Vegetarian's guide to talking to carnivores

Exactly and the same applies to any other source of food.

Same reason it is okay to kill an <insert food source> and eat it. Eating is not a moral argument, its what we call a cycle of dependence. Every living thing lives off each other - you have to kill to eat. Noting you eat is non-living to begin with and the process of food production itself is fatal to other organisms which are not eaten. You can become a Jain and eat only fruits and vegetables excluding those that grow underground, a Jew/Muslim and follow religious dietary laws [or not], a Hindu and abstain from beef [or not]. All food taboos are due to philosophical reasons or ideological conditioning, but in and of itself, all food sources are equivalent and should receive yes, equal consideration as food sources. You may defend a cow as vigorously as a Jain defends a potato tuber but those are your PERSONAL reasons for eating or not eating some foods. To a Jain it is as unethical to eat a tuber as it is to eat a cow. If thats how you feel, you're welcome to go that route but to other people potato = food and cow = food.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No James, I know I'm not going to change your mind so it's really not worth putting much effort into it.

But clearly you are WRONG, because even our children don't normally begin to grasp the concept of death until they are about 5, but even at 2 they are FAR more aware of the world and abstract concepts than cows are.

What about Clams James?

What do Clams think about death?
Or Shrimp?

You see it just gets sillier by the minute but you are so full of your own moral superiority it's pretty funny to watch.

And likewise you are clearly so convinced you are right and you aren't going to let the facts that virtually none of the rest of the world agrees with you and not a single government's laws, dissuade you.

So there is hardly a point in discussing this since it's not about facts but a matter of faith to you.

It's ok for the same reason it's ok for a dolphin to kill and eat a fish. We evolved as omnivores and so a proper human diet from things you can grow yourself or acquire from locally grown sources requires meat.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, killing and suffering - except when put on the spot about other times and reasons that occurs you have no objection to it, so evidently it isn't the killing or suffering that bothers you one iota.

Thoroughly debunked and dealt with.

It's your argument, don't try to deflect just because you can't back it up with anything that holds up to scrutiny.

Dealt with already, you and meat eaters have a lot in common, but at least they recognise it.

Bzzt.
http://www.raw-food-health.net/NumberOfVegetarians.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

Many reports and surveys suggest vegetarianism is in fact on the increase.
And the world has never been 50% vegetarian. Reported for continued intellectual dishonesty.

Apparently you know very little, and when found out about that you just start to lie. More deflection, but I suppose when all else fails you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If a cow could talk? Geez you really are dropping low now.
What would a plant say? A bug? All supposition regardless, but your hypocrisy is again evident.

 

And why do you think carrots should be treated differently?

Blacks (and whites, and asians, and any humans) are humans. Cows are not. That is the distinction. We make it in legal frameworks, when discussing safety, when discussing morality, decisionmaking etc etc. Indeed, it's probably safe to say that everyone in this thread (with the possible exception of yourself) can see the difference between cows and people.

Ah, so you are making a "racist (speciesist)" argument.

One of the first rules of Internet arguments is "once the hole you are digging is deep enough - stop digging!" There are a great many valid arguments you can make against eating meat. "Cows should have the same right to life as blacks" is not one of them.

 

James,

supposed you were stranded on a desert, riding a camel, with 3 other living things: a kid, a pig, and the camel itself. You have a knife and a means to make fire/ to cook. No other living things (especially vegetables) around. The condition is such that if you and the kid don't eat one of the living things that were travelling with you, you wouldn't make it to reach the next food source (vegetables) alive. What are you going to do in that situation? Eat the pig, the camel, or the kid? Or, perhaps, would you kill yourself as a sacrifice for the other 3? And why?

Let's see, you said you support equality between human and other animals. I want to see your food of preference in such situation.

Everyone else who are vegetarians are welcome to respond as well.

 

You forgot to mention plants and bugs. But I guess they weren't in Dr Doolittle and aren't really "cute" or anything to most people.

 

yes
it is strange that this self-professed moral being cannot even take it upon himself to give plants the benefit of the doubt. i mean, there are questions about the sentience of plants but james insists that any such self awareness be expressed in a manner that he feels comfortable with. it is an aesthetic based not so much on a clear rationale but rather a dogma fueled by the fanaticism and desperation of a hungry man.

would james eat us if he encountered us at an earlier stage of our evolution? i most certainly think so

 

Because they're black?

Let us take a syllogistic look at how this issue has no logical center:

• "I haven't seen anybody in this thread supporting total equality between animals and humans." (#282)

• "'Black people have no rights because they are black and not white. White people can do whatever they like to black people, including beating them or killing them, because they are black. In addition, this is justified because black people aren't as intelligent as white people. White people are entitled to control black people - even to use them as slaves. Black people should be considered mere property of white people. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for white exploitation. It may be a good thing for white people to treat black people humanely, but that's only because the value of the black people to the whites is diminished if they aren't treated properly.'

"Now, swap a few words:

"'Cows have no rights because they are cows and not human beings. Human beings can do whatever they like to cows, including beating them or killing them, because they are cows. In addition, this is justified because cows aren't as intelligent as human beings. Human beings are entitled to control control - even to use them as work animals. Cows should be considered mere property of human beings. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for human exploitation. It may be a good thing for human beings to treat cows humanely, but that's only because the value of the cows to the human beings is diminished if they aren't treated properly.'" (#185)​

There is a big side debate going on about whether or not James compared black people to livestock, and while he and a couple others insist this is not the case, we must pay attention to the context of the alleged comparison.

We might pause to wonder what James' problem with dogs is that he doesn't recognize the fundamental difference in western culture between the relationships of dogs and people on the one hand, and chickens and people to the other. However, that is actually a distraction.

After specifically comparing racism and speciesism (#161), James is reminded of the basic issue of relationships: "Because my dog is a part of my family and no, my saying because it is a dog, is not a "racist" argument." (Bells, #174)

And in responding to that, James makes the comparison in which he suggests the blacks/cows comparison. And here is the point: James overlooks entirely the relationships that exist between humans in various cultures and the animals in question. It is not a "racist" (i.e., speciesist) argument to note the relationship between a human and an animal? "Yes," James says explicitly, "it is." And then he tells people to "Read this", with this being his comparison of blacks and cows. As there are no questions of relationships to consider, it is easy enough to make black people and cows interchangeable.

So take a look at it syllogistically:

• James says nobody is arguing that people and animals are totally equal.

• James says that black people and cows are argumentatively interchangeable.

____________________
∴ James says that black people are not totally equal to humans.​

Once you recognize the degree of irrationality and hatred you are facing, it becomes something of a vapid exercise in futility to even bother with it.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take part in this thread. It's fair enough to simply shrug and chuckle. Just don't make yourself a spectacle by rolling on the floor, hooting with laughter, and pissing yourself in mirth.

 

Playing RUF at Sciforums

Shall we take up a collection for a Reserve Underpants Fund?

 

What value, facts?

In that context, what value have facts?

 

consistency demands that james should eat.......... shit

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

The meatpacking industry causes 18 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions, mostly due to the release of methane from animals. The livestock industry also consumes huge amounts of feed and water in relation to the amount of meat that it yields, and many find the industry to be inhumane and cruel to animals. These factors alone are reason enough for vegetarians to replace their meat intake with vegetable proteins and legumes. But Ikeda, a scientist at the Environmental Assessment Center in Okayama, sought to further the field of alternative proteins by recycling a form of protein-rich waste : sewage mud.

“Sewage mud” is exactly what you think it is – poop. Ikeda’s process begins by extracting protein and lipids from the “mud.” The lipids are then combined with a reaction enhancer, then whipped into “meat” in an exploder. Ikeda then makes the poop more savory, by adding soya and steak sauce.

Currently, the price of the poop burgers are 10-20 times that of regular meat, due to the cost of research, but he feels they will even out in a few years. He admits that “some people” may have a psychological aversion to eating artificial meat made of their own poop at first, but thinks many would be open to personally completing the food chain. He also notes that the burgers are extremely low in fat.

The artificial meat is low in fat and reduces waste and carbon emissions, however it’s hard to believe that any number of benefits could persuade consumers to take a bite out of a poop sandwich.

 

Depends

 

You could. Of course, you'd then have to factor in the costs of a meat-heavy diet, since you need to produce 10 pounds of grain for every pound of meat you get.