• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 200.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 12345...18
Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:So I've now been a vegetarian for almost 3 years. I originally became a vegetarian because I realized I was a meat addict. There are also environmental concerns. Ethical concerns are way down on my list since I find it gets confusing for me to strongly support animal research for medical applications while opposing using animals for food. Especially because I'm not vegan.

But the final decision happened, not coincidentally, on the first day of Gross Anatomy dissection lab. ubblol

So after 3 years of almost total abstinence from meat (I'll eat meat if there is no other feasable option), I think I'm pretty much de-addicted. The idea of eating a large steak is just not at all appetizing to me.

BUUUUT, this vegetarian business is getting very inconvenient. It makes people stress over where to go for dinner, or what to cook for me. Furthermore, it significantly limits what I can order at a restaurant, and I can't stand it when the only vegetarian options on a menu feature zucchini and mushrooms (two of my least favorite foods).

So I'm starting to debate whether to de-classify myself as a vegetarian and just carry on with life eating very little meat. And by "very little" I mean less than one serving of meat a week. Since my initial reasons were for health, I don't see how this small amount of meat (which, when consumed, will preferably be organic) would change my risk factors. And such miniscule meat consumption wouldn't have much environmental impact. Besides, I have an unfortunate tendency towards anemia.

What do you think?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)
enthusiast
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Member Since: 8th Jun 2004
Total posts: 456
Posted:I notice they don't seem to be aware of the existence of omnivores. Carnivores are not like humans, true. OTOH, we don't have multiple stomaches or chew cud either (which means we aren't kosher, another argument against cannibalism). No sane person would claim that humans are carnivores, so that's a straw man.

You can find all sorts of ridiculous things on the Internet, as you must be aware. If putrefaction were a danger, humans not only wouldn't eat meat, we'd die if we tried. Long digestive tract, remember?

And I have (in my pre-veggie days) eaten raw meat in some quantity, with no ill effects.

Note that I said 'generally' when giving the eye placement rule. Citing exceptions in no way refutes my point. However, you haven't actually cited any; I'd actually be pleased if you would, since I can't think of any strictly herbivorous animals with eyes in front.


"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations


Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:Written by:
Aren't We Designed to Eat Meat?

Not at all. Many people say that we are meat eaters because we have sharp teeth. This is like judging a book by its cover. Look inside and you'll find out what is really going on.
Our digestive system resembles that of the herbivores and the frugivores (fruit eaters). It consists of a very long intestine allowing slow digestion of nutrients. By contrast, carnivores have a short digestive tract designed so that meat can quickly pass through the body before it putrefies and becomes toxic. To compensate for this rapid transition, carnivores have a stomach acid concentration ten times greater than that of vegetarian mammals (including humans) to enable them to quickly digest the meat.



This is incorrect. The human digestive tract is optimized for an herbivorous diet consisting of COOKED meat and vegetables. You have to remember that H. sapiens did not tame fire. We have evolved a lot since the advent of cooking, and, as such, we have a very unique digestive tract. But it is almost a perfect cross between a non-ruminant herbivore and a carnivore.

Let me get to a few specific points:

1) Humans DO have a dental pattern and skull design reminiscent of carnivores. We have forward-facing eyes and sharp incisors and canines. However, somewhere in evolution, between the increase in size of the skull to accomodate our brains and the development of fire that softened our foods, our jaws shrank and so did our teeth. But we are predators. One only need look at cave drawings to confirm that.

2) Humans lack the enzymes required to produce cobalamin, or Vitamin B-12. This vitamin is only found in animals, and certain yeasts and bacteria. As these vegetarian sources are not universal (for example, they don't exist in the polar climes), the only way for humans to even survive in some regions is to obtain their Vitamin B-12 from animal sources.

3) Carnivores don't have a terribly short digestive tract and meat does not putrefy in the GI tract unless there is a motility problem. I have dissected a shark, a dog, a cat, a frog, a rabbit, and a human and they all have very long small intestines. Furthermore, the pH in the human stomach (when it is digesting) is 2.0-3.0, which is about the same as what it is in a working dog stomach (dogs are slightly more acidic, pH=1.0-2.0, but then again, they didn't ever develop cooking). In fact, herbivores tend to have a very large side-track at the junction of the small and large intestines called the Mesocolon. Humans have a mesocolon, but it's completely non-functional and we call it the appendix.

I'm a big believer in truth and I will find and knock down propaganda wherever I find it, whether I agree with its ends or not. The argument that the human body is not "designed" to eat meat is completely bogus and is based on flat-out incorrect information.

Finally, it is quite common for animals to switch rather rapidly between herbivorous and carnivorous diets in evolution. Consider whale sharks, which feed on plankton.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Xopher

I don't buy your definition of 'sentience', OWD. Nor do I see why it should be a criterion.


That's OK, I was never selling one smile

ie I didn't define 'sentience' simply gave a few factors that may indicate it.

As to why it should be a criterion, it's because sentient beings can feel pain and loss, for those of us who don't wish to inflict unnecessary pain and loss on others it's a very useful criterion.

For those who don't mind inflicting pain and loss on others then I guess whether the thing they are responsible for killing is sentient, is of little importance.

Written by: Xopher
Various people draw the line in various places: dogs are too familiar, say, while cattle are not. Or land animals are too close, but fish are fair game. Or the Animal Kingdom is right out, but the Plant and Fungus Kingdoms are in. This latter group are called "vegetarians," but I see no objective reason to call their (our) choice better than any other place to draw this rather arbitrary line.



This is another reason why some may adopt sentience as a criterion, it makes the line precise and non arbitrary i.e. assuming that I don't want to inflict unnecessary pain and loss on others, and faced with the choice of consuming a plant or an animal, the test is whether they are sentient, which leads me to eat the plant and not the animal.


Written by: Xopher
Otherwise: is it OK to amputate limbs from animals and eat them? They don't have to die, after all...




Assuming again that I don't want to inflict unnecessary pain and loss on others, then no, it would not be ok to amputate limbs from an animal because, while it won't be killing, it does constitute inflicting pain and loss on another.

This is all very simple, and I'm not going to spend time dealing with the numerous apparent exceptions that I'm sure you can come up with.

I'm more for the spirit of the thing, which is summed up by the view of animals as other sentient beings (rather than mindless disposable objects) and the ideal of not inflicting unnecessary pain and loss on others.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)
enthusiast
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Member Since: 8th Jun 2004
Total posts: 456
Posted:Actually I agree with most of that, OWD. I'm a little more tolerant of those who don't, maybe (only maybe; you certainly haven't expressed any intolerance).

I agree that agreeing to disagree is agreeable. [taps head until eyes uncross]


"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations


Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)
enthusiast
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Member Since: 8th Jun 2004
Total posts: 456
Posted:And thank you, Dr. Lightning! I knew that argument was bogus, but I didn't have the data to back it up, not like you did.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations


MiG
MiG

Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG
Member Since: 16th Apr 2004
Total posts: 3415
Posted:i spose there will be no point in saying that its basically only apes, and related species, that have eyes primarily in front? Or that even with eyes to the side, three dimensional vision IS still possible, just to a much lesser extent than when the eyes are primarily based in the front of the skull? Monkeys, and the descended/related beings, spent millenia jumping from tree to tree, thus their body structure changed to adapt to that. This adaptation included the relocation of the eyes, so that they could more accurately judge distances.

A zebra, for example, is, i think, still able to judge distances, as is a giraffe. Giraffes, coincidentally, have the same amount of bones in their neck as humans. anyway, just as we can still see to our sides, albeit only with two dimensional vision, and have a large three dimensional viewing area, a herbivore, with side mounted eyes has a larger range of vision, but with a lesser ability to see in three dimensions.

so, really, the placement of the eyes hasnt got anything to do with it, given that nearly everything has more side mounted eyes than humans or monkeys, and given that the only reason our eyes are in the front of our skull is so that we are less likely to smack ourself in the face when jumping between trees.

BTW, im a firmer believer in darwin's theory than i am in the bible.


"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA

"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie


Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)
enthusiast
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Member Since: 8th Jun 2004
Total posts: 456
Posted:MiG, take a good look at your dog. Your cat. A bear. None of them primates.

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations


MiG
MiG

Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG
Member Since: 16th Apr 2004
Total posts: 3415
Posted:true, they arent. but have a close look at the chroniofacial structure of those animals, and look especially closely at where the eyes are. i think you will find that they are facing out a great deal more than on a primate.



YAAAY!!! 500th post!!! biggrin biggrin biggrin


"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA

"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie


Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Written by:
owd said: many vegetarians consider the issue of eating or not eating the flesh of animals to be a moral one, rather than mere personal; choice/opinion



I would suggest OWD, that from a moral perspective, if u have the choice to be a vegetarian then you are privileged, in a protein deficient world. I suppose that's why I get a bit peeved when people start squabbling about how they are "real" vegetarians. I think the url was buddhanet.net.

Custom Bug, from the evolutionary perspective Lightning is absolutely correct, we are designed to eat meat. Apparently, the ability to eat meat was what enabled us to increase our brain size and expans. Though, I would classify corn as a annual grass (Gramineae).

Ok here is one for the catholics. Why are catholics allowed is fish on fasting days when meat is forbidden?

Eat more beans smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Stone


</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />

owd said: many vegetarians consider the issue of eating or not eating the flesh of animals to be a moral one, rather than mere personal; choice/opinion





I would suggest OWD, that from a moral perspective, if u have the choice to be a vegetarian then you are privileged, in a protein deficient world. I suppose that's why I get a bit peeved when people start squabbling about how they are "real" vegetarians. I think the url was buddhanet.net.





Yes, I am priveliged, as are the vast majority of posters on this forum.



We live in the affluent west where food and shelter are plentiful.



We all do have that choice as to whether or not to eat meat. I don't think any of the vegetarians here are implying that a starving human shouldn't eat meat, they're working on the assumption that we're talking about privileged westeners, like you and me, who can thrive without eating flesh.



As to how that affluence affects the less privileged regions of our world, it's difficult to say.



My personal opinion is that if we stopped shoveling our vegetation resources into the incredibly wasteful meat production process, along with the other material excesses of our culture, that it would benefit the rest of the world.



I also have concerns that a culture which systematically and unnecesarilly slaughters several billion living beings annually, simply to eat their flesh, is going to be less compasionate about distant and unseen members of its own species in the third world, than it might otherwise be?



And, of course, many vegetarians are such not because they necessarily object to the harming/killing of animals, but because they believe eating flesh is damaging to humanity.



i.e. they don't ignore the plight of starving/oppressed humans in favour of campaining against animal abuse, because they feel that our cultures attitude to animals is one of the roots of such oppression.



And, on a practical level, they object to the waste of resources that meat production necessitates, including the 90% loss in calorific value that results from feeding vegetation to animals, and the amount of water that meat farming uses.



(I am aware of the arguments that the vegetation we feed to animals can't be eaten by humans etc, etc. I just disagree with it on the grounds that the land used can be utilised to grow crops for humans)


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Stone


Custom Bug, from the evolutionary perspective Lightning is absolutely correct, we are designed to eat meat.





The debate over whether our teeth are designed for meat or vegetables, or whether our guts are designed to digest meat or vegetables, comes up often.



The truth is that they are fairly general purpose, our bodies can deal with both.



But, whilst we, like many other animals, possess teeth and guts that can deal with eating flesh, we also possess something that other animals don't- human minds and the ability to choose our destiny, how we live our lives, even the ability to modify our own desires and habitual ways of being.



With that mind we could, even if our bodies where much more geared to meat consumption than they actually are, override that and refrain from the eating of flesh.



Even if nature had designed us to eat meat, we could refuse, and find alternatives.



A lion has no choice, its nature is to hunt and kill, and it can't subsist on a non flesh diet.



Humans do have a choice, they can thrive on a non flesh diet, they can overcome the habits, traditions, cultural influences and misconceptions that may have contributed to their meat eating.



Equally, of course, we can choose to eat meat, as many here do.



What no one can do, is to eat meat, and be an individual who doesn't contribute to the pain and loss of other beings.



Meat is not given, it is taken from sentient beings without their consent; however it is wrapped up, however meticulously prepared in elaborate dishes, it remains flesh, ripped from the bodies of other beings.



I'm not saying here that people shouldn't eat meat- that's their business. But I would say that the eating of meat, and the belief that inflicting unnecessary pain and loss on others is wrong; are not compatible.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:Written by: MiG

i spose there will be no point in saying that its basically only apes, and related species, that have eyes primarily in front? Or that even with eyes to the side, three dimensional vision IS still possible, just to a much lesser extent than when the eyes are primarily based in the front of the skull?



If your eyes are placed in front, you get excellent 3-D vision with both maculae (the most sensitive part of the retina) focused on the same point. If your eyes are placed on the side of your head (as is the case in deer, geese, etc) you get almost 360 vision, but almost no depth perception.

Many predators have their eyes placed in front (although not all). Owls, dogs, cats, bears, foxes, badgers, etc.

It certainly isn't just a primate thing.

But it is a predator thing because juding the distance to prey is much more important to the hunter than to the hunted. The hunted just needs to be able to see an approaching predatory from as many directions at once as is possible. Thus, almst 360 coverage at the expense of depth perception for the zebra and 180 coverage at the gain of depth perception for the lion.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Written by:
I'm not saying here that people shouldn't eat meat - that's their business. But I would say that the eating of meat, and the belief that inflicting unnecessary pain and loss on others is wrong; are not compatible (owd said)



So OWD, by "others" I assume u mean humans. If that assumption is correct, then you seem to be saying that people who eat meat cannot object to anyone inflicting unnecessary pain and loss on humans. I can see your point, but I don't think it is compelling.

If you use sentience to distinguish b/t acceptable and non-acceptable food sources, then perhaps u would consider that there are difference b/t animals and humans. As u stated "we also possess something that other animals don't - human minds".

The Vitamin B 12 argument also comes up a lot. Indicating that humans do indeed need meat to remain healthy, unless someone can tell me how else it is synthesised or obtained in nature.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh


Dunc
Dunc

playing the days away
Location: The Middle lands
Member Since: 19th Aug 2003
Total posts: 7263
Posted:Mike, I think we just interpret the same data differnetly



But first lets have a little clarity...I also don't like mis-information.



herbivore


an animal that eats only plants



omnivore

an animal naturally able to eat both plants and meat



carnivore

an animal that eats meat



A herbivorous diet does not consist of cooked meat and vegetables, thats an omnivorous diet.





Written by:


"The human digestive tract is optimized for an herbivorous diet consisting of COOKED meat and vegetables. You have to remember that H. sapiens did not tame fire. We have evolved a lot since the advent of cooking, and, as such, we have a very unique digestive tract. But it is almost a perfect cross between a non-ruminant herbivore and a carnivore"





To me that sounds like you're saying a herbivoure evolved into omnivoure due to finding fire and cooking something that was previously intolerable due to it being raw and undigestable in our tummy's.



to your point 1) Cave drawings prove little before our evolution into omnivours and discovery of fire etc.

2) Humans do not naturally exist in polar climes, it's yet more evolution and migration. Gene studies have shown each and every one of us all originate in the congo, a long way from polar caps. An interesting unrelated fact....all native americans stem from only around 20 ancestors who managed to migrate up from africa across what is now China and through north east Russia into the american plains! Amazing huh!



anyway



3) Our mescolon is now not used, but, theories I read in school say both that it was/wasn't used before our evolution into omnivours. The likely hood of developing a part of our anatomy to have such little use IMO is not natural evolution, but to have an old part digress and become dormant through non-use is far more likely.



And you confuse me on the last thing you wrote...of course unless I'm reading it wrong



"The argument that the human body is not "designed" to eat meat is completely bogus and is based on flat-out incorrect information......Finally, it is quite common for animals to switch rather rapidly between herbivorous and carnivorous diets in evolution. Consider whale sharks, which feed on plankton"



Does that mean we could have been herbivours who became omnivours due to evolution? confused



But of course I have to say that if we have evolved from herbivours into omnivours then it is natural to eat meat as it is our evolution whether conciously or not, and no point of originality is the "truest" so perhaps we are, or rather, have become, natural meat eaters of sorts!



*Realises I've bunked my own reasoning"* rolleyes


Let's relight this forum ubblove


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Stone

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />
I'm not saying here that people shouldn't eat meat - that's their business. But I would say that the eating of meat, and the belief that inflicting unnecessary pain and loss on others is wrong; are not compatible (owd said)



So OWD, by "others" I assume u mean humans. If that assumption is correct, then you seem to be saying that people who eat meat cannot object to anyone inflicting unnecessary pain and loss on humans. I can see your point, but I don't think it is compelling.


The Vitamin B 12 argument also comes up a lot. Indicating that humans do indeed need meat to remain healthy, unless someone can tell me how else it is synthesised or obtained in nature.



No, by 'others' I'm refering to other sentient beings, which includes animals.

The fact the that are many millions of vegetarians and vegans thriving on their diet illustrates beyond doubt that meat is not necessary to remain healthy.

B 12 can be obtained from supplements, and is also found in marmite.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


Dunc
Dunc

playing the days away
Location: The Middle lands
Member Since: 19th Aug 2003
Total posts: 7263
Posted:it's also in cheese, Milk, yogurt, soy milk, seaweed, algae and eggs (which are very hard to come by ubbangel wink ) although some sources have less/are less absorbed than others

Let's relight this forum ubblove


Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)
enthusiast
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Member Since: 8th Jun 2004
Total posts: 456
Posted:OWD, there's plenty of food to feed everyone in the world. If we could get it moved to the right places fast enough, no one at all would starve. Not eating meat in America won't save hungry children in Ethiopia.

With water, you have a better argument. Cattle use up an awful lot of it.

There's a novel called Titan in which there are creatureslike kangaroos, except that their pouches hold, not young, but simply easily-detacheable chunks of meat. Sort of like "flesh fruit" (sorry). You can harvest meat from them, while doing them absolutely no harm. And in the book they were free-range, unafraid of humans (they'd never seen any), and seemingly rather happy. I think most vegetarians still would not eat that meat; I know I wouldn't.

I'm not saying -- right now --that sentience isn't a good criterion. I'm saying that it isn't the criterion people actually apply.


"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations


Dunc
Dunc

playing the days away
Location: The Middle lands
Member Since: 19th Aug 2003
Total posts: 7263
Posted:On the water issues as well, whilst tralling through some info last year I stumbled upon this.......some of the larger meat processing plants use 300million US gallons (although could be litres as my memory ain't too hot all the time) of water a day to clean down meat! eek Yes thats per day! This water is then undrinkable as it is full of blood and most water living species won't drink it/can't live in it but it's still flushed straight into rivers anyway frown poor fishies

Let's relight this forum ubblove


MiG
MiG

Self-Flagellation Expert
Location: Bogged at CG
Member Since: 16th Apr 2004
Total posts: 3415
Posted:ok, i was incorrect there

*backs away from argument*


"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA

"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie


Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)
enthusiast
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Member Since: 8th Jun 2004
Total posts: 456
Posted:[Megaphone voice] Put down the argument and back away slowly! Show us your hands![/megaphone] ubblol

"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations


Twirly
Twirly

Shoryuken!
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
Member Since: 25th May 2004
Total posts: 233
Posted:I reckons OWD is right, you can't claim to be anti-pain and loss whilst still eating meat. It's hypocritical.

And if you eat meat, don't you DARE complain when I eat your dog or your mentally handicapped friends - if you can eat beefs, I can eat these, and deep down you know its fair.

Davy



Xopher (aka Mr. Clean)
enthusiast
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Member Since: 8th Jun 2004
Total posts: 456
Posted:Give me a break. It's only hypocritical if you don't make a distinction between humans and animals, or between commensals and other animals. OWD doesn't; I do.

Of course, maybe you're being sarky. I hope so, but I'm not entirely sure.


"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations


Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:Well, I did it officially. Today in the cafeteria, I grabbed a non-vegetarian sushi dish. But I'm having a vegetarian dinner.

I think this business of eating fish every few days or so will go well. I don't think I'm going to fall right back into being a meat addict again, but if I do...I'll go veggie again.

But I am officially not a vegetarian anymore.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Xopher

Give me a break. It's only hypocritical if you don't make a distinction between humans and animals, or between commensals and other animals. OWD doesn't; I do.

Of course, maybe you're being sarky. I hope so, but I'm not entirely sure.



Could you elbaorate on that distinction?

Presumably you do credit animals with the ability to feel pain and loss?

I also want to point out that a lot of horrors have been commited by humans who decided that some sections of the human race could be 'distinguished' from the rest, and were therefore subject to slaughter.

Not saying that this is identical to the animal situation, simply pointing out that 'distinction' is something that needs very careful qualifying.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:My distinction is simple. You either are a human (meaning born to humans) or you aren't.

If you place humans on equal footing with all other animals, then I'd call you a hypocrite for

1) eating any other kingdom (what's to say that fungi don't have moral standing?)

2) Accepting any medical care. All medicines=--and I mean ALL (100.00%)--medicines currently being used have been studied in animals.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Please note that I find being called a hypocrite a little rude, which is why I've not used the expression myself.



Concerning fungi, it's pretty much been covered in previous posts on this thread i.e. the animal/plant issue. My suggestion where that was concerned was that animals are sentient.



The medical thing is a good insight.



All I can say is that some vegetarians and vegans are very opposed to animal testing; but that's a issue of its own and probably best discussed in a thread of it's own.



For myself, I've previously mentioned minimising the harm done to other sentient beings- acknowledging that it's impossible to live entirely without harming.



So I'd say that there's a difference of degree in accepting occasional medical help in a world where, as you claim ALL medicine is tested on animals; and, eating meat on a regular basis.



Primarily on the grounds that, while medicine causes animal suffering, it is, to an extent, necessary (assuming that the condition is debilitating/life threatening); whereas, the eating of animal flesh is totally unecessary.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:Ok, so it's ok to kill sentient beings occasionally, as long as it's not too much? devil

-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:Well I'd say if the choice is between causing suffering to a lot of beings, and causing suffering to a few, it's best to choose the latter.

As you yourself have pointed out, the act of living involves some degree of causing harm.

Zero harm is not an option, minimising it is.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


Doc Lightning
Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Member Since: 28th May 2001
Total posts: 13919
Posted:I agree. Which is why I am not a huge meat eater. Meat consumption causes harm on a large scale.

But I'm also not an animal-rights activist. I believe that wanton, pointless destruction for its own sake is wrong, of course, but I refuse to draw lines.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura


onewheeldave
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield
Member Since: 28th Aug 2002
Total posts: 3252
Posted:I'm also not an animal rights activist, I hope I'm not coming across as one.

And I'm glad you're not a big meat eater, if everyone in the west was the same there'd be a lot less animal suffering.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


Page: 12345...18

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [thought* vegetarianism] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Fire Fans > Mr Jeff Fans Tutorials > push thought *help/resource
2. Forums > turn back time - thoughts? [45 replies]
3. Forums > Thoughts on vegetarianism [521 replies]
4. Forums > uberoz thoughts. [77 replies]
5. Forums > Random War Thought of the Day. [62 replies]

     Show more..