Thread: Vegetarianism

So I can see some health benefits of not eating much meat but, as for never eating meat, it just doesn't make sense to me. Then there is the moral issue. This is what I want to talk about. As far as I can tell, we (plants and animals) are all made up of the same fundamental things. When I eat an apple aren't I eating a fertalized egg (or something like that). That's like moraly worse than eating a unfertalized chicken egg isn't it (vegans). Is there a religious backround behind vegatarianism? I know that personally I would find it much harder to kill and eat a cow as opposed to a carrot yet, I don't know why. Is it the similarities we have with animals? I'll let y'all answer.

i Cant think of any other animal that doesn't eat what its designed to do, and lets face it we are designed to eat animals. We got the teeth for killing and the forward facing binocular vision shared with other "hunters"

I think the not killing thing is just something we've learned through having everything prepared for us in nice little packages

It is actually beneficial for you and and plant to eat the plant. you actualy help the plant out by eating it and spreading the seeds. thats the whole point why they make em taste so good so u can eat it and spit out the seeds or whatever.

Originally Posted by SealOtter

It is actually beneficial for you and and plant to eat the plant. you actualy help the plant out by eating it and spreading the seeds. thats the whole point why they make em taste so good so u can eat it and spit out the seeds or whatever.

I am a second generation vegetarian I only eat animals that eat plants.

Originally Posted by SealOtter

It is actually beneficial for you and and plant to eat the plant. you actualy help the plant out by eating it and spreading the seeds. thats the whole point why they make em taste so good so u can eat it and spit out the seeds or whatever.

so why do chickens, cows, sheep and pigs taste good? :wink:

Cos you spit out the seed. You DO spit out the seed, don't you?

The passing of energies (light) causes a lesser benefit from the animals because they aren't the direct recipients. Therefor you would get a greater benefit from the plants; but, that is only one aspect. There are advantages to eating meat too.

I would hope that I am eating animals that ate plants... how can you tell?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Cos you spit out the seed. You DO spit out the seed, don't you?

no, whats gonna happen now. i got pig seeds in me

Vegetarian veg·e·tar·i·an [vèjjə térree ən] n: Old Indian word for bad hunter.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Vegetarian veg·e·tar·i·an [vèjjə térree ən] n: Old Indian word for bad hunter.

now that i like

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Cos you spit out the seed. You DO spit out the seed, don't you?

no, whats gonna happen now. i got pig seeds in me

I dunno I don't eat sweet meats...

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Vegetarian veg·e·tar·i·an [vèjjə térree ən] n: Old Indian word for bad hunter.

now that i like

This topic didn't get as serious as I had expected. Maybe there are no vegetarians who have read it yet. :P

Tell you the truth, I am actually 'semi-veg' what I mean by that is I will eat flesh if the creature was slaughtered to feed more than one person and it was reared/bred for the purpose. I do not eat 'delicacies' you know, killing 2 dozen frogs just to eat a small portion of the animal, or shrimps or other such foods. So its a four legged job or larger fish, and never anything I would consider an endangered species.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Tell you the truth, I am actually 'semi-veg' what I mean by that is I will eat flesh if the creature was slaughtered to feed more than one person and it was reared/bred for the purpose. I do not eat 'delicacies' you know, killing 2 dozen frogs just to eat a small portion of the animal, or shrimps or other such foods. So its a four legged job or larger fish, and never anything I would consider an endangered species.

same as me, i also try to eat free range wherever possible. I eat pork,beef,lamb, chicken, turkey, sometimes rabbit, sometimes venison(last two are down to being a country lad)some fish, mainly cod.

I also have no problem with fur being used for clothing if i came off an animal that was food, eg rabbit.(I think its disrespectful of the animal to not use as much of it as possible ive your going to eat it anyway)

farmed for fir is not my thing

Have you ever cooked a hedgehog in clay, cracked it open, the spines all stay in the clay be careful with the knife though as it is cooked with all the guts in place...

I believe there are different catagories of vegies.

Religious vegetarians: They don't eat meat because their religion commands it...like hindus, who believe in re-incarnation, and don't want to be eating grandma. Probably the oldest type of vegie.

Health conscience vegetarians: People whose only reason for not eating meat is because they feel its bad for them, or is fattening.

Pasificist vegetarians: People who believe killing anything is wrong, but do not necessarally believe animals are equal to humans.

Animals are people too vegetarians: Animal rights activists who feel killing an animal is on the same tier as killing a human.

Trendy vegetarians: My least favorite type of vegie. They don't eat meat because they think it's fashionable, or cool. They really don't believe what they say..as they will tell you its wrong to kill something to eat, while holding a leather Fendi handbag.

I think alot of vegetarianism stems from people growing up in cities, where the only animals they have experience with are pets, who are treated like a member of the family..and who could kill a member of your family that is sooo cuuute? I personally think its great that we live in a properous enough society that people can choose what they want or not want to eat....but I guarantee if they went a couple weeks without food, a good percentage of vegies, especially the last catagory, would be some cow eating mf's. I think we have canine teeth for a reason, and as for the vegetarian lifestyle being more heathy...I don't buy it. To me, if you look at the face of a long term vegetarian, it looks pale, and paper thin..like rice paper. (take a look at Sir Paul McCarthy)

As for me...I love animals...they're delicious!

I think a mostly plant diet is very good but I see nothing wrong with eating meat.

The point I am trying to make here is: Why is it animals are considered to be soo different from plants in a moral perspective. Why don't we become reincarnated as a head of cabbage? Why don't the animal activists get active about the stuff we do to plants? They are a life form too, and one to be admired if you ask me. Just isn't making sense to me.

Maybe if vegetarians are so concernd about killing, they should just eat dirt or synthetically made foods (that would teach them). :P

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Have you ever cooked a hedgehog in clay, cracked it open, the spines all stay in the clay be careful with the knife though as it is cooked with all the guts in place...

no hedgehogs not on my list of good foods

I'm with CC...aren't hedgehogs considered varmits? I don't eat no varmits.

How about brontosauras burgers...or a big-ass rack of ribs that tip your car over?

I'm a veggy allright :P

I fall in the category if moral abstantion: I don't want any suffering to happen for the creation of my food, unless there's no alternative. So I do eat dairy products (I think it's not practical to refuse them, too difficult and possibly unhealthy) and my shoes are made of leather (recently vegetarian shoes have been developped, maybe I'll switch some day).

What I don't understand are people who refuse to eat meat, but have no problems with eating fish

Anyway I've been vegetarian practically all my life, as is my mother and her father. It's kinda a family thing, but I did chose for myself to do this (I did eat some meat before I could make the choice, at my 10th year or so).

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

but I guarantee if they went a couple weeks without food, a good percentage of vegies, especially the last catagory, would be some cow eating mf's.

Sure, if there was no other food I'll apply my 'unless there's no alternative' clause. Heck I'd even eat human flesh to stay alive, as most of you would to if it comes to it :P

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

I think we have canine teeth for a reason, and as for the vegetarian lifestyle being more heathy...I don't buy it. To me, if you look at the face of a long term vegetarian, it looks pale, and paper thin..like rice paper. (take a look at Sir Paul McCarthy)

Sorry but that's anecdotical evidence. I'd agree that vegans are sometimes unhealthy, they go too far. But there are no rational reasons why a balanced vegetarian diet can't be healthy. Or to throw in some anecdotical evidence of my own, neither me or my brothers are pale rice-faces :-D

As a general remark, think about this: what is the physical difference between killing and eating a human and killing&eating an animal? The process of killing is the same, with an equal amount of pain involved, and the meat produced is the same substance. What I frankly don't understand is that people freak out if pieces of human flesh would float in their soup (even if it's unrecognisable), while pieces of animal flesh inspire appetite :P

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I'm a veggy allright :P

I fall in the category if moral abstantion: I don't want any suffering to happen for the creation of my food, unless there's no alternative. So I do eat dairy products (I think it's not practical to refuse them, too difficult and possibly unhealthy) and my shoes are made of leather (recently vegetarian shoes have been developped, maybe I'll switch some day).

What I don't understand are people who refuse to eat meat, but have no problems with eating fish

Anyway I've been vegetarian practically all my life, as is my mother and her father. It's kinda a family thing, but I did chose for myself to do this (I did eat some meat before I could make the choice, at my 10th year or so).

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

but I guarantee if they went a couple weeks without food, a good percentage of vegies, especially the last catagory, would be some cow eating mf's.

Sure, if there was no other food I'll apply my 'unless there's no alternative' clause. Heck I'd even eat human flesh to stay alive, as most of you would to if it comes to it :P

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

I think we have canine teeth for a reason, and as for the vegetarian lifestyle being more heathy...I don't buy it. To me, if you look at the face of a long term vegetarian, it looks pale, and paper thin..like rice paper. (take a look at Sir Paul McCarthy)

Sorry but that's anecdotical evidence. I'd agree that vegans are sometimes unhealthy, they go too far. But there are no rational reasons why a balanced vegetarian diet can't be healthy. Or to throw in some anecdotical evidence of my own, neither me or my brothers are pale rice-faces :-D

As a general remark, think about this: what is the physical difference between killing and eating a human and killing&eating an animal? The process of killing is the same, with an equal amount of pain involved, and the meat produced is the same substance. What I frankly don't understand is that people freak out if pieces of human flesh would float in their soup (even if it's unrecognisable), while pieces of animal flesh inspire appetite :P

Many species do not kill and eat their own kind for whatever reasons. But there is nothing more natural than killing an eating other animals. Weve evolved(as All predators)to be very efficient killers

The pain thing i dont totally agree with. Ive killed many cows myself(when it was allowed in local butchers/farms) and there is little or no pain involved in the processes involved. A split second bolt into the skull of a cow and they drop instantaniously. Same with killing rabbits and deer. A single shot and they drop without a struggle

In the uk the animals are treated very well in most cases(with the exception of battery hens) and even some veggy's eat eggs

Like i said above i try to eat meat from good suppliers and get free range wherever possible.

And if you think about it humans killing of animals is more humane(by definition :wink: ) than many other predators

Originally Posted by Pendragon

As a general remark, think about this: what is the physical difference between killing and eating a human and killing&eating an animal? The process of killing is the same, with an equal amount of pain involved, and the meat produced is the same substance. What I frankly don't understand is that people freak out if pieces of human flesh would float in their soup (even if it's unrecognisable), while pieces of animal flesh inspire appetite :P

What is the physical difference between killing an animal or a plant? Or are plants not considered life forms; because last time I checked they are made of practically the same stuff along with fungi, bacteria, and eerything else on earth.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Many species do not kill and eat their own kind for whatever reasons. But there is nothing more natural than killing an eating other animals. Weve evolved(as All predators)to be very efficient killers

I often see this argument, but I don't understand it. What does it mean that something is "more natural"? Why does this give a reason to go on with it, even though there are moral objections? Sure humans evolved as scavangers, occasionaly hunting some animals of their own. But we don't need that anymore, we go to supermarkets. The world has changed and so have we. Why cling on to something "natural" while it's not necessary anymore?

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

The pain thing i dont totally agree with. Ive killed many cows myself(when it was allowed in local butchers/farms) and there is little or no pain involved in the processes involved. A split second bolt into the skull of a cow and they drop instantaniously. Same with killing rabbits and deer. A single shot and they drop without a struggle

I trust that you can kill an animal without making it suffer, but this doesn't apply to the treatment of the average farm animal. Many slaughterhouses for example work on a standard that 80% of the animals are stunned sufficiently. Even if 95% was stunned properly, it would still leave many millions of animals each year which are killed in a horrible way.
And much of the suffering allready happened before the slaughterhouse, like the battery hens you describe. I eat eggs myself and it's true that some of them will come from battery hens (when they're processed in other products you can't check it), although I always chose more humane versions if possible. Again that's my "unless there's no alternative" clause.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Like i said above i try to eat meat from good suppliers and get free range wherever possible.

That's great, and I really admire it when people spend just a few cents more to get good, free range products It's reducing the suffering of animals a lot, so hopefully the trend towards more human food production will continue.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Pendragon

As a general remark, think about this: what is the physical difference between killing and eating a human and killing&eating an animal? The process of killing is the same, with an equal amount of pain involved, and the meat produced is the same substance. What I frankly don't understand is that people freak out if pieces of human flesh would float in their soup (even if it's unrecognisable), while pieces of animal flesh inspire appetite :P

What is the physical difference between killing an animal or a plant? Or are plants not considered life forms; because last time I checked they are made of practically the same stuff along with fungi, bacteria, and everything else on earth.

There's a huge difference: plants are unable to suffer. I've never seen any plant which can record pain and suffer from it (this probably requires some elemental level of consciousness), while nobody denies that animals are very able to suffer physical pain. For me this is the essential difference: if a being is unable to suffer in any way (physically or mentally) then I don't see the problem. I wouldn't chop down a tree for no reason, but not out of compassion or anything. It's just a waste of a nice tree :wink:

I see what your saying, i eat meat because i like it more than anything else(especially chicken and pork). I have no objections to people being vegitarian as long as the dont try to make me feel bad for doing it myself

Also on the subject of free range animals. They actually taste better so more people should give them a try, sure they are a bit dearer but the taste makes up for it

Originally Posted by Pendragon

There's a huge difference: plants are unable to suffer. I've never seen any plant which can record pain and suffer from it (this probably requires some elemental level of consciousness), while nobody denies that animals are very able to suffer physical pain. For me this is the essential difference: if a being is unable to suffer in any way (physically or mentally) then I don't see the problem. I wouldn't chop down a tree for no reason, but not out of compassion or anything. It's just a waste of a nice tree :wink:

Hmm.. I think that I see pain and suffering as more seperate things than you. To me pain is a sense that if not understood can cause suffering. It works the other way too though. The lack of understanding. An animal feels pain and has reactions to it that are a way of expressing that pain. I highly dought (although have no evidence) that a cow has any conscious care in the world. It will do anything it can to stop the pain but, that is because it is instinct. Does this make sense? When you cut into an animal, chemicals are released which (along with pressure changes and such) stimulate neurons which tell the brain that there is damage. All this is experianced by the organsim as a whole and we call it pain. So are you saying that if we were to numb the cows before we killed them it would be O.K.? When you cut into a plant you are also doing damage and the plant does in fact know it (at the same level any organsim would know there is damage). It doesn't have the experiance of pain but that would be because there is no neural tissue. Either way (plant or animal) you are slicing through living cells and killing them.

First off, biologically there is nothing wrong with killing anything. even your own species. Lots of animals do it(humans included) for whatever reason.

The problem with killing seems to boil down to the way we look at other forms of life. humans are very smart, able to reason, have a massive spectrum of emotions, and most importantly are capable of rational thought. It's rational thought that sets us apart. Now it get's a bit philosophical... animals possess some of these traits, but in much less impressive "doses", some of the traits could even be absent. Whether animals are capable of these things is difficult to determine, we don't really know what's going through their minds. Plants, now, have none of these traits, hell they aren't even sentient.

We could line it up Humans>chimps>dogs>cats>birds... blah blah blah. anyway this list would end with plants, fungi, maybe bacteria.

As you get farther and farther down the list of "admirable traits"(?) things seem more acceptable to kill and eat. no one worries about stepping on ants...well most people. Plants are at the bottom of the list 'cause they have no brains.

I guess my argument is more basic than that. A brain is just like a plant in the sense that it is just a collection of cells. It is how the cells cooperate in each type of life form that gives it its unique characteristics. Maybe we feel compasion for things that we can identify with. When a animal cries in pain we can relate to it. Whereas a plant does not do this.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

So are you saying that if we were to numb the cows before we killed them it would be O.K.?

No. Most of the suffering has allready happened before the act of killing the animal. Imagine being unable to move freely, or unable to move at all as a battery hen, while you're almost too thick and heavy for your legs to carry you. I'm convinced that animals suffer greatly from this treatment. If you tie a dog to a tree for years it will go mad, in fact people who do this are normally persecuted. But for some reason it's ok to do this with farm animals.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

When you cut into a plant you are also doing damage and the plant does in fact know it (at the same level any organsim would know there is damage). It doesn't have the experiance of pain but that would be because there is no neural tissue. Either way (plant or animal) you are slicing through living cells and killing them.

I think your claim that a plant 'knows' that it's being hurt is wrong. There may be some automatic reaction to the damage (release of fluids to close to wound), but this is something completely different then an animal that feels it's dying.

I think what it comes down to is that in order to be able to suffer you need a neural system to register the pain, and a brain to turn this pain into suffering (releasing all kinds of hormones that make the animal feel horrible and force it to try to end the pain). This suffering can be physical (the experience of the pain itself) and mental (the stress of being unable to stop it, the knowledge that you're dying). I think for nearly all farm animals, as for humans, this applies completely. Take the pig: it's said to be at least as intelligent as the dog, and certainly as able to suffer. Still we allow the most horrible treatment of pigs, while even limited violence to a dog is punishable by law in most Western countries. I don't see the logic in that.

Originally Posted by Draculogenes

We could line it up Humans>chimps>dogs>cats>birds... blah blah blah. anyway this list would end with plants, fungi, maybe bacteria.

As you get farther and farther down the list of "admirable traits"(?) things seem more acceptable to kill and eat. no one worries about stepping on ants...well most people. Plants are at the bottom of the list 'cause they have no brains.

Exactly. It's probably quite difficult to draw a line somewhere, but to me all farm animals fall in the category of 'unacceptable to kill'. Pigs probably fall between chimps and dogs, and neither of those animals should be farmed in my opinion (just as I think humans shouldn't be farmed).

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Originally Posted by Draculogenes

We could line it up Humans>chimps>dogs>cats>birds... blah blah blah. anyway this list would end with plants, fungi, maybe bacteria.

As you get farther and farther down the list of "admirable traits"(?) things seem more acceptable to kill and eat. no one worries about stepping on ants...well most people. Plants are at the bottom of the list 'cause they have no brains.

Exactly. It's probably quite difficult to draw a line somewhere, but to me all farm animals fall in the category of 'unacceptable to kill'. Pigs probably fall between chimps and dogs, and neither of those animals should be farmed in my opinion (just as I think humans shouldn't be farmed).

Most of us have unacceptable levels with animals. I also cull foxes, which some people disagree with. I find it acceptable to kill these animals to keep the numbers down, but im not a fan of fox hunting for sport and they are killed alot more humanly than the game the foxes kill


I think some of the problems are down to the fact that most humans have lost that part of them in this sterile pre packaged food world were living in


Strangely there seem to be a lower percentage of vegitarians living in the country than in large citys

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

I think some of the problems are down to the fact that most humans have lost that part of them in this sterile pre packaged food world were living in

Which 'part of them' do you mean?

About people being used to pre-packaged food, I think this is actually a reason why most people do eat meat. They only know the shapeless substance, the brownish balls, not the animals behind it. A lot of 'city folk' would stop eating meat if they'd visit a slaughterhouse and saw where their meat comes from.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Strangely there seem to be a lower percentage of vegitarians living in the country than in large citys

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. But without wanting to be rude, I could reply that in the country the level of education is generally lower, while vegetarians are more often relatively highly educated.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

I think some of the problems are down to the fact that most humans have lost that part of them in this sterile pre packaged food world were living in

Which 'part of them' do you mean?

About people being used to pre-packaged food, I think this is actually a reason why most people do eat meat. They only know the shapeless substance, the brownish balls, not the animals behind it. A lot of 'city folk' would stop eating meat if they'd visit a slaughterhouse and saw where their meat comes from.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Strangely there seem to be a lower percentage of vegitarians living in the country than in large citys

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. But without wanting to be rude, I could reply that in the country the level of education is generally lower, while vegetarians are more often relatively highly educated.

i meant with respect of the fact that its more apart of their everyday scenery/lifestyle and seem to have less hang-ups about the meat/animal situation. Rather than going to the stereotypes of country bumpkins. Actually the education is generally higher in the country than inner citys. And alot of the village schools in our area have demands from city folk wanting the best schools. And on average bumb up our house prices by around £30k cause of the demand from the schools

The uk league tables have higher percentages of village schools in the top scoring areas. Tsk Tsk fancing using old stereotyping. I think the last time education in the country was lower than the standard was probably pre-world war 2

Also stereotyping vegitarians as being more highly educated is a wild assumption based on nothing. How did you come to that fact?

Also can you explain to me the reason why you dont think farm yard animals should be eaten when you, yourself use leather products, when for decades there has been alternatives you could have used

Isn't that a bid hypocritical?

So the way I see it is that it's not about the actual killing of life but more the suffering the creatures go through while they are being raised for food.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

So the way I see it is that it's not about the actual killing of life but more the suffering the creatures go through while they are being raised for food.

yeah thats i way i see it. :-D

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

I think some of the problems are down to the fact that most humans have lost that part of them in this sterile pre packaged food world were living in

Which 'part of them' do you mean?

About people being used to pre-packaged food, I think this is actually a reason why most people do eat meat. They only know the shapeless substance, the brownish balls, not the animals behind it. A lot of 'city folk' would stop eating meat if they'd visit a slaughterhouse and saw where their meat comes from.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Strangely there seem to be a lower percentage of vegitarians living in the country than in large citys

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. But without wanting to be rude, I could reply that in the country the level of education is generally lower, while vegetarians are more often relatively highly educated.

i meant with respect of the fact that its more apart of their everyday scenery/lifestyle and seem to have less hang-ups about the meat/animal situation. Rather than going to the stereotypes of country bumpkins. Actually the education is generally higher in the country than inner citys. And alot of the village schools in our area have demands from city folk wanting the best schools. And on average bumb up our house prices by around £30k cause of the demand from the schools

The uk league tables have higher percentages of village schools in the top scoring areas. Tsk Tsk fancing using old stereotyping. I think the last time education in the country was lower than the standard was probably pre-world war 2

Also stereotyping vegitarians as being more highly educated is a wild assumption based on nothing. How did you come to that fact?

Also can you explain to me the reason why you dont think farm yard animals should be eaten when you, yourself use leather products, when for decades there has been alternatives you could have used

Hold your horses! You made a vague remark which I interpretated as meaning that 'city folk' are vegetarian because they've lost touch with nature. Apparently you meant something else, but this was not clear in your post.
About education levels at the countryside: I don't know what that's like in the US but here education levels are generally lower outside the cities (at least higher education). But it's offtopic here so lets leave that aside.

Yes there are non-leather shoes, but until now (as far as I know) they were not suitable for a wet, cold climate. But maybe they've developped in the meantime. Besides, I think it's better to do something then to do nothing at all. I see absolutely no hypocrisy in that.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

So the way I see it is that it's not about the actual killing of life but more the suffering the creatures go through while they are being raised for food.

Yea mostly, although I do object to unnecessary killing.

Besides rational arguments being a vegetarian also has to do with not being used to eating dead bodies. A lot of things in life are totally normal as long as you don't think about it too much. But once I realised a piece of meat is actually a burnt piece of corpse, the appetite was gone.
Think about it: if you found a piece of human corpse in your soup (cleaned and boiled, no health risks), would you still eat it? You would probabibly look away in horror, while it's actually the same matter as your normal meatballs. That's something I don't understand.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

I think some of the problems are down to the fact that most humans have lost that part of them in this sterile pre packaged food world were living in

Which 'part of them' do you mean?

About people being used to pre-packaged food, I think this is actually a reason why most people do eat meat. They only know the shapeless substance, the brownish balls, not the animals behind it. A lot of 'city folk' would stop eating meat if they'd visit a slaughterhouse and saw where their meat comes from.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Strangely there seem to be a lower percentage of vegitarians living in the country than in large citys

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. But without wanting to be rude, I could reply that in the country the level of education is generally lower, while vegetarians are more often relatively highly educated.

i meant with respect of the fact that its more apart of their everyday scenery/lifestyle and seem to have less hang-ups about the meat/animal situation. Rather than going to the stereotypes of country bumpkins. Actually the education is generally higher in the country than inner citys. And alot of the village schools in our area have demands from city folk wanting the best schools. And on average bumb up our house prices by around £30k cause of the demand from the schools

The uk league tables have higher percentages of village schools in the top scoring areas. Tsk Tsk fancing using old stereotyping. I think the last time education in the country was lower than the standard was probably pre-world war 2

Also stereotyping vegitarians as being more highly educated is a wild assumption based on nothing. How did you come to that fact?

Also can you explain to me the reason why you dont think farm yard animals should be eaten when you, yourself use leather products, when for decades there has been alternatives you could have used

Hold your horses! You made a vague remark which I interpretated as meaning that 'city folk' are vegetarian because they've lost touch with nature. Apparently you meant something else, but this was not clear in your post.
About education levels at the countryside: I don't know what that's like in the US but here education levels are generally lower outside the cities (at least higher education). But it's offtopic here so lets leave that aside.

Yes there are non-leather shoes, but until now (as far as I know) they were not suitable for a wet, cold climate. But maybe they've developped in the meantime. Besides, I think it's better to do something then to do nothing at all. I see absolutely no hypocrisy in that.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

So the way I see it is that it's not about the actual killing of life but more the suffering the creatures go through while they are being raised for food.

Yea mostly, although I do object to unnecessary killing.

Besides rational arguments being a vegetarian also has to do with not being used to eating dead bodies. A lot of things in life are totally normal as long as you don't think about it too much. But once I realised a piece of meat is actually a burnt piece of corpse, the appetite was gone.
Think about it: if you found a piece of human corpse in your soup (cleaned and boiled, no health risks), would you still eat it? You would probabibly look away in horror, while it's actually the same matter as your normal meatballs. That's something I don't understand.

Im talking about the UK. Higher education levels are all in universities and colleges in citys but that doesn't mean they are all city folk. I did my gcse's and a levels at a village secondary school and my further education in town as thats where the university is, and usually are(more to do with transport though. eg good bus/rail links etc)


I dont understand the comment about the connection between eating humans and eating animals. they are totally different. Thats like linking Human slavery and pets in captivity(like a goldfish). They are totally different areas. Very few animals kill and eat their own species

Just a matter of interest where do you get you protein and essential minerals from(eg omega 3) Are they all man made products?

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Just a matter of interest where do you get you protein and essential minerals from(eg omega 3) Are they all man made products?

A vegetarian diet pretty much has everything you need, it's just sometimes harder. Hmm.. omega 3 is in flax seeds I believe. A vegan diet on the other hand is just beyond me.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Just a matter of interest where do you get you protein and essential minerals from(eg omega 3) Are they all man made products?

A vegetarian diet pretty much has everything you need, it's just sometimes harder. Hmm.. omega 3 is in flax seeds I believe. A vegan diet on the other hand is just beyond me.

give me a chicken anytime :wink: thats mighty fine tasty protein

Funny thing is that if I don't eat meat I have to eat more vegies and more food to keep me going.

means I have to kill more lives (vegies are also lifes).

Human is a creature of the world. They are in the food chain. Any activities breaking the food chain will cause a disaster to the world.

Human beings have broken the chain by not being eaten. It is a disaster already (in food chain point of view). If we break the other end of the chain.....

just for fun.

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

Cool...Here's recipe for you. :-D
http://www.thesalmons.org/lynn/turducken.html

I respect any person who abstains from meat but please don't throw it in my face because I love animals, especially the tasty ones.

For those vegetarians who insist on taking a vitamin B12 supplement....Is your body telling you that you need meat?

I'll be fine around a vegetarian as long as they don't INCONVINENCE you. I for one wont go around to 50 different resteraunts just to find one that serves a vegetarian-only menue only to find the whole place doesn't serve meat.

Really, I respect those vegetarians that obstain from meat, but will still eat it when required. As to the fanatic vegetarians, go read about maddox's page against vegetarians.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

Cool...Here's recipe for you. :-D
http://www.thesalmons.org/lynn/turducken.html

That looks freaking good!!!!

Have you ever seen a vegetarian or vegan with twitchy face muscles? Probably a taurine deficiancy.

I've seen a couple other 'discussions' about vegetarians, and they typically end like this: some dogma keeps being repeated ("what is natural should not be changed", "not eating meat cannot be healthy"), and people start exchanging meat recipees while crying out how tasty their chicken and pigs are.
We even get this old one:

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

It's just human psychology: create an insider-outsider situation, so your own position is safe. And obviously I'm not the insider here.

Question: do you guys realise that it's about 7 vs 1 in this thread? Even if this was a mature discussion with real arguments I would 'fight' an uneven battle. Most scientists consider it not done to put someone in an unequal position during a discussion.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I've seen a couple other 'discussions' about vegetarians, and they typically end like this: some dogma keeps being repeated ("what is natural should not be changed", "not eating meat cannot be healthy"), and people start exchanging meat recipees while crying out how tasty their chicken and pigs are.
We even get this old one:

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

It's just human psychology: create an insider-outsider situation, so your own position is safe. And obviously I'm not the insider here.

Question: do you guys realise that it's about 7 vs 1 in this thread? Even if this was a mature discussion with real arguments I would 'fight' an uneven battle. Most scientists consider it not done to put someone in an unequal position during a discussion.

i dont think its a "V's" thread, it is a discussion about vegetarians and the majority of people are not vegetarians.

I personally have only ever met vegetarians with the stance of "meat is murder" and "your sick, think of the cute little animals" kind of attitude. I'm happy for people to be vegetarians as long as the dont try to thrust their views on others, thats the part i disagree with.

I'm a great believer in evolution and humans as animals. It is a fact that meat is a natural part of our diet and has been since the start of man, we have evolved into meat eaters and it is the most natural way to get the nutrients we need

I just dont understand why vegitarians have to push their views/ideas on others

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I've seen a couple other 'discussions' about vegetarians, and they typically end like this: some dogma keeps being repeated ("what is natural should not be changed", "not eating meat cannot be healthy"), and people start exchanging meat recipees while crying out how tasty their chicken and pigs are.
We even get this old one:

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

It's just human psychology: create an insider-outsider situation, so your own position is safe. And obviously I'm not the insider here.

Question: do you guys realise that it's about 7 vs 1 in this thread? Even if this was a mature discussion with real arguments I would 'fight' an uneven battle. Most scientists consider it not done to put someone in an unequal position during a discussion.

Sorry I think I still hold the record of this whole forum vs 1 (me). :P

Anyways, this thread was not supposed to be an arguement. It was supposed to be a discusion on the ethics of eating meat. For some reason a lot of meat eaters are very proud of themselves and like to boast. I just ignore them for the sake of staying on track. I honestly do think that Terduken thing looks really good though. And the comment on taurine was to add to the discusion of the difficulty of obtaining nutrients in a vegetarian diet. In my defence I have stayed on track.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I've seen a couple other 'discussions' about vegetarians, and they typically end like this: some dogma keeps being repeated ("what is natural should not be changed", "not eating meat cannot be healthy"), and people start exchanging meat recipees while crying out how tasty their chicken and pigs are.
We even get this old one:

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

It's just human psychology: create an insider-outsider situation, so your own position is safe. And obviously I'm not the insider here.

Question: do you guys realise that it's about 7 vs 1 in this thread? Even if this was a mature discussion with real arguments I would 'fight' an uneven battle. Most scientists consider it not done to put someone in an unequal position during a discussion.

i dont think its a "V's" thread, it is a discussion about vegetarians and the majority of people are not vegetarians.

This is a philosophical discussion about Vegetarianism on a science forum. Not a place for exchanging recipees and steriotypes. The fact that I'm in minority here should not matter in any way.

So let's have an in-depth discussion of the morality behind eating and abstaining from meat. I've allready mentioned several of my arguments and I'm still waiting for a sensible respons. Try to behave like a scientist, alphamale behaviour belongs in the zoo.

If I find more offtopic nonsense, from you or someone else, I'll call another mod to take a look at it.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

I'm a great believer in evolution and humans as animals. It is a fact that meat is a natural part of our diet and has been since the start of man, we have evolved into meat eaters and it is the most natural way to get the nutrients we need

Then I assume that you also believe that evolution is an ongoing process, and that new turns are always possible. We may be omnivores now, but there's no reason why we can't evolve to a vegetarian species. Vegetarians have decided to speed up the process.
And besides, you shouldn't look too narrowly at a species' spectrum of food sources. Sure, feeding broccoli to a dog will not work. But we're not like that, we are able to digest a wide range of food. And with modern technology (food supplements; adding vitamins to food) we can live healthily on a diet that may not have been perfect for our ancestors. So again, why should we let our "natural diet" dictate our behaviour? If an omnivore diet and a vegetarian diet (with a few supplements) render the same outcome, then what is the problem?

Your diet is a personal choice, and I do not think it is for others to 'scoff' at it. I choose a diet with as little fat, sugar and salt as practicable. Would cows and some other species become extinct if man did not see tham as a food product? Will vegetarians evolve into a species which has to munch for 8 hours a day to sustain itself?

I choose to consume only meat from stock bred for the purpose, my view is that these animals would not have experienced life were it not for our desire to consume them, as species we are mutually dependant upon each other. Cows have become so domesticated that they are reliant upon man for their survival.

If it were possible for techonologically achieve 'artificial meat' the same ratios of nutrients as natural meats together with a pleasant taste, I'd give it a go but not at the expense of yet another extinction.

I'd like to know if vegetarians, vegans, own pets, if they do, then their dog or cat probably eats more meat than I do. There's very little free choice left in life these days, leave my food alone!

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I've seen a couple other 'discussions' about vegetarians, and they typically end like this: some dogma keeps being repeated ("what is natural should not be changed", "not eating meat cannot be healthy"), and people start exchanging meat recipees while crying out how tasty their chicken and pigs are.
We even get this old one:

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

It's just human psychology: create an insider-outsider situation, so your own position is safe. And obviously I'm not the insider here.

Question: do you guys realise that it's about 7 vs 1 in this thread? Even if this was a mature discussion with real arguments I would 'fight' an uneven battle. Most scientists consider it not done to put someone in an unequal position during a discussion.

i dont think its a "V's" thread, it is a discussion about vegetarians and the majority of people are not vegetarians.

This is a philosophical discussion about Vegetarianism on a science forum. Not a place for exchanging recipees and steriotypes. The fact that I'm in minority here should not matter in any way.

So let's have an in-depth discussion of the morality behind eating and abstaining from meat. I've allready mentioned several of my arguments and I'm still waiting for a sensible respons. Try to behave like a scientist, alphamale behaviour belongs in the zoo.

If I find more offtopic nonsense, from you or someone else, I'll call another mod to take a look at it.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

I'm a great believer in evolution and humans as animals. It is a fact that meat is a natural part of our diet and has been since the start of man, we have evolved into meat eaters and it is the most natural way to get the nutrients we need

Then I assume that you also believe that evolution is an ongoing process, and that new turns are always possible. We may be omnivores now, but there's no reason why we can't evolve to a vegetarian species. Vegetarians have decided to speed up the process.
And besides, you shouldn't look too narrowly at a species' spectrum of food sources. Sure, feeding broccoli to a dog will not work. But we're not like that, we are able to digest a wide range of food. And with modern technology (food supplements; adding vitamins to food) we can live healthily on a diet that may not have been perfect for our ancestors. So again, why should we let our "natural diet" dictate our behaviour? If an omnivore diet and a vegetarian diet (with a few supplements) render the same outcome, then what is the problem?

Hows that offtopic nonsense? I was just saying its not a meat eater V's vegitarian problem on this thread. You mentioned that it was 7 v's 1 on this thread and i was just pointing that is not a verses problem. There happens to be more meat eaters on this thread, so more opinions for than against eating meat. Doesn't mean were ganging up, and there was no reason or need for the aggressive stance on it

maybe you too sensitive about the situation or maybe you mi-read what i had written but i was just pointing out it wasn't an "us" verses "you" situation but just looks that way because of the number of pro meat-eaters on this thread

Can you explain to mean why you made threats based on the comment please? All i was doing was explaining the numbers thing and you suddenly start threatening to call other mods in. Very confusing why you got that aggressive


Back on topic, what make you think we will evolve into vegitarians? Vegitarians need to take suppliments to counteract the lack of meat in the diet, surely that shows that these items are still needed for our wellbeing

Another point no mentioned is the enjoyement factor, chocolate, alcohol, and numerous other items are also not needed for survival and are Enjoyed by people. And thats a part that needs to be recognised

My main reason that i eat alot of meat, has nothing to do with being an alpha-male or anything like that. I choose to eat meat primarily because i really love it and its something that is healthy too(i only eat lean white meats regularly) and if chicken was not that healthy id still probably eat it for the same reasons people eat chocolate, or coca cola etc

Food isn't just about substaining life, there is a lot of enjoyement from it too

Captain could you just be a bit more clear.. I have never seen the abbreviation "V's." in my life and, based on the context, I interpret this as meaning 'vegetarian's' (as in: this is not a vegetarian's thread).
But if you mean this is not a carnivores versus vegetarians thread, then I agree.

I guess my 'rant' was more aimed at the "mmmmm chicken!!" and "I'll kill 3 animals for every 1 you spare" posts, which I would allready have deleted if it wouldn't have created a conflict of interest. These posts not only annoy me because it's cheap hacking at the outsider, but more so because they degrade the quality of this forum. Anyway I think we understand eachother now and can continue with this discussion in a normal way.

My post about "for every animal you don't eat I'm going to eat 3" was targeted at how illogical most/some vegetarians base their views. No matter what you do, animals will die, be it old age or otherwise. Like it or not humans are onmivorous for a reason, and it's highly unlikely we'll "adapt" back to a herbavore nature unless animals become far too few (which they're in the proccess of doing).

There are numerous reasons to be a vegetarian. If the reason is based on logic, then naturally it's accepted. But when you attempt to claim anything about vegetarianism (such as it being more pure, etc) that isn't based on any logically viable reason, there will be a rather lengthy discussion.

Now there are some acceptable reasons for vegetarians that aren't to be considered illogical due to their basis. However the question then is whether I'm in a position to say what is logical and what isn't. Nevertheless I'll leave that up to you. Rather than offer a rather lengthy (and I'll bet boring) list of reasons which I'd class as logical or illogical, I'll attempt to remain unbiased and provide a fence-sitter.

Empathy
Empathy towards animals is one of the many reasons some become vegetarians. It's like when you watch the news and are struck with pangs of very-strong empathy just by hearing about anothers death or injury. On an empathetic level, according to most "Empathy scales", this would probably make you a 7-9 (possibly a 10). For whatever reason, people do become highly empathetic and cannot tolerate any form of harm to any being (some even insects).
It's a logical side-effect, then, how few would be willing to touch animal meat. Although harvesting fruit, vegetables, etc, ends up killing animals regardless, the reasoning there is "the less the better".

However due to the nature of emotions, one might call this level of empathy illogical. Especially due to the implecations it has on your body and how animals will die regardless of what course of action you take. Other animals end up killing other animals, and it's most likely just the level of their cognitive ability that makes it appear repulsive.

This empathetic state, be it psychological or a genetically induced psychological condition, is also one of the things one might go to a psychologist for. So it could be considered an emotional "dysfunction" of sorts.
It's been my experience, however, that psychologists fail to class things properly. Anything outside of the closed-walls of society that appears out-of-the-ordinary tends to be considered a "disease" or "dysfunction". In some cases improperly classed as insanity! So by-the-book psychology is definitely not one to consider on this topic. predominantly due to the cultural bias that may result (not to mention personal-morals and whatever else) due to the nature of discussion.

P.S: As for a "Vs." thread, I highly doubt threats from a moderator are a good thing. It's likely people will take "sides", but that depends on how logical the replies are (not to mention worded properly. Use ENGLISH).
If the reply is in proper fashion; chances of it becomming one-sided are very slim.
Unfortunately this depends fully on the intelligence of the reader, so do expect every thread to become a "vs." thread as a result. Unless you have a forum composed of only intelligent people.

So in prevention of a full blown argument (possibly flame-war), kindly remember to conduct your posts in a reasonably logical manner.
But to quickly revisit the "every animal you don't eat" comment, it was also meant to be a joke. You know, "haha" and all that. The fact you took it in a hostile manner apparently means you're a rather sensitive vegetarian. Either that or you lack humor

Originally Posted by Pendragon

If I find more offtopic nonsense, from you or someone else, I'll call another mod to take a look at it.

ha, and I thought this was my thread. Oops.

[Edit] Oops didn't realize u were a mod...srry

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Then I assume that you also believe that evolution is an ongoing process, and that new turns are always possible. We may be omnivores now, but there's no reason why we can't evolve to a vegetarian species. Vegetarians have decided to speed up the process.
And besides, you shouldn't look too narrowly at a species' spectrum of food sources. Sure, feeding broccoli to a dog will not work. But we're not like that, we are able to digest a wide range of food. And with modern technology (food supplements; adding vitamins to food) we can live healthily on a diet that may not have been perfect for our ancestors. So again, why should we let our "natural diet" dictate our behaviour? If an omnivore diet and a vegetarian diet (with a few supplements) render the same outcome, then what is the problem?

Wow there. Have you ever considered the fact that maybe some of us find "supplements" to not only be unethical but, disgusting, and disrespectful to mankind and all other living things on this planet. You can take your supplements but you can leave me out of it. I feed my body with life not synthesized garbage made in a laboratory. And trust me, I am very, very healthy. You all like to think that you can just make some "matrix goo" and never have to learn how to make a meal again. Well I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way. There are things we call essential vitamins and minerals or "everything the body needs". Plants and animals give us so much more than that. When I eat meat I respect it because within a day or two it will be part of me. This is the way with all food. Once you disrespect your food you disrespect yourself and to me, that is intolerable.

Just had to say that.

Also, we are a miracle in evolution (if that is what got us here). We can be adept in nearly every possible way (wether it be physical or mental) yet, at the same time, we are the most dominant race on the planet. If you look at other races in any domain most species have specializations that allows them a greater chance of servival. We are unique in that we can specialize in anything. Why take that away? Evolution would not favor us not eating meat.

Think about it. Who are we helping by saving the cows? If you were tortured to death would you give a sh!t when you were dead? I'm not trying to sound sadistic here but I just want you to think about it. It's like a solder in war. They go through so much pain and agony yet they keep fighting. This is because life isn't about saving lives and being happy it's about being the best you can be. This is probably why I am not considered a Buddhist even though I think they are geniouses. I respect all life and would allow myself to come to harm before others if I could; but, I also understand that life (like energy) is not destroyed or created, it is moved. Whether we eat plants or animals, we are eating life to sustain our own. This is the way it has always been and will likely always be.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

I guess my 'rant' was more aimed at the "mmmmm chicken!!" and "I'll kill 3 animals for every 1 you spare" posts, which I would allready have deleted if it wouldn't have created a conflict of interest. These posts not only annoy me because it's cheap hacking at the outsider, but more so because they degrade the quality of this forum. Anyway I think we understand eachother now and can continue with this discussion in a normal way.

Just wanted to make a note.
I think most people can agree with you. I don't think it degrades the quality of anything though; instead it just shows the types of people out there. These things cannot be avoided. These people are everywhere and chances are you have contributed in the same ways they have. I find the best way to deal with them is to simply ignore them. There is no use in argueing against petty comments. If it does get out of hand than, like you said, just talk to a mod.

Gimme a day to read those long posts, I'll try to answer tomorrow.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Pendragon

If I find more offtopic nonsense, from you or someone else, I'll call another mod to take a look at it.

ha, and I thought this was my thread. Oops.

This thread is not your property. This forum belongs to a group of scientifically minded people who like to discuss sensible topics. If you want to create a thread for exchanging recipees and laughing about steriotypes, then I suggest you don't do that on a science forum. I have been entrusted with the task of keeping this forum clean of nonsense and I will carry out that task.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

And besides, you shouldn't look too narrowly at a species' spectrum of food sources. Sure, feeding broccoli to a dog will not work. But we're not like that, we are able to digest a wide range of food.

Haha, 3 posts ina row!!!

Just thought it was funny you mentioned that. I have a freind who has a very well taimed wolf (not sure that's legal). She loves Borcoli!! it is the weirdest thing.

P.S. aw soo close guess it's not 3 in a row.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Gimme a day to read those long posts, I'll try to answer tomorrow.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Pendragon

If I find more offtopic nonsense, from you or someone else, I'll call another mod to take a look at it.

ha, and I thought this was my thread. Oops.

This thread is not your property. This forum belongs to a group of scientifically minded people who like to discuss sensible topics. If you want to create a thread for exchanging recipees and laughing about steriotypes, then I suggest you don't do that on a science forum. I have been entrusted with the task of keeping this forum clean of nonsense and I will carry out that task.

Hey I edited that. I know I know. What I meant by that was I just felt a little belittled when you started talking about removing things in a thread I started, although I could really care less if you got rid of the nonsense stuff anyways.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Captain could you just be a bit more clear.. I have never seen the abbreviation "V's." in my life and, based on the context, I interpret this as meaning 'vegetarian's' (as in: this is not a vegetarian's thread).
But if you mean this is not a carnivores versus vegetarians thread, then I agree.

I guess my 'rant' was more aimed at the "mmmmm chicken!!" and "I'll kill 3 animals for every 1 you spare" posts, which I would allready have deleted if it wouldn't have created a conflict of interest. These posts not only annoy me because it's cheap hacking at the outsider, but more so because they degrade the quality of this forum. Anyway I think we understand eachother now and can continue with this discussion in a normal way.

yeah, sorry thats what i did mean eg "tyson v's holyfield etc"i thought it was well known. Just seemed a bit quick to bring in the aggression, assuming i was saying something else

With respect though, the mmmm chicken kinda comment has got some relevance with people, as has mmmm beer and mmmm donuts (in the way of homer simpson) like i was saying before food is more than just nutrition, there is a strong desire for certain foods. Chicken and pork have the same effect on me emotionally as beer, chocolate, sweets, cakes etc also have on people.

some people have a passion for their foods, meat included

Originally Posted by Pendragon

If you want to create a thread for exchanging recipees and laughing about steriotypes, then I suggest you don't do that on a science forum. I have been entrusted with the task of keeping this forum clean of nonsense and I will carry out that task.

As far as I can tell, I'm the only person who posted a recipe. It was supposed to be a joke in response to the "three animal" comment. You know...ha ha...funny...or do you think humor is not appropriate for this forum? If you didn't find if funny..so be it. But if your are going to start deleting posts just because you disagree with them, then you have no place being a mod. Just because you consider it nonsense does not mean it is. You threatened to bring in another mod...I think that would be a good idea.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

But if your are going to start deleting posts just because you disagree with them, then you have no place being a mod.

That's a very serious accusation, and yes I will ask another mod to take a look at this thread.

It's not an accusation, it's my opinion. It's my opinion that is not appropriate for a mod to openly discuss deleting people's posts because he or she feels that they are annoying or lack merit. If these posts were inappropriate, you should have PM'ed the poster and warned them of such and advised them that further inappropriate posts would be deleted. Publicly discussing your moderator decisions in a thread that you are actively participating in is IMHO also not appropriate. This is not an attack on you, it's just my opinion. I'm not calling for your removal or anything like that....I'm just suggesting that you are taking things a little too personally, and if your going to actively engage in debate, you take off your mod hat, and if you see posts that need moderation, then you PM another mod and ask them to speak publicly for you. Please do not take my suggestions as a personal attack...they are just suggestions.

Now...let's get back to the debate.

For the other meateaters engaged in this thread, is it moral to eat foie gras or veal?

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Publicly discussing your moderator decisions in a thread that you are actively participating in is IMHO also not appropriate.

I agree. It's equivilant to, as I said, a threat. Which is non-moderator like behaviour.

I'm just suggesting that you are taking things a little too personally

I agree here as well. especially since he has confirmation from both of us that it's a joke.

For the other meateaters engaged in this thread, is it moral to eat foie gras or veal?

Personally, I don't believe so. They just taste so repulsive I'll never eat them.

When I eat meat I respect it because within a day or two it will be part of me. This is the way with all food. Once you disrespect your food you disrespect yourself and to me, that is intolerable.

true that, brother. i feel you.

For the other meateaters engaged in this thread, is it moral to eat foie gras or veal?

i thought you meant venison for a second but now i see. if veal is what i think it is YES that is rediculous. i dont know what foie gras is.

Foie gras is fattened duck or goose liver..it's a french delicacy. They over-feed ducks or geese which causes their liver to increase in size and fat content. Many people believe (as do I) that this is inhumane.
Veal is bonive calf meat. From Wiki:

Veal is a meat produced from calves.
There are three types of veal: "Bob" veal (calves slaughtered when only a few days old), formula-fed veal, and nonformula-fed veal or "red veal". Nonformula-fed veal calves are given grain, hay, or other solid food in addition to milk. Formula-fed (or "milk-fed") veal calves are raised in confinement on a solely liquid diet. The humane movement is most concerned with this group. The consumption of veal is an important part of the Italian and French diets, and the ancient part of these cultures. Due to the toughness of nonformula-fed veal, these groups are unlikely to see it as a substitute. Julia Child remarked in her The Way to Cook that nonformula-fed veal ought to be called calf.

*****BEGIN MODERATOR COMMENT******

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Originally Posted by Pendragon

If you want to create a thread for exchanging recipees and laughing about steriotypes, then I suggest you don't do that on a science forum. I have been entrusted with the task of keeping this forum clean of nonsense and I will carry out that task.

As far as I can tell, I'm the only person who posted a recipe. It was supposed to be a joke in response to the "three animal" comment. You know...ha ha...funny...or do you think humor is not appropriate for this forum? If you didn't find if funny..so be it. But if your are going to start deleting posts just because you disagree with them, then you have no place being a mod. Just because you consider it nonsense does not mean it is. You threatened to bring in another mod...I think that would be a good idea.

If posts get off-topic like this one, *I'll* delete them. However, I'd like to point out that Pendragon did not say that he was going to "delete posts" from what I can tell. He was clearly pointing out that keeping the thread on topic is a task given him by the Administration of this board. If that means, deleting posts like spam or splitting off-topic posts to new threads, that's what it means. But, in this case, it seems clear Pendragon was referring to verbal requests to stay on-topic.

No posts have been deleted.

As to your comment above: "[y]ou threatened to bring in another mod...", I'm afraid I don't like your apparent tone in the response. This isn't a "threat," since this is what moderators do from time to time when we are participating actively in a discussion that requires an outside opinion with regard to moderation. As it happens, Pendragon need not even request another moderator to review since I found myself reading it out of personal interest. I was prepared to participate, but instead I'll reserve my comments on the topic for now and stick to the moderation so Pendragon need't worry about that aspect. Let's be clear about Pendragon's comment about asking another mod to look at the thread: he was trying to ensure fairness and impartiality here.

Any other comments about moderation in this thread will be deleted. This is called fair warning. If there are any problems with that, PM me or another moderator/administrator. If I've offended anyone or if anyone needs clarification, PM me.

The topic is "vegetarianism" and, while the occasional joke is fun, it need not degenerate into a pile of ridicule when some want to discuss the topic seriously.

*****END MODERATOR COMMENT******

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Foie gras is fattened duck or goose liver..it's a french delicacy. They over-feed ducks or geese which causes their liver to increase in size and fat content. Many people believe (as do I) that this is inhumane.
Veal is bonive calf meat. From Wiki:

Veal is a meat produced from calves.
There are three types of veal: "Bob" veal (calves slaughtered when only a few days old), formula-fed veal, and nonformula-fed veal or "red veal". Nonformula-fed veal calves are given grain, hay, or other solid food in addition to milk. Formula-fed (or "milk-fed") veal calves are raised in confinement on a solely liquid diet. The humane movement is most concerned with this group. The consumption of veal is an important part of the Italian and French diets, and the ancient part of these cultures. Due to the toughness of nonformula-fed veal, these groups are unlikely to see it as a substitute. Julia Child remarked in her The Way to Cook that nonformula-fed veal ought to be called calf.

Isn't veal just the cow version of lamb, or have i missed something. Morally i have no problem with veal(though i dont eat it) as i dont have a problem with eating lamb(muttons usually a tough old meat) based on their age. But on the way they are brought up and fed then, yes i would have a problem with it

so to clarify because their young, i have no moral problem with that. Because of their treatment i do, goose liver same thing. I actually like pigs liver as as far as i aware there is no forcing of food or bad treatment for these, but just a bi-product of the meat products and its probably the only offal that i like(i suppose with steak and kidney pie) but are these just british foods? Do americans eat fried liver and onions or steak and kidney pies? Or any other offal at all?

Originally Posted by teeniewitabeenie

Censored

Welcome to my ignore list.

CC,

Veal is mostly from the young male calves born, females are reared to continue the herd. The males are of no use to the dairy herd (other than a few bulls reared for breeding). Just another species where the female outlives the male..

Originally Posted by Megabrain

CC,

Veal is mostly from the young male calves born, females are reared to continue the herd. The males are of no use to the dairy herd (other than a few bulls reared for breeding). Just another species where the female outlives the male..

yeah very true, morally though to me there is no difference between eating veal and lamb if its purely an age thing.

I think I'd prefer to eat it on the young side, it's more tender and there's been less time to pump chemicals into it. Mind you I do have a lower limit on age, nothing younger than an egg.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I think I'd prefer to eat it on the young side, it's more tender and there's been less time to pump chemicals into it. Mind you I do have a lower limit on age, nothing younger than an egg.

Originally Posted by captaincaveman

Originally Posted by Megabrain

I think I'd prefer to eat it on the young side, it's more tender and there's been less time to pump chemicals into it. Mind you I do have a lower limit on age, nothing younger than an egg.

An emoticon does not constitute a response. Let's keep this thread high-quality.

For the other meateaters engaged in this thread, is it moral to eat foie gras or veal?

Hard to say. There are few things I appreciate more food-wise than foie gras. Is it moral? Most ethical systems only include humans, and for me it is about asking the question whether I want to be someone who is willing to kill a geese for its liver. To me, the answer to that question is yes, so I tremendously enjoy foie gras.

yeah very true, morally though to me there is no difference between eating veal and lamb if its purely an age thing.

Indeed. Seems a bit arbitrary to make a distinction based on age. Might as well stop eating rabbit because they are fluffy and cute.

Mr U

heres a video documentary called "Earthlings" is perhaps the best introduction to the truth behind this subject you will find on the web.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...0&q=earthlings

peace.

[/url]

Originally Posted by freqy

heres a video documentary called "Earthlings" is perhaps the best introduction to the truth behind this subject you will find on the web.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...0&q=earthlings

peace.

[/url]

another vegetarianism illogic video meant to sway people to their cause by spreading half-truths and misinformation (not to mention crappy psychology). Now I don't mind vegetarians, but video's like this I hold nothing but contempt for. I'd rather was a creationist video, since they at least make it more OBVIOUS they're lying.

----EDIT----

However, certain parts of the video it's agreeable with, and animal cruelty is indeed an issue.

Originally Posted by freqy

heres a video documentary called "Earthlings" is perhaps the best introduction to the truth behind this subject you will find on the web.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...0&q=earthlings

peace.

[/url]

interesting but its saying speciesism is like racism and sexism, Dont understand the link. Its saying treat animals in the same way as humans and not to favour your species over that of animals.

Not really a good argument for the eating of animals and not something i personally agree with. I agree that its important to treat animals with respect and treat and kill humanely but this is taking it a bit too far

just my opinion

I started watching this 'Earthlings', and after 10 minutes, when the description of 'holocaust against animals' began - I turned it off.

Pets? I have a dog. I went to the breeder where I on two accounts checked the living environment of my dog, its 'brothers and sisters' and its parents. They grew up in a loving environment and were not subject to the stress and conditions that this documentary talks about.

I watched a different documentary lately with Baldwin narrating. It talked about animals being killed without anasthetics and such. A dutch supermarket - in fact, the one I buy - recently got considerable flak over purchasing 'halal' meat that came from animals slaughtered without anasthetics.

A lot of these documentaries use the worst conditions and generalise about them.

However, for me something else is much more important. Should I be driven so by the desire to abolish suffering from the world that I should take no enjoyment in it? For me eating meat and eating foie gras brings enjoyment. Just like smoking cigars and drinking whiskey and cognac do. I may get longue cancer or die of a liver failing, but I will have enjoyed my life.
In respect of life I should become abstinent of eating plants and taking antibiotics to kill bacteria. In fact, I might have to kill myself because right now, my body is killing bacteria.

I do not believe in the sanctity of life, nor do I believe that suffering is ultimately something to be prevented. Should producers of foie gras stop producing it - I will not undertake actions to persuade them or create a company to resume production. However, as long as it is on the market I will consume it - like I will consume other products that I enjoy consuming.


Mr U

I'm sorry I cant help you anymore.

Originally Posted by freqy

I'm sorry I cant help you anymore.

Sorry, but you're illogical to believe those video's mean all animals are treated that way, or to think it's economically possible to stop it without literally enforcing a NAZI policy on all meat produce world-wide, and forcing the companies not to raise their prices because, god-for-fracking-bid, they lose a little bit of their overall ginormous profit.

You can't change it, you wont change it, and inevitably the world will collapse in a spectacular display of economic incompitence anyway. Go humanity!

Please excuse me for going off-topic for just one post. But I felt this was necessary.

I'd like to publicly apologize to Pendragon for questioning his moderational ethics. Upon further review, I was out of line, and allowed my blood alcohol level and bad day to allow me to say things that were unwarranted.

It won't happen again.

Thank you,

MacGyver

Originally Posted by freqy

heres a video documentary called "Earthlings" is perhaps the best introduction to the truth behind this subject you will find on the web.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...0&q=earthlings

peace.

[/url]

awww that is sick as shit! that is really fucked up. some of those people in there look crazy as hell. i can't believe this. id like to do something to those people...

I am a breeder of reptiles(mainly snakes now) and i treat all my animals with respect. they are kept in excellent conditions, get the best medical attention possible and part of reptile keeping is to educate the public(we do alot of schools and fairs etc). This education breaks down alot of public fear of these animals and causes alot of appreciation of animals that get a bad rap from the media, bible and other fictional text. This is only posible because i and other keepers are allowed to keep these animals and in some cases use our captive breed animals to re-populate the failing species in areas of natural disasters and de-forestisation(spelling)

My snakes are given the same love and attention as someone does with dogs/cats/rabbits etc and of course theres bad reptile keepers out there, the same as dog keepers, cat, bird, fish and every other pet.

These people in these videos always show the bad footage of SOME people's cruelty to animals and never shows the good that people do, it would be the same if they showed images of abused kids and then said we believe people shouldn't have kids, look at what they do to them

Its thew usual animal rights propoganda using a minoritys abuse of animals to stop the majority of good people

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

Please excuse me for going off-topic for just one post. But I felt this was necessary.

I'd like to publicly apologize to Pendragon for questioning his moderational ethics. Upon further review, I was out of line, and allowed my blood alcohol level and bad day to allow me to say things that were unwarranted.

It won't happen again.

Thank you,

MacGyver

No problem.

Here's why I'm a vegetarian:
(and it's not because I'm a vegan-militant. if you want to eat meat, go for it mate. i'm not going to preach.)

1. I'm not particularly fond of the taste of meat.
2. I am vehemently against the ideals of factory farming (especially with their use of rGBH and antibiotics). These practices really scare me. What are the long term effects of all of these antibiotics we're ingesting? As a society, are we eventually going to be immune to antibiotics? What about the hormones?

That's really it. I wish the meat and dairy industry was more humane in the treatment of animals. I don't think it particularly becomes an issue of cruelty but mass production. When a plant is processing 150,000 chickens a shift, a single chicken probably doesn't mean much to a plant worker. The stunning methods for slaughtering chickens needs to be revised. Most methods of stunning cattle have proven to be effective, but chicken stunning machines are bullshit.

My wife is a full-fledged carnivore. Noone else in my family or circle of friends is a vegetarian. And, I'm totally cool with it. I BBQ for people and everything. The only real problem I have with you meat eaters is that some of you are so wasteful! That really pisses me off. Something has given it's life to feed you and your family. Finish your plate. :)

Now you're scaring me.... antibiotics, hormones... do they add these to fish also? I mostly only eat meat when it is seafood. Shrimp are yummy.

I look back at the millions of years of our evolution and then the several hundred thousand years of our social evolution to bring us to where we are today and I am amazed to find people who think they can improve this process with rules like "don't eat meat!" We are evolved to eat meat. It is nature to us. Any effort to make it "immoral" is an abberation.

Every civilization in world history experiences a period of obsessive humanism that was then followed by decline and ultimately extinction. We human have to be humans and follow our basic natures. The more society deviates from it, the more precarious it becomes.

It is natural for men to want to hunt and to want to provide protien for their families.

Are we going to end up like that Janists who whisk the dirt in front of them when they walk so they can brush aside any tiny little bug that they might otherwise step on?

Or should we forget about poverty and over-population and concentrate on saving vegetable seeds so they do not die?

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

I would argue that we are evolved for omnivorous diets, since we have both sharp teeth for gnawing flesh and flat teeth for grinding grain, leaf, etc. I don't think it's right for vegetarians to obsessively preach the way they do. I wouldn't expect for you to follow me around all day on a soapbox telling me to eat meat. I think you'd find I'm actually a good vegetarian to eat a meal with. I'd never once make you feel like I'm judging you for the choice you made, since I'm not.

Originally Posted by id

The only real problem I have with you meat eaters is that some of you are so wasteful! That really pisses me off. Something has given it's life to feed you and your family. Finish your plate.

Indeed! People who eat meat out of necessity often have a lot more respect for the animals they kill. For example at hunter-gatherer societies they usually kill no more than necessary, honour their prey with rituals and use up the entire corpse, to the last organ and bone. We should be more like that.

Originally Posted by charles brough

I look back at the millions of years of our evolution and then the several hundred thousand years of our social evolution to bring us to where we are today and I am amazed to find people who think they can improve this process with rules like "don't eat meat!" We are evolved to eat meat. It is nature to us. Any effort to make it "immoral" is an abberation.

Every improvement once started as an abberation.
You are using the "meat eating is natural" argument again, but I simply don't understand it. Flying is unnatural too, not to speak about moving at speeds over 50km/h. And space flight, that's the most horrible abberation of all! It's unnatural for us to leave the athmosphere and tumble around in zero-G, so let's abstain from it! Why should we limit ourselves to things that are natural for our species?
Sure we shouldn't go to far with it. We can withstand some G-forces and some high-pressure, but too much will hurt or kill us. In the same way our omnivore bodies can live healthily without meat, but taking away dairy products and other foods derived from animals (als vegans do) can be harmful without the right supplements.

Originally Posted by charles brough

Every civilization in world history experiences a period of obsessive humanism that was then followed by decline and ultimately extinction. We human have to be humans and follow our basic natures. The more society deviates from it, the more precarious it becomes.

Charles, this is a sweeping statement which you really can't back up. We are now deviating more from "our basic natures" than ever in history, and as a species we're doing better than ever. It's unnatural to live in good, heated houses; to have nearly unlimited food sources; to live for 80 years or even longer; to have medicines, and to prevent a huge percentage of our population from dying of curable diseases. If you have glasses, then throw them away! Such things have never existed in nature, in no form whatsoever. Horrible and dangerous abberations of nature! :wink:

Originally Posted by charles brough

Or should we forget about poverty and over-population and concentrate on saving vegetable seeds so they do not die?

Here you take it too far. As allready discussed in this thread saving plants has nothing to do with being vegetarian. My own principle is to abstain from causing suffering, and a plant (like some very simple animals) is clearly unable to suffer in any way. The caricature you describe is not an extrapolation of vegetarianism, it is unrelated.

Here you take it too far. As allready discussed in this thread saving plants has nothing to do with being vegetarian. My own principle is to abstain from causing suffering, and a plant (like some very simple animals) is clearly unable to suffer in any way. The caricature you describe is not an extrapolation of vegetarianism, it is unrelated.

And yet your view on suffering is a subjective one. To eat is to kill, not to eat is to die. Plants live - as do the bacteria that our bodies kill beyond our control.

Eventually, the whole is entirely subjective - which makes the excessive criticism of vegetarians look out of place.

I would argue that we are evolved for omnivorous diets, since we have both sharp teeth for gnawing flesh and flat teeth for grinding grain, leaf, etc. I don't think it's right for vegetarians to obsessively preach the way they do. I wouldn't expect for you to follow me around all day on a soapbox telling me to eat meat. I think you'd find I'm actually a good vegetarian to eat a meal with. I'd never once make you feel like I'm judging you for the choice you made, since I'm not.

Me neither, though I would find it hard to cook for a vegetarian. The absence of meat is a hard gap to fill..

Mr U

[quote="Pendragon"]

Originally Posted by id

The only real problem I have with you meat eaters is that some of you are so wasteful! That really pisses me off. Something has given it's life to feed you and your family. Finish your plate.

So, basically, because people eat meat they are automatically wasteful. Sorry, pal, but when there is meat on the plate, we *EAT IT*. The majority of "meat eaters" are the same way. I'm not sure how "wasteful" even goes *IN* to the equation regarding vegetarians and "meat eaters."

So by the same coin, you vegetarians can be some of the most wasteful people.
Same logic as yours, only reversed.

There is so much wrong with this statement I can't even really begin...oh, wait, I already have. Well damn.

I, sir, take umbrage.

maybe we are scavengers, and not really meat eating murderers... i mean i didnt kill anything it was already dead.

It was suggested we might be scavengars. This is probably true of segments of our long evolution, but during the several hundred thousand years we have been humans, like we are now, we existed as hunting-gathering people. Even male chimps hunt some of the time. There is strong evidence we used to kill large animals with only stone implements.

It was also suggested that it is not possible to support the conclusion that each civilization has gone through similar phases---such as a humanistic phase. I have studied world history for a good number of years and even wrote a book about it. I won't pretend I can document these phases in this e-mail but I have done so in my website and it can be downloaded free.

But it is not a popular conclusion because it infers that our own civilization is not something new under the sun and that it will not just go on and on forever but will die just as the others have done. To avoid such a conclusion, social scientists found it convenient to abandon the whole concept of civilizsations and adopt the omnibus and meaningless term, "culture." That saved them from having to explain why they were never able to find the cause and effect process that resulted in civilizations rising and falling. It was impossible to find it without, in the proces, inferring they are expendable and hence that ours was doomed---
to be later replaced by a better one.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

So, what is natural in our nature? Another unpopular subject (!) because we hate to admit that we, also, have instincts. We have innate urges which our cultures focus and refine. It is when our culture denies them or blocks them that we can say it is "un natural." Flying is "unnatural" to you, perhaps, but it is not instinctively unnatural. We humans gratify any number of our basic instincts when we board a plane and cross the land.

charles , http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

Originally Posted by Pendragon

We are now deviating more from "our basic natures" than ever in history, and as a species we're doing better than ever. It's unnatural to live in good, heated houses; to have nearly unlimited food sources; to live for 80 years or even longer; to have medicines, and to prevent a huge percentage of our population from dying of curable diseases. If you have glasses, then throw them away! Such things have never existed in nature, in no form whatsoever. Horrible and dangerous abberations of nature! :wink:

I think this is a common misconception brought about by indivualism. People think of them selves as individuals that will die in time when in fact we are a contious life form that goes through stages that can give the feel of indivuality. The point being: what makes you think we are doing any better now? Longer life span doesn't mean the species is more successful. I think a biologist would say that the most successful species would be the one with the most surviving offspring in which case I'm sure we are close if not at the top. I wouldn't say living longer or curing disease means we are any better than we were before. Your example of throwing away the glasses is a great one and one that I have strongly considered for myself.

Oh ya this topic is on vegaterianism isn't it. I agree with what many of you are saying.

Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

Me neither, though I would find it hard to cook for a vegetarian. The absence of meat is a hard gap to fill..

This is an intersting statement. Maybe it's because I'm a student and don't have much money but I personally find it much easier to cook without meat (it is generally much more expensive than plant food). Although if I had the meat I would be happy to use it.

I agree that it is natural for us to eat meat and there is no reason for us to stop. I think another problem with the way society works is an issue for some people though. We (in most parts of the world) no longer live in small communities. When we buy meat the animal was not hunted/raised/fished/etc. by our neighbor and not all the meat that is obtained is even used. As a grocery store employee I know that a ton of meat goes straight in the trash. I think it is sad and often wish I knew someone who fished that I could buy my meat from. This way I know the fish came from the wild, was not treated with anything, and is not going to go to waste. Now days people mass produce animals as if they were childs toys but then the same is done with plants.

I would like to add a question for you vegetarians out there. If you lived ina small community where you personally knew the butcher or the hunter/farmer and you knew that most of the food obtained was not wasted and that few of the animals went through much suffering would you be more inclined to eat meat?

The way I see it is that all us life forms are in a way the same. Many biologists look at each species in a natural selection sense in that the better species becomes better by being more capable of surviving (as opposed to extinction) (<-- This may be a generalization on my part so I am sorrry if it is not the case). The way I see it is that while it may appear that one species is improving, that species would not be doing so without the other species which relies on another species and so on. We (all life) are all in this together and just as a wolf needs to feed on meat to survive I see no reason for us not to. It is part of life to take life in order to sustain life. While I wish there was more respect for what we kill I see no logical reason to not eat meat at all; although at the same time I can do without meat. This is my current view.

I have an interesting arguement for the Buddhist vegetarian that I may share at a later time also.

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by id

The only real problem I have with you meat eaters is that some of you are so wasteful! That really pisses me off. Something has given it's life to feed you and your family. Finish your plate. :)

So, basically, because people eat meat they are automatically wasteful. Sorry, pal, but when there is meat on the plate, we *EAT IT*. The majority of "meat eaters" are the same way. I'm not sure how "wasteful" even goes *IN* to the equation regarding vegetarians and "meat eaters."

So by the same coin, you vegetarians can be some of the most wasteful people.
Same logic as yours, only reversed.

There is so much wrong with this statement I can't even really begin...oh, wait, I already have. Well damn.

I, sir, take umbrage.

I feel you have missed the implication in the statement. I'm not implying that by being a "meat eater" you are being wasteful, but that some people are wasteful by not finishing their meat. Furthermore, I have never taken a militant standpoint on this debate, because I am not that type of a person. I am a vegetarian by choice and respect the choices of others.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I would like to add a question for you vegetarians out there. If you lived ina small community where you personally knew the butcher or the hunter/farmer and you knew that most of the food obtained was not wasted and that few of the animals went through much suffering would you be more inclined to eat meat?

I have an interesting arguement for the Buddhist vegetarian that I may share at a later time also.

I would probaly still not eat it, but only as a matter of personal taste. Although, I'd wager that there would be many vegetarians that would be intrigued by the idea. Also, I would love to hear your argument.

Originally Posted by charles brough

It was also suggested that it is not possible to support the conclusion that each civilization has gone through similar phases---such as a humanistic phase. I have studied world history for a good number of years and even wrote a book about it. I won't pretend I can document these phases in this e-mail but I have done so in my website and it can be downloaded free.

I would be very surprised if you could prove that it's precarious for a civilisation to be humane to other beings (that's what you imply). At best it could be a symptom rather than a cause, but even this would be very hard to prove (there's been quite a number of civilisations, as I'm sure you know).

Originally Posted by charles brough

But it is not a popular conclusion because it infers that our own civilization is not something new under the sun and that it will not just go on and on forever but will die just as the others have done. To avoid such a conclusion, social scientists found it convenient to abandon the whole concept of civilizsations and adopt the omnibus and meaningless term, "culture." That saved them from having to explain why they were never able to find the cause and effect process that resulted in civilizations rising and falling. It was impossible to find it without, in the proces, inferring they are expendable and hence that ours was doomed---
to be later replaced by a better one.

It doesn't trouble me at all if our civilisation is not unique, and that it may not exist infinitally. All I object to is your suggestion that treating other beings humanely is somehow related to the demise of civilisation, that it's part of the decadency of a dying civilisation.
But what if "the social scientists" are right, and there is no single cause for the rise and fall of civilisations? Just a multiplicity of forms called 'culture', no laws or regularities behind it? I think this would be easier to defend than the idea that by some regular cause all civilisations are doomed. Could be an interesting discussion, but it doesn't fit in this thread.

Originally Posted by charles brough

So, what is natural in our nature? Another unpopular subject (!) because we hate to admit that we, also, have instincts. We have innate urges which our cultures focus and refine. It is when our culture denies them or blocks them that we can say it is "un natural." Flying is "unnatural" to you, perhaps, but it is not instinctively unnatural. We humans gratify any number of our basic instincts when we board a plane and cross the land.

Again I have nothing against instincts. I'm very willing to admit that I would enjoy hunting down animals, but I refuse to give in to this instinct because I find it morally repulsive. And by the way, I would enjoy hunting down humans as well, if you want to hear that :P
So now that it's clear what you mean by 'natural', let me rephrase my question: Why should we let ourselves be limited to our instincts? If our instincts incite us to behave in a way which we find unnecessary and repulsive, then why would it be bad to deny them (whether that's unnatural or not)? Because it somehow brings down our civilisation?

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I would like to add a question for you vegetarians out there. If you lived ina small community where you personally knew the butcher or the hunter/farmer and you knew that most of the food obtained was not wasted and that few of the animals went through much suffering would you be more inclined to eat meat?

I wouldn't eat it. But I've heard about some kind of artificially created meat (probably from stem cells), which produces the same organical structures without ever having to kill any beings for it. If such meat would be in stores I would be tempted to try it out, but I'm still not sure whether I would eat it. I just don't like corpses, and don't like the idea of putting one in my mouth.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

We (all life) are all in this together and just as a wolf needs to feed on meat to survive I see no reason for us not to. It is part of life to take life in order to sustain life.

It's certainly not part of my life to take other lives. And while a wolf can't physically do without meat, a human can (for which I can present myself as the living evidence). So I really don't see how this is an argument.

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Originally Posted by DaBOB

We (all life) are all in this together and just as a wolf needs to feed on meat to survive I see no reason for us not to. It is part of life to take life in order to sustain life.

It's certainly not part of my life to take other lives. And while a wolf can't physically do without meat, a human can (for which I can present myself as the living evidence). So I really don't see how this is an argument.

I am speaking about all life. We are taking life when we eat plants (read on -->). At the present I am not revolted enough be animal treatment to stop eating meat all together which is the only argument that I could see changing my opinion.

Originally Posted by id

Originally Posted by DaBOB

I would like to add a question for you vegetarians out there. If you lived ina small community where you personally knew the butcher or the hunter/farmer and you knew that most of the food obtained was not wasted and that few of the animals went through much suffering would you be more inclined to eat meat?

I have an interesting arguement for the Buddhist vegetarian that I may share at a later time also.

I would probaly still not eat it, but only as a matter of personal taste. Although, I'd wager that there would be many vegetarians that would be intrigued by the idea. Also, I would love to hear your argument.

Your name is "id" which makes me think that you are likely familiar with Freud. I am going to speak of the ego but not in the Freudian meaning of the word so I hope this makes sense.

Much of Buddhism focuses on freedom of the mind. When we release ourselves from our addictions we become free (nervana). The cause of most addiction is the ego. Wanting a sense of identity. I have given the example of enjoying food in a different thread. Food has many different tastes and to think it is good or bad is nothing more than a construct of the ego (in my opinion). Once we can understand this we are free to eat and enjoy all food (that is just a small specific example). In a similar sense I think that a Buddhist puts himself/herself in danger of being egotistic (and thus suffering) by being vegetarian. Many vegetarians have an annoying sense of pride about their choice. This pride is limiting them and thus causes suffering. Some Buddhists will literally not go outside on rainy days in order to not kill insects. I don't understand this. They are again limiting them selves and feeding the ego. I would probably be considered a Buddhist if it weren't for this one contradiction. Just as I would respect anything that I would kill I would also respect anything that kills me. If you are beyong good and bad than suffering of others becomes somthing you can understand. This does not mean you become a psycho and start murdering people it means that you have an understanding for nature. Insects produce way more than we do; why? Because they get stepped on (literally and figuratively ). So why not just understand this and while you aren't intentionally killing them you don't beat yourself up when it happens and you don't obsess about avoiding it.

I don't think this applies to all Buddhists but more that it is a danger for many. They get "consumed by their own consumption" (<-- I love that line), not realizing that in their pursuit of freedom they are in fact entrapping themselves.

pendragon wrote:

"I now that it's clear what you mean by 'natural', let me rephrase my question: Why should we let ourselves be limited to our instincts? If our instincts incite us to behave in a way which we find unnecessary and repulsive, then why would it be bad to deny them (whether that's unnatural or not)? Because it somehow brings down our civilisation? "

The Human race has never been limited by its instincts. Increasingly, with the help of cultural growth (i.e., including "science, which has always been with us and has evolved into its present more advanced form), we have always managed to gradually develope cultural-religious ideas, traditions, faith, etc. which modifies and focuses in social more efficient ways the instincts that are innate in us. All our instincts are culturally conditioned.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

my sister is a vegetarian simply because she doesn't like meat. the morals issue of it isn't a big deal to her. personally, i wouldn't eat, like, a snake, or something like that. Giraffe, zebra, rhino, alligator, whatever, because those are 'wild animals'. I don't mind consuming cattle and pigs and chickens and whatnot, because they're specifically raised TO BE eaten.

Hmm.. that's interesting. I would probably be the other way around, that is if the animals were hunted by me. Then it becomes like a compitition and the better player gets the prize (the meat). Not sure I know how to take down a rhino though. Snake sounds yummy.

Anyways the point being that you actually give the animal a chance (or the illusion of one) as opposed to just raising it to die. I'm confusing myself.

No what is anoying... If you don't respond to a post it won't send you a message if you're watching it.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Hmm.. that's interesting. I would probably be the other way around, that is if the animals were hunted by me. Then it becomes like a compitition and the better player gets the prize (the meat). Not sure I know how to take down a rhino though. Snake sounds yummy.

Anyways the point being that you actually give the animal a chance (or the illusion of one) as opposed to just raising it to die. I'm confusing myself.

No what is anoying... If you don't respond to a post it won't send you a message if you're watching it.

Taking down a RHino? easy, you need an elephant gun and an ice cream stall, when the inquisitive Rhino checks out the coloured tuneful thing on the plain, you blat it!