|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Just to remind folks of our larger topic, we're walking around the notions of "what we choose to eat" and "what we choose to kill" looking for some places we can find useful guidelines.
Even though our game players may be pre-tenderized and domesticated I suggest that the game vendors would object to having their cash cows not only milked but subject to culling. However, if televised perhaps we could add that to the games and permit tournament losers to find some immortality as part of the winning celebrations?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-25 22:11, LobowolfXXX wrote: Because of our versatility omnivores stand the best chances of survival and has played a significant role in the longevity of many a specie. People draw the line when they have the option. I'm very active, eating powdered protein, eggs, or beans doesn't cut it for me. Plus, I enjoy the taste of meat. My wife cannot eat a fish with it's head attached. Whereas, I can catch, kill, clean and eat anything, for I don't run from my animal nature; it's why I am. My wife's uncle was incarcerated in a sewer, for two years, after his capture during the botched Bay of Pigs invasion. He had no compunction whatsoever in sustaining his life by eating rats and cockroaches. If the instinctive gene is gone from your DNA, there's little nourishment to be had outside of an idealistic Eden.
POOF!
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-26 11:53, kregg wrote: I've made to age 38 without having to spend two years in a sewer and live on rats and cockroaches. As I am beyond draft age, and live in a large metropolitan area, my strong suspicion is that I will live out the rest of my days with the same versatile options that I've had so far. As I suggested in an earlier post in this thread, I believe that, where applicable, "necessity" is a good justification for many actions that would otherwise be immoral (e.g. stealing for profit vs. stealing for survival). The more interesting question is not whether killing and eating things is morally justified when it's required for one's own survival, but whether it's morally justified because they taste good. There was a time at which omnivorism was probably (certainly?) critical to our survival as a species, and I imagine there weren't too many vegetarians around then. In today's day and age, however, it's not at all clear whether it's useful. Both omnivores and vegetarians who are more nutritionally inclined than I argue for the advantages of their own way of life (or, as Buffalo Springfield would say, "mostly say hooray for our side..."). I don't think there's any definitive scientific proof as to whether eating meat or not eating meat will make you live longer (though I suspect it's a small difference, either way). It's interesting that you make a survival of the species argument; one strong survival trait is adaptability. It may be that vegetarians are better fit to survive longer now, because with the existence of nutritional information and alternatives to eating meat, they have been flexible enough to change their habits. Those negative side-effects that went along with a meat-based diet, e.g. the effect of red meat on the arteries and heart, no longer apply to them, while the omnivores' adherence to the "traditional" approach to diet may mostly reflect a lack of adaptability. Yeah, we all used to be omnivores back in the day...we didn't live too long then, either (obviously there is a multitude of causes for that). I don't know or care enough about the nutritional aspects of it to be completely conversant with all of the arguments. I do know that there are lots of vegetarians who'll tell you that vegetarians are healthier, and lots of omnivores who'll tell you that omnivores are healthier. My personal experience is that I don't think I've been a whole lot more OR less healthy since I became a vegetarian. I don't see any real empirical reason for your confidence that omnivores "stand the best chance of survival." Your consumption of meat may be helping you live longer. It may also be shortening your life. I imagine it will be a very long time (read: centuries) before there's a definitive consensus on the matter. I also suspect that nutrition and survival doesn't play much of a role in your decision making process; it's just something that makes a nice argument, in the same way that death penalty detractors will throw cost into the discussion, as if it had anything to do with their positions. C'mon now, tell the truth...when it really comes down to your day-to-day decisions, is anything more than "It tastes good" and/or "I like to kill stuff" involved in your calculations? I think some of the issue comes down to what the available substitutes are, and that varies from community to community. I don't know to what extent it's cause, and to what extent it's effect. If the only vegetarian options for protein are powdered supplements or beans, then people are less likely to be vegetarians, indeed. Where I live, you can get a vegetarian substitute for just about anything you've ever eaten, and a great deal of it, nobody would have any idea that they weren't eating meat. Interesting questions as to whether you don't see vegan restaurants in heavily meat-eating communities because they wouldn't succeed, or whether those communities have fewer vegetarians because of the lack of available options. Probably a bit of both.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts |
"...but whether it's morally justified because they taste good(?)"
Morality is a roadblock for a guilty mind. It's a bit priggish of you to cite the church of vegan mantra; from cannibalistic nazi pagans to sacrosanct dalliance. As a card carrying member of the animal majority, I don't need more justification than "meat tastes good."
POOF!
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Tastes good, more filling
and permits us to walk on the grass and climb trees with less guilt. I'll put "Don DeLillo's White Noise" on my to-do list, thanks
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-26 15:28, kregg wrote: I suppose different people have different definitions of "priggish." You brought up an extremely rare, unlikely example of a guy forced to live in a sewer and consume animals to survive as if it had anything at all to do whether we as human beings have a "necessity" to eat animals to survive. I'll concede the point that when necessity exists, eating animals is not immoral. I'm providing my own opinions, as everyone else is, but beyond that, all I'm doing is raising the questions that are implicated by others' comments. I don't care whether or not you choose to contribute or explore the moral philosophy of the issue, but if you DO choose to, then at least be intellectually honest about it. If your rationale is "convenience," then don't hide behind "necessity." I agree that Nazism, cannibalism, and slavery are extreme examples, and in a sense, absurd comparisons. In another sense, however, I don't think they're absurd as comparisons -- They were pretty much explained/justified/rationalized, whatever you want to call it, by explanations like, "because we want to," "because we can," and "because the society we're living in now generally accepts it" (which the exception of cannabilism, which still could be explained by "because I can," and "because I think people taste good." There are probably three camps of omnivores with respect to the moral question - 1. Those who think it's immoral but do it anyway. 2. Those who don't think it's immoral. 3. Those who don't care much about moral philosophy and don't concern themselves with the question of whether it immoral or not. I would expect that groups 1 or 3 wouldn't be too interested in this discussion. Group 2 omnivores, by definition at least someone interested in the study of moral principles and not finding a problem with omnivorism (and I have good friends in this category) should be able to come up with something better than "because we can," and "because they taste good." If you're in group 3 (and by "you" I mean anyone, and not one particular person) and you're still reading this thread, I have to suspect that it's a knee-jerk reaction to having one of your regular practices called immoral. On the other hand, if you don't really care or think about moral philosophy, then you probably don't have any good reason NOT to think it's immoral. If you're in group 1 and you're still reading this thread, you're probably either a masochist or (possibly) a future vegetarian. Most people who think that animal consumption is immoral, but continue in the practice, generally don't dwell on the subject. Myself, I went from group 3 (not really a disinterest in philosophy, but just sort of something I never spent much time with) to group 1; when I did think about my belief system, my practices, and some of the logical questions that they implicated, I came to believe that it was an immoral practice, that I continued to engage in for quite a while, then eventually stopped. "They taste good," and "Because we can" aren't rationales that support the idea that a practice is moral; they're explanations for why people engage in practices that are immoral. "Morality is a roadblock for a guilty mind" sounds like something Nietzsche would have come up with if Hitler had put him on his PR team.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Doug Higley 1942 - 2022 7152 Posts |
I ate a carrot once.
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
|
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Shame on you, Doug! Carrots can't even be justified by the "they taste good" model.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
kregg Inner circle 1950 Posts |
I love carrots, slightly steamed with dill, salt & pepper and a drizzling of olive oil.
<----- see that picture? I was 45 when that was taken. I don't worry, I don't have conscious laden restless nights, and I haven't had so much as a cold since I dropped out of college.
POOF!
|
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
I'm pretty firmly on camp 2 and don't have nightmares about any cows, carrots, fungi or people accusing me of being disrespectful to my food.
I do have to take a step back from the use of parochial terms like "moral" and "ethical" and look at the underlying themes that may be informing our prejudice and restricting our perspective on this issue. If you're wearing blinders you may also be someone's chattel. I heard a rumor that they take the blinders off when you are ready to go to the glue factory or wherever.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Blindside785 Inner circle Olympia, WA 4541 Posts |
Sush, let me eat my beef taco.
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Part of the ethical problem is determining if we have duties toward animals. Here is a story that has stirred considerable local discussion.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2......use.html Now tell me, do you believe that this young man did something wrong? Or is this just another case of making a false analogy between morality toward humans and morality toward other creatures? John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Let's see
Somebody else's pet Were charges filed by the owner? * Just what was the emotional context of all this? Did this start with an accident? Was it a matter of economics regarding calling in the vet to euthanize the animal before all that "do it yourself" stuff started? And, getting back to the topic... was the dog later eaten in memoriam? My feeling is that the person acted irresponsibly (or ineptly) and really does need some sort of time-out to settle with this sorry story.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
Doug Higley 1942 - 2022 7152 Posts |
If things have to die to sustain other things, I prefer to be the sustaned.
Yet amongst all the magnificent Preditors and Prey, arguably the most beautiful, powerful, fast, useful, trustworthy, versatile and with totally amazing stamina and agility, lives on Grains and Grasses. Hiyo Silver! I eat meat because it is available...if it was not I wouldn't really miss it all that much.
Higley's Giant Flea Pocket Zibit
|
|||||||||
enginemagic Special user Bluffton Indiana 597 Posts |
Part of the food chain ,I I know veggies are a healthy way to go ,but lack of meats can lower muscle building is what I understand ,we grew up on eating a good mixture of veggies & meat, we can see with that & hard physical labor you can develop a strong body.as I have moving around heavy things is not a problem for me ,like a upright piano,1,100 lb Witte B-12 oil feild engine,major appliances.
chuck
theres a lot to learn out there,many interesting subjects,and hobbies to enjoy
|
|||||||||
ed rhodes Inner circle Rhode Island 2885 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-05-26 17:13, Blindside785 wrote: Just watch out for the lettuce or the spinich!
"...and if you're too afraid of goin' astray, you won't go anywhere." - Granny Weatherwax
|
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
We are supposed to treat animals kindly because it's right, but animals have no right to be treated kindly. There is a cavernous expanse that separates animals and man. We have more than just intelligence on our side. We have self-awareness and consciousness, the moral sense that guides us in our dealings with others. Animals know nothing of this. They're all about instinct and training.
So I'll take my hamburgers, steaks, chicken and pork chops, thank you. They're good, and there's nothing morally wrong with them at all. Carrie |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-06-07 19:51, Carrie Sue wrote: Your response suggests that it might be ok to kill the severely retarded; some human beings lack the intelligence of some animals, and are largely without self-awareness, consciousness, and moral sense. An explicitly religious take on the distinction takes care of this overlap by claiming that all human beings have a soul, unlike all other animals; relying on other characterstics such as intelligence etc., leaves unaddressed the problem that while human beings are generally the most intelligent species in the animal kingdom, not all human beings are smarter than all other animals.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
Mr. Lobo,
My response does not suggest anything of the kind, and I'm amazed you would suggest such a thing. In an evolutionary humanistic sense, of course you're right. Such disnotables as Peter Singer, "Ethics" professor at Princeton, believe that parents should have a one-year time window AFTER the birth of a child in order to decide whether or not to terminate that little one if some physical defect presents itself. The main philosophy underlying "assisted suicide" is that suffering is bad, and it's better to kill the patient like you would put a crippled horse down. Inconceivable! The Bible talks about human beings as having an infinite intrinsic worth, because we are created in the image of God. Humans -- all humans -- do have a soul, but animals do not, and this is the final argument against so-called "animal rights." Carrie |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-06-07 20:29, Carrie Sue wrote: Your earlier response arguably DID suggest it, because that response didn't refer at all to God, the soul, or the Bible; instead, it referred to intelligence, self-awareness, moral sense and consciousness. A paradigm that relies on those 4 things begs the question, "What's wrong with killing human beings that don't posess even the minimal intelligence, moral sense, self-awareness, and consciousness that some animals have?" Your follow-up addresses that, by invoking God and the soul; the principle that the distinction is based on the soul is universal to all human beings, and to no animals. This universality draws a very clear, principled line; thanks for providing it. Relying on things like self-awareness and moral sense doesn't work nearly so well, because not all human beings possess those characteristics. A couple of follow-ups vis a vis Carrie's post -- 1. What's the connection that permits you to go confidently from: a. Animals do not have souls to b. Therefore, animals have no rights ? 2. Most biblical scholars I've read take the position that Adam and Eve were vegetarians, because there was no death before the fall. If that's the case, it seems that even from a Christian perspective, though there is precedent for omnivorism, it is strongly tied into our imperfect natures, and there may therefore be reason to, in a sense, "rise above" it. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 2007-06-07 20:29, Carrie Sue wrote: Mr. Lobo, The main philosophy underlying "assisted suicide" is that suffering is bad, and it's better to kill the patient like you would put a crippled horse down. Inconceivable! Carrie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assuming you have the consent of the person (involuntary "assisted suicide" is clearly murder), I think the "main philosophy" is autonomy -- the life belongs to the individual, and when he believes that it is too painful to be worth living, he is entitled to make the decision to end it; nobody else has the right to compel someone else (again, restricting the discussion to rational adults) to live a suffering-filled life. An argument could be made that the case for euthanasia is STRONGER for human beings; the horse may prefer to live, suffering and all, while in the case of the human being, we are aware of and disregarding his express wishes. With respect to Singer, obviously infant children are incapable of giving consent, so I do not endorse his views on this particular subject. I do believe that some of his other views have merit.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Vegetarianism » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.08 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |