheese.

There are, of course, vegetarian body builders and other athletes but the majority of these athletes are omnivores that follow pretty strict dietary guidelines and engage in intense amounts of exercise.

I think some animals that have been overly domesticated would certainly die out, but I have seen no evidence presented that cows, goats, chickens or other livestock would be unable to forage and feed themselves if they were suddenly let out of their pens and into a more “wild” setting. I personally feel all livestock should be free-range, not only for the betterment of the life of the animal but also for the better nutritional value free range animals provide for humans and the environmental health of the planet. I don’t see any reason why this solution would not address the main concerns of animal rights activists, environmentalists and others concerned about global health.

I have yet to find that vegetable protein is a better quality protein then animal, or that when a balanced diet is chosen that meat is in any way harmful to the human diet. I have found credible evidence that too much grain fed animal products, sodium, nitrates, saturated fats, refined and processed foods and high glycemic carbohydrates play a detrimental role in human health. Other then animal product related issues (that can be addressed through free range products) related to health all the same health issues, and others can and do afflict the vegan and vegetarian. A vegetarian lifestyle does not automatically equate to a healthy diet or even a healthy body mass ratio. It can, but so can an omnivorous diet.

It seems the key to individual health is to be in tune with ones personal health needs, address them through proper nutrition and exercise. The ethical issues of cruelty to animals can be addressed with the humane treatment of those animals prior to harvest, free range lifestyles and the minimization of harm to the environment through responsible and more organic farming.

The demand for animal protein and products is unlikely to go down, but the demand for the humane treatment of animals has gone up and that is why we see free range and organic products available in mainstream grocery stores. I don’t foresee myself giving up animal products in the near future. I do my best to buy from responsible growers and support local farms that allow free-range lifestyles and don’t use hormones and antibiotics in the process of raising their animals.

I have, what I would classify as an enormous amount of empathy for animals but I find no ethical issue with harvesting certain animals for their meat and other products when done humanely.

I cannot find veganism or vegetarianism to be immoral, even if some are fundamentalists and hold an eltist attitude. I think each person should be judged individually because this is how I wish to be evaluated.

Brighid

tronvillain

Feather:
There can be no <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=empathy" target="_blank">empathy</a> for that which does not feel.

It may be anthropomorphic, but that is simply because organisms which more closely resemble humans appear to have a greater capacity for suffering. Unless you are an extremely unusual human being, your actions are guided by empathy, and you feel maximum empathy for humans, down through the various organisms, to a minimum empathy at inanimate materials.

I am not claiming that only killing and eating things out of Kingdom Plantae rather than Kingdom Animalia makes one empathic. What I am actually claiming is that being empathic makes one more likely to only kill and eat things out of Kingdom Planta rather than Kingdom Animalia. If you wish to call that stupid, there will be trouble.

It is certainly not necessarily more moral, given the subjective nature of morality - I myself do not consider it more moral. As for empathy, since it can be felt for animals but not plannts, it is not difficult to see how choosing to kill planst rather than animals would be the choice favoured by empathy.

tronvillain

brighid:
I am hard pressed to think of an environment in which chickens could survive in the wild for even a brief period of time. Beef cattle do spend most of their lives ina free range environment, but the vast majority of them would probably starve to death in winter. As for pigs, I am uncertain as to how effective they would be at foraging, and their chances against surviving predation and winters seem slim. No, the wild would probably be a death sentence for most livestock in North America.

Kip

GPL:

Thank you very much for that link. Kurzweilai net only posted that story today.

There is a relevant difference, however, between eating plenty of wafers and starvation. I would certainly eat wafers but I am not sure how much starvation I could tolerate. I have actually known about Caloric Restriction for quite a while. I have yet, however, to practice that with any sense of discipline or accuracy. Rather, I tend to naturally limit my caloric intake by eating foods with low calories and high satiety factors (water based, high fiber foods such as oatmeal and fruits). I probably practice about 5% CR (possibly more considering exercise) which is better than nothing. Perhaps I will do more in the future, but I have reservations about the effects of CR on mental/athletic performance and I do not have the time/energy, as a student, that CR requires (perhaps I will as a more independent adult).

That may happen too. However, none of these benefits are guaranteed and I am sure that doctors will find extending the lives of healthy people much easier than extending the lives of non-healthy meat eaters. The question is how much are you prepared to risk so that you can eat animal flesh?

You may be very right. In that case, a discussion of the aesthetic as well as moral aspects of flesh eating would be appropriate. The healthy issues would be irrelevant. I suppose that I may even eat a steak, and yet, the thought of doing so now, even hypothetically, repulses me. Oh well...

Primal

Well in nature there are really no pure carnivores or herbivores either way. Cows eat bugs for example and so-called carnivores will occasionally nibble on grass and such.

Rusting Car Bumper

I don't see how your Encatra link furthers your argument.

DC

Feather

The definition on m-w.com doesn't help, either.

Encarta's definition actually supports our case, as apparently tronvillain is assuming plants are "objects" (rather than "persons") in this context.

Face it, tronvillain: the moral argument for veganism is just that: a subjective, religious-like argument based on bad "logic" regarding "analysis" of emotion (i.e. arbitrarily placed "empathy").

Just as a disclaimer: I am a "lacto-ovo" vegetarian (I eat dairy and egg products), but for health reasons. I "quit" meat "cold turkey" (har har--good pun) and after the first two weeks I discovered I'd never felt better. So I stuck with it. But I have no quarrel with killing animals for food or fun.

tronvillain

No, I am using "understanding of another’s feelings" not "the attribution of one's feelings to an object" - that is a completely different usage of the word. Am I to understand that you take the position that it is actually possible to empathize with a plant or a rock despite the fact that they have no feelings?

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>