shamon

They don’t require the meat either. This is my point. They could just as easily eat plant food to get their nutrients but instead eat fast foods and meat. Why do you think this is so? Why isn’t the default that which is good for humans rather than the opposite?
When you lack basic nutrition knowledge you usually eat meat – why is this always so?
They’re dying BECAUSE they’re eating the meat.
I’m not asking everyone to be “perfectly healthy” or advising an “extraordinarily healthy diet”, just asking people to consider the idea that humans shouldn’t kill needlessly. This is ALL I’m talking about. The health benefits of similar lifestyle changes are for another thread.
Killing animals is murder. If I walk up to you and kill you, and it wasn’t in self-defense (meaning it wasn’t my life our yours) then it’s murder. It’s the same regardless of the species. I thought all humans agreed on this simple point.
Let’s stay simple and you tell me whether or not YOU agree with this statement: “Killing anything when it isn’t your life or theirs is wrong”
Do you agree or disagree, personally?

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]</p>

brighid

What part of you cannot get B 12 from non-animal sources don’t you understand? Perhaps you missed the diseases that come from a lack of B12 in ones diet.

What makes you think that I can be a vegetarian? Do you know my specific requirements according to me age, sex, activity level, food allergies (which I have many) and any other health related issues that require I include specific nutrients in my diet from a whole food source to combat that illness? No, I would say you do NOT! Specifically, you aren’t likely aware that the Lysine in chicken helps combat the effects of endometriosis (which I have) and supplementation is not as effective. Endometriosis is quite painful and a bit of chicken in my diet helps limit that pain by a significant degree, to such a degree that I am no longer debilitated by the pain. What about my food allergies (such as to many beans and certain nuts), specifically fruits and vegetables that destroy my stomach or contribute to the onset of an asthma attack? What about my protein and additional iron requirements when I am running 15 or more miles a week, in addition to yoga and 4 days weight training? Or when I am at my peak training as a fitness instructor teaching 6 – 90 minute aerobic classes p/week in addition to martial arts training?

Therefore, even if I would LIKE to be a vegetarian I have certain HEALTH restrictions that make it impossible for me to eliminate meat completely from my diet. Nor do I find that a strictly vegetarian diet is best for overall health, but rather the incorporation of lean meats with 5-7 servings of whole fruits, vegetables, and grains to be best for overall health and proper nutrient intake.

And as I have stated before in other vegetarian threads, I purchase my fruits and vegetables from a local organic farm that provides my family with produce June through November. I do my best to purchase free range eggs, chicken and beef products and as soon as we are able to we will be purchasing all of our meat products from another local, organic farm that does not use pesticides or antibiotics, and allows their animals free range and harvests their animals humanely. I do my best to purchase fish from a local merchant that engages in safe harvesting practices and my milk products are also purchased from organic manufacturers and environmentally responsible businesses. I have actively worked with state and federal environmental agencies campaigning for a whole slew of environmentally sound initiatives. My job entails working for a company that fights for the rights of immigrant workers (you know the ones who are paid hideous wages to harvest your fruits and vegetables) and regularly sue on their behalf in state and federal court.

So Shamon, I don’t know how I can be anymore environmentally responsible or moral then I already am. I personally have to eat meat – like it or not. I know many people with food allergies who cannot restrict their diet to a strictly vegetarian one. So, as much as you and so many others would like to make not eating meat some moral imperative it’s not quite so easy as you would like it be!


Brighid

shamon

I understand about B12 deficiencies. B12 can be gotten from non-animal sources.

<a href="http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm" target="_blank">web page</a>

"The most concentrated sources of lysine are torula yeast, dried and salted cod, soybean protein isolate, soybean protein concentrate, Parmesan cheese, pork loin (excluding fat), dried and frozen tofu, freeze-dried parsley, defatted and low-fat soybean flour, fenugreek seed, and dried spirulina seaweed."

I never said you were immoral, nor is it possible to become “more” moral. If you need meat in your diet to survive then you are not immoral if you eat it, and vice versa. That’s all I ever said.

It’s IMMORAL for YOU or anyone else to eat meat if it isn’t required. You may feel you require it b/c of endometriosis, food allergies, etc. and are not being immoral. It’s so odd that we had to go through all of this to realize WE AGREE.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]</p>

Rational Ag

There is no right or wrong to this question, it's a subjective moral question with no right or wrong. And yes, the "needless killing" of animals is OK if it serves a purpose for me. I enjoy meat; it's scrumptious and nutritious. The hunter down the hall from me enjoys deer hunting; he eats the meat and mounts the horns.

I don't know what you consider immoral. My personal morality doesn't allow me to cheat on my wife or girlfriend. If you think that's ok, then we disagree. We could play this game all afternoon.

Now, now. Don't go forcing your morality on everyone else. There are plenty of societies that it isn't immoral to kill. You need to be a bit more well versed and traveled in the world if you think it's "wrong and immoral to kill no matter what society you are in". Try visiting Papua New Guinea, or one of the many third world countries in Africa.

I disagree. What makes you think there is objective morality? Where do we get this objective morality?

Is homosexuality wrong? Is cannibalism wrong? Is drinking alcohol wrong? Is it immoral for a woman to show her ankles? There are many societies in this world that have moralities that don't agree with yours. To tell someone cannibalism is immoral in a society in which it is accepted would get you laughed at.

Personally, I think it's fine to kill animals. I have no problem with hunting, fishing, or just about any other sport. I have no problem with the killing of animals for food. I know what's involved in raising animals, and what's involved in getting our meat to market. I'm OK with that.

I'm sorry that you live in a society that doesn't agree with your stance on that issue. It' must be terribly troubling for you.

But it's THEM that choose morality, not YOU or ME or anything else. Your personal morality does not make "right" and "wrong", and neither does any other person's.

-Rational Ag

brighid

Shamon –

But these are fortified – hence synthetic manipulations used to acquire this specific dietary requirement. But I can’t eat a natural piece of fruit, any amount of vegetables, or whole grains or nuts AND get this as it occurs in nature. But I can get ALL of those things by eating a piece of meat. And if you don’t have access to these fortified products you need to eat meat. Therefore, it is not an accurate statement to say that humans are not designed to be omnivores or eat meat, when the best source for an essential nutrient comes from an animal source and cannot be found in non-animal sources without manipulation.

I suppose I am overly sensitive to the vegetarian/morality position and I apologize if I have misinterpreted any part of your position. If I personally need to eat meat, (and I feel it is safe to assume that many people need this as well) it cannot be immoral to always eat meat. Therefore, an argument cannot be made for the totality of killing animals for meat as being immoral. Obviously, there are times were killing is acceptable, favorable and necessary and each persons situation should be evaluated critically and objectively before statements can be made about the accuracy of the morality of their dietary needs. Therefore, the argument has been made that one can morally justify the killing of non-human animals for consumption and use of their raw materials. So, if many people find themselves in a similar situation as myself what can be said about the overall moral issue regarding the harvesting of non-human animals? I believe distinctions must be made and blanket statements need to be removed from the argument.

I take real contention with those other posters who have equated the harvesting of animals, under any condition to me equivalent to cannibalism and murder. It is not and part of my hierarchy of the food chain argument is that I, as a human animal take precedence over all other non-human animals, although I feel it is imperative to respect the life and death of all nutrients sources (plant or animal) that will forfeit their existence so I may live (or others human animals may live.)

The very common and fallacious appeal to emotion of the murder argument simply gets my goat, or the ridiculous claim that it’s equivalent to slavery. I am also not convinced that the majority of the population doesn’t need some portion of meat in their diet, although I agree that on average most people eat too much of it and not enough of the other necessary nutrients that can be best served through the incorporation of vegetarian guidelines into their diets.

But I am not convinced that it is immoral to incorporate meat into ones diet even if they don’t have specific health issues that require the incorporation of animal nutrient sources in that diet. It seems to me that the only people who can truly be healthy vegetarians are ones that live in a climate that supports the proper environment for year round fruit and vegetable consumption, along with a community that provides access to the necessary supplementation of B12 at a better price then that of animal sources of B12, and demands that its vegetarian diet be supported by growers that do not hire immigrant workers at sub-standard wages and who don’t harm other non-human animals (such as ground squirrels, moles, etc.) to harvest the food. How many communities throughout the United States meet these requirements and how many people have availability to such ethical choices year round? Isn’t it hypocritical of vegetarians to cry the animal murder game when animals are “murdered” in harvesting of vegetable and fruit crops and human animals are exploited (and killed) as well?

If one can be a healthy vegetarian GREAT! I have not moral compunction against such a thing, but I am against the moral argument against meat consumption for the many reasons I have previously stated.


Brighid

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

MortalWombat

Says who?

If that's your only criteria, then killing and eating many types of plants would be considered murder, as long as those plants aren't NEEDED in the diet.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: MortalWombat ]</p>

shamon

The needless killing is not OK just b/c it serves your purpose. I’m sure we don’t have to discuss other ridiculous things that would also be OK b/c it serves your purpose. Serving a purpose is not a justification for needless killing.
I agree. We really are the same. Humans share a common morality.
3rd World countries and Papua New Guinea don’t needlessly kill. They agree with my premise also.
These aren’t moral issues. Cannabalism is immoral b/c you have to kill humans in order to eat them. If you’re stranded in the Alps and you eat an ALREADY dead human then you’re not a cannibal.
I’m not terribly troubled. Everyone does agree with my stance on unneeded killing, or at least the vast majority does. They just don’t live their stance. All humans pretty much agree (if they’re sane) that to kill something needlessly is wrong. People don’t realize that this includes animals as well. It includes everything alive.
I also have no problem with fishing or hunting if it’s needed. It isn’t needed for you to survive; therefore it’s immoral for you to kill an animal for food. Not everyone else (this includes Papua New Guinea hunters), but you.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]</p>

shamon

Says you. Do you think it’s immoral to “genetically engineer them so they could be raised in incubators with just a brainstem and without pain receptors so they would be unconscious and unfeeling”. If you don’t then why?

All plants that we eat are required. We require nutrients and calories. Plants provide all of these. Meat provides mostly fat and protein. Plants can provide this; therefore we don’t need to kill animals. Let’s not slippery slope into madness about plants having feelings and hearing them scream when we cut them down, etc.

vixstile

This debate is more about,subjective vs. objective morality,than anything else.

Statements can be either intrinsically right/true or intrinsically wrong/false. If there exist an objective morality that states that needlessly killing is wrong,then the statement "needlessly killing is immoral" is a true statement. If no objective morality exist, and morality is completely subjective, then the statement "needlessly killing is immoral" is a false statement.

If you are to justify the statement "needlessly killing is immoral" as being a true statement, then you must justify the existence of an objective morality.

shamon

Animals aren’t the best source, just A source. We aren’t designed to eat meat. Can you eat meat RAW? Of course not b/c it would kill you. We can only eat it when cooked b/c it’s an option if we’re starving. How long have humans even been able to make fire? 40,000 years maybe. Surely not enough time for our physiology to change enough so that we can eat meat raw, which of course we still can’t.

You can get all of your nutrients and calories by not eating meat. Even the aforementioned B12 can be gotten from a few plant sources, and certainly from dairy and eggs. There really is NO reason to kill an animal to survive.

It’s simpler than this. If it’s your life or theirs, kill away. If it’s not your life of theirs then it’s wrong. Do we not agree about this? About THIS statement.

I never equated these things therefore you shouldn’t be angry with me. Bringing up points that aren’t related (like animal harvesting) does nothing but cause the idea to be lost.

I’m not using the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. No one needs meat in their diet. People may lack options but they still don’t need the meat. If you’re on a deserted island and you find a pig, then you can kill it to avoid starvation (if you can’t find what its eating, pigs eat roughly what we do). Otherwise, it’s wrong. Disagree with this specific idea?

I don’t eat meat and I didn’t require all that you wrote about above. These are the things I did NOT require to not eat meat:

“It seems to me that the only people who can truly be healthy vegetarians are ones that”
1. live in a climate that supports the proper environment for year round fruit and vegetable consumption
2. a community that provides access to the necessary supplementation of B12 at a better price then that of animal sources of B12 (your argument for food choices is cost?)
3. a community that demands that its vegetarian diet be supported by growers that do not hire immigrant workers at sub-standard wages and who don’t harm other non-human animals (such as ground squirrels, moles, etc.) to harvest the food.

All I required was that I only eat meat when I must, meaning I’ll die without it. The above reasons aren’t required. You’re making it sound like a big deal, which it isn’t.

Clearly state why you don’t support this statement:

The unneeded killing of animals is wrong.