Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Eating animals.

CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 8:17:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I eat a lot of fish - fish that I catch from the sea, as the protein part of my diet. I feel that the ultimate destination for a.. lets say a "spanish mackerel", is to be eaten by a dolphin or shark.

Since the ultimate destination of the mackerel is to become dolphin or shark food, my catching of the fish and quick termination of it's life is saving it from being eaten alive, being chewed a multitude of times with razor sharp teeth. I'm saving the fish from being eaten alive, in effect reducing the amount of pain it would experience in it's life.

The point is in the animal kingdom exists a food chain, and I don't understand how my eating fish is anti-moral, or of an unacceptable set of morals. Furthermore, i believe the world is always in a state of population control on a total level, and as new fisherman will be born into society, so will new vegetarians.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 10:00:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't disagree with you there. And Christians can't either, even though they're pretty damn belligerent. Fish pretty much don't count as animals for them.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 12:48:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 8:17:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I eat a lot of fish - fish that I catch from the sea, as the protein part of my diet. I feel that the ultimate destination for a.. lets say a "spanish mackerel", is to be eaten by a dolphin or shark.

Not all fish are eaten alive. It's quite normal for a fish to die of natural causes.


Since the ultimate destination of the mackerel is to become dolphin or shark food, my catching of the fish and quick termination of it's life is saving it from being eaten alive, being chewed a multitude of times with razor sharp teeth. I'm saving the fish from being eaten alive, in effect reducing the amount of pain it would experience in it's life.

Actually, fish are sufficated to death in the fishing industry. I don't know if it is more painful to be eaten alive or to be sufficated. However, it's clear that most of the fish caught and sufficated to death would not be eaten alive. Most (though not all) prey animals are able to evade their preditors.


The point is in the animal kingdom exists a food chain, and I don't understand how my eating fish is anti-moral, or of an unacceptable set of morals.

This is an appeal to nature fallacy. You are saying that, since nature has food chains, eating meat is morally justifiable. But nature doesn't dictate morality. Morality is the product of human moral intuition (descriptivly) and reasoning (normativly).

Furthermore, i believe the world is always in a state of population control on a total level, and as new fisherman will be born into society, so will new vegetarians.

Note that a mass murder could use a similar population control arguement to justify killing humans.

Furthermore, their is also the environmental consideration that industrialized fishing is depleting the oceans of wild life upsetting the ecosystem.

As far as health goes, the science says that non-animal sources of protein are superior. Vegans can (and do) easily aquire all the protein they need from plant sources. Also, the important DHA and omega-3 fatty acids found in fish are also found in walnuts and flax seed oil in abundent amounts.

There is also the problem of toxins such as mercury in fish flesh. Plant-based source of omega-3's are free of these problems.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 12:55:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 12:55:10 PM, drafterman wrote:
My ribeye steak with whiskey sauce was great for dinner last night, and great as left-overs for lynch today.

Lunch. Mafia on the brain.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 1:04:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 12:48:40 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/18/2012 8:17:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I eat a lot of fish - fish that I catch from the sea, as the protein part of my diet. I feel that the ultimate destination for a.. lets say a "spanish mackerel", is to be eaten by a dolphin or shark.

Not all fish are eaten alive. It's quite normal for a fish to die of natural causes.

I would venture as far as to say that is true.

Since the ultimate destination of the mackerel is to become dolphin or shark food, my catching of the fish and quick termination of it's life is saving it from being eaten alive, being chewed a multitude of times with razor sharp teeth. I'm saving the fish from being eaten alive, in effect reducing the amount of pain it would experience in it's life.

Actually, fish are sufficated to death in the fishing industry. I don't know if it is more painful to be eaten alive or to be sufficated. However, it's clear that most of the fish caught and sufficated to death would not be eaten alive. Most (though not all) prey animals are able to evade their preditors.


The fishing industry has a much different mindset on the manner than I, a self-gathering individual, on the humane handling of fish. It's also completely obvious that all fish caught and consumed would not have been eaten alive, they would have been harvested by humans. You could speculate about what might have happened, but in the end you can only reflect what did happen.


The point is in the animal kingdom exists a food chain, and I don't understand how my eating fish is anti-moral, or of an unacceptable set of morals.

This is an appeal to nature fallacy. You are saying that, since nature has food chains, eating meat is morally justifiable. But nature doesn't dictate morality. Morality is the product of human moral intuition (descriptivly) and reasoning (normativly).

Eating fish is morally justifiable if me diet depends on it, as I am simply respecting my human bodies natural requirement of nourishment. I fail to see how this is at all morally dissatisfactory, in fact it is quite morally favorable when taken out of a sensationalized context.

Furthermore, i believe the world is always in a state of population control on a total level, and as new fisherman will be born into society, so will new vegetarians.

Note that a mass murder could use a similar population control arguement to justify killing humans.

That could be the case, however as a human who is trying to be self sufficient and attribute as little waste as possible, i can honestly say that I would not consider making that argument.

Furthermore, their is also the environmental consideration that industrialized fishing is depleting the oceans of wild life upsetting the ecosystem.

As far as health goes, the science says that non-animal sources of protein are superior. Vegans can (and do) easily aquire all the protein they need from plant sources. Also, the important DHA and omega-3 fatty acids found in fish are also found in walnuts and flax seed oil in abundent amounts.

Perhaps you find it easy to grow walnuts where you live.

There is also the problem of toxins such as mercury in fish flesh. Plant-based source of omega-3's are free of these problems.

Mercury toxicity retainment is not well understood and many cultures prove fish to be extremely well tolerated by the human body. Not to mention that Mercury is in the land as well as the water along with many other pollutants. This is a sci-fi fear.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 4:24:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, the ole red-in-tooth-and-claw food chain is merely one form that the interdependent nature of existence takes and, from a cosmic perspective, as it were, is not to be lamented or opted out of, as if one could without embracing his own death! Indeed, when a carnivore consumes another creature it's perfectly consistent with the MO of life and perfectly ethical. However, that being said, it's not nice to kill and eat fellow creatures with a central nervous system who will experience some measure of suffering and be deprived of the opportunity to joyfully participate in life. When at all possible human individuals, who usually do have the option of nourishing their bodies and sustaining their lives with forms of aliment other than animal flesh, should do so. It's simply the kind thing to do, after all. And it's more healthy!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 4:41:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 12:55:53 PM, Koopin wrote:
I support legalizing dog meat in America.

I support legalizing eating Vegetarians in England.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 5:30:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 4:41:23 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 4/19/2012 12:55:53 PM, Koopin wrote:
I support legalizing dog meat in America.

I support legalizing eating Vegetarians in England.

DEATH TO VEGETARIANS!
kfc
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 6:21:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 1:04:49 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/19/2012 12:48:40 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/18/2012 8:17:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I eat a lot of fish - fish that I catch from the sea, as the protein part of my diet. I feel that the ultimate destination for a.. lets say a "spanish mackerel", is to be eaten by a dolphin or shark.

Not all fish are eaten alive. It's quite normal for a fish to die of natural causes.

I would venture as far as to say that is true.

Since the ultimate destination of the mackerel is to become dolphin or shark food, my catching of the fish and quick termination of it's life is saving it from being eaten alive, being chewed a multitude of times with razor sharp teeth. I'm saving the fish from being eaten alive, in effect reducing the amount of pain it would experience in it's life.

Actually, fish are sufficated to death in the fishing industry. I don't know if it is more painful to be eaten alive or to be sufficated. However, it's clear that most of the fish caught and sufficated to death would not be eaten alive. Most (though not all) prey animals are able to evade their preditors.


The fishing industry has a much different mindset on the manner than I, a self-gathering individual, on the humane handling of fish. It's also completely obvious that all fish caught and consumed would not have been eaten alive, they would have been harvested by humans. You could speculate about what might have happened, but in the end you can only reflect what did happen.

That was a little unclear so I'm not able to comment on that.



The point is in the animal kingdom exists a food chain, and I don't understand how my eating fish is anti-moral, or of an unacceptable set of morals.

This is an appeal to nature fallacy. You are saying that, since nature has food chains, eating meat is morally justifiable. But nature doesn't dictate morality. Morality is the product of human moral intuition (descriptivly) and reasoning (normativly).

Eating fish is morally justifiable if my diet depends on it, as I am simply respecting my human bodies natural requirement of nourishment.

True. However, the science could not be any clearer on the point that humans do not require fish or any other animal-based foods to be healthy. So, according to science, and your own logic (as presented here), eating fish is not morally justifiable. If there is science that says that fish contain important nutrients that can't be found in abundant quantities in plant-based foods then present it.

I fail to see how this is at all morally dissatisfactory, in fact it is quite morally favorable when taken out of a sensationalized context.

Furthermore, i believe the world is always in a state of population control on a total level, and as new fisherman will be born into society, so will new vegetarians.

Note that a mass murder could use a similar population control arguement to justify killing humans.

That could be the case, however as a human who is trying to be self sufficient and attribute as little waste as possible, i can honestly say that I would not consider making that argument.

Furthermore, their is also the environmental consideration that industrialized fishing is depleting the oceans of wild life upsetting the ecosystem.

As far as health goes, the science says that non-animal sources of protein are superior. Vegans can (and do) easily aquire all the protein they need from plant sources. Also, the important DHA and omega-3 fatty acids found in fish are also found in walnuts and flax seed oil in abundent amounts.

Perhaps you find it easy to grow walnuts where you live.

I've never tried. I doubt the desert environment of Arizona would be very accomidating, though I'm not sure. Anyway, walnuts can be bought in grocery stores.


There is also the problem of toxins such as mercury in fish flesh. Plant-based source of omega-3's are free of these problems.

Mercury toxicity retainment is not well understood and many cultures prove fish to be extremely well tolerated by the human body. Not to mention that Mercury is in the land as well as the water along with many other pollutants. This is a sci-fi fear.

It's a legitimate, scientific concern for certain vulnerable groups. But the fact that it isn't completely understood, as you point out, is enough for me to want to stay away from fish. Who would feel comfortable with a lot of heavy metals building up in there body.

The FDA advices the following:

However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury. For most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern. Yet, some fish and shellfish contain higher levels of mercury that may harm an unborn baby or young child's developing nervous system. The risks from mercury in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish and shellfish eaten and the levels of mercury in the fish and shellfish. Therefore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are advising women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to avoid some types of fish and eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.


(source: http://www.fda.gov...)

Not really a ringing endoresment of fish if you ask me.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 6:25:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 4:41:23 PM, Thaddeus wrote:

I support legalizing eating Vegetarians in England.

Well, in a sense this would make sense, as we would be a cannibal's version of health food, I suppose.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 6:27:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 6:25:23 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/19/2012 4:41:23 PM, Thaddeus wrote:

I support legalizing eating Vegetarians in England.

Well, in a sense this would make sense, as we would be a cannibal's version of health food, I suppose.

Well, its mostly because I am firmly opposed to Vegetarian World Order, but this a good point.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 7:43:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 8:17:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I eat a lot of fish - fish that I catch from the sea, as the protein part of my diet. I feel that the ultimate destination for a.. lets say a "spanish mackerel", is to be eaten by a dolphin or shark.

Since the ultimate destination of the mackerel is to become dolphin or shark food, my catching of the fish and quick termination of it's life is saving it from being eaten alive, being chewed a multitude of times with razor sharp teeth. I'm saving the fish from being eaten alive, in effect reducing the amount of pain it would experience in it's life.

The point is in the animal kingdom exists a food chain, and I don't understand how my eating fish is anti-moral, or of an unacceptable set of morals. Furthermore, i believe the world is always in a state of population control on a total level, and as new fisherman will be born into society, so will new vegetarians.

Fish don't have a "cerebral cortex" they don't feel pain. Their reactions are instinctual. Yes, yes, yes, you will now post a litany of studies that say they do. They don't feel pain. They are inconclusive studies. The fish reacts therefore it feels pain. Not true, in the sense that animals with a cerebral cortex feel pain.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 7:58:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 6:21:53 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/19/2012 1:04:49 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/19/2012 12:48:40 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/18/2012 8:17:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I eat a lot of fish - fish that I catch from the sea, as the protein part of my diet. I feel that the ultimate destination for a.. lets say a "spanish mackerel", is to be eaten by a dolphin or shark.

Not all fish are eaten alive. It's quite normal for a fish to die of natural causes.

I would venture as far as to say that is true.

Since the ultimate destination of the mackerel is to become dolphin or shark food, my catching of the fish and quick termination of it's life is saving it from being eaten alive, being chewed a multitude of times with razor sharp teeth. I'm saving the fish from being eaten alive, in effect reducing the amount of pain it would experience in it's life.

Actually, fish are sufficated to death in the fishing industry. I don't know if it is more painful to be eaten alive or to be sufficated. However, it's clear that most of the fish caught and sufficated to death would not be eaten alive. Most (though not all) prey animals are able to evade their preditors.


The fishing industry has a much different mindset on the manner than I, a self-gathering individual, on the humane handling of fish. It's also completely obvious that all fish caught and consumed would not have been eaten alive, they would have been harvested by humans. You could speculate about what might have happened, but in the end you can only reflect what did happen.

That was a little unclear so I'm not able to comment on that.

What i mean is, while the way the "fishing industry" handles fish, it does to translate into my personal handling of their lives. Since, I view them as no more or less important than myself, I consider myself to consciously put any fish through as little pain as possible.



The point is in the animal kingdom exists a food chain, and I don't understand how my eating fish is anti-moral, or of an unacceptable set of morals.

This is an appeal to nature fallacy. You are saying that, since nature has food chains, eating meat is morally justifiable. But nature doesn't dictate morality. Morality is the product of human moral intuition (descriptivly) and reasoning (normativly).

Eating fish is morally justifiable if my diet depends on it, as I am simply respecting my human bodies natural requirement of nourishment.

True. However, the science could not be any clearer on the point that humans do not require fish or any other animal-based foods to be healthy. So, according to science, and your own logic (as presented here), eating fish is not morally justifiable. If there is science that says that fish contain important nutrients that can't be found in abundant quantities in plant-based foods then present it.

Just because we do not require specific foods all the time does not mean that we do not require a well balanced diet. In my worldly situation, proteins and omega complex acids are not cheap or easy to obtain. I live by the sea and I happen to be successful and experienced at targeting and harvesting specific species of marine life for my own well being. Again, eating fish is morally justifiable when one does so for health reasons. Scientifically speaking, the human body is able to fully break down and utilize animal flesh, not to mention the basic observation of our canine teeth - which I'm sure nature didn't design for absolutely nothing.

I fail to see how this is at all morally dissatisfactory, in fact it is quite morally favorable when taken out of a sensationalized context.

Furthermore, i believe the world is always in a state of population control on a total level, and as new fisherman will be born into society, so will new vegetarians.

Note that a mass murder could use a similar population control arguement to justify killing humans.

That could be the case, however as a human who is trying to be self sufficient and attribute as little waste as possible, i can honestly say that I would not consider making that argument.

Furthermore, their is also the environmental consideration that industrialized fishing is depleting the oceans of wild life upsetting the ecosystem.

As far as health goes, the science says that non-animal sources of protein are superior. Vegans can (and do) easily aquire all the protein they need from plant sources. Also, the important DHA and omega-3 fatty acids found in fish are also found in walnuts and flax seed oil in abundent amounts.

Perhaps you find it easy to grow walnuts where you live.

I've never tried. I doubt the desert environment of Arizona would be very accomidating, though I'm not sure. Anyway, walnuts can be bought in grocery stores.

Nuts and flax seeds are very expensive per weight and nutritional content, I simply cannot afford them. A specific case in my instance is that, theoretically, a single fishing rod and a single lure which amounts to amounts to about $30 can be used to catch spanish mackerel year round. Being self sufficient is very important to me.

There is also the problem of toxins such as mercury in fish flesh. Plant-based source of omega-3's are free of these problems.

Mercury toxicity retainment is not well understood and many cultures prove fish to be extremely well tolerated by the human body. Not to mention that Mercury is in the land as well as the water along with many other pollutants. This is a sci-fi fear.

It's a legitimate, scientific concern for certain vulnerable groups. But the fact that it isn't completely understood, as you point out, is enough for me to want to stay away from fish. Who would feel comfortable with a lot of heavy metals building up in there body.

The mercury content found in fish not only rises exponentially with the size of the fish, but also varies greatly from species to species and location to location. The land that we grow our crops in is totally contaminated, with cases of vegetables being contaminated with lead, copper, zinc, and cadmium to name a few, but this doesn't scare anybody away from consuming vegetables.

The FDA advices the following:

However, nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces of mercury. For most people, the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish is not a health concern. Yet, some fish and shellfish contain higher levels of mercury that may harm an unborn baby or young child's developing nervous system. The risks from mercury in fish and shellfish depend on the amount of fish and shellfish eaten and the levels of mercury in the fish and shellfish. Therefore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are advising women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children to avoid some types of fish and eat fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury.


(source: http://www.fda.gov...)

Not really a ringing endoresment of fish if you ask me.

The FDA also considers french fries to be a vegetable, but I do not let the 'FDA' depict all of my nutritional needs. It also clearly depicts the levels being in question are only in certain species - those of which I am aware of and avoid.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 8:03:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 7:43:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/18/2012 8:17:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I eat a lot of fish - fish that I catch from the sea, as the protein part of my diet. I feel that the ultimate destination for a.. lets say a "spanish mackerel", is to be eaten by a dolphin or shark.

Since the ultimate destination of the mackerel is to become dolphin or shark food, my catching of the fish and quick termination of it's life is saving it from being eaten alive, being chewed a multitude of times with razor sharp teeth. I'm saving the fish from being eaten alive, in effect reducing the amount of pain it would experience in it's life.

The point is in the animal kingdom exists a food chain, and I don't understand how my eating fish is anti-moral, or of an unacceptable set of morals. Furthermore, i believe the world is always in a state of population control on a total level, and as new fisherman will be born into society, so will new vegetarians.

Fish don't have a "cerebral cortex" they don't feel pain. Their reactions are instinctual. Yes, yes, yes, you will now post a litany of studies that say they do. They don't feel pain. They are inconclusive studies. The fish reacts therefore it feels pain. Not true, in the sense that animals with a cerebral cortex feel pain.

Be them inconclusive, I still recognize the possibility of fish and even plants feeling pain. In many cases, I do not limit my mind to the confines of scientific evidence - as it is usually inconclusive.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 8:49:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://shine.yahoo.com...

^

Some examples of food contamination includes spitting in drinks, crap particles in ice, a bloody band-aid in pizza crust, and the worst a fried mouse in chicken.

That nearly made me gag and I'm not that kind of person
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 8:58:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 8:03:00 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/19/2012 7:43:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 4/18/2012 8:17:35 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I eat a lot of fish - fish that I catch from the sea, as the protein part of my diet. I feel that the ultimate destination for a.. lets say a "spanish mackerel", is to be eaten by a dolphin or shark.

Since the ultimate destination of the mackerel is to become dolphin or shark food, my catching of the fish and quick termination of it's life is saving it from being eaten alive, being chewed a multitude of times with razor sharp teeth. I'm saving the fish from being eaten alive, in effect reducing the amount of pain it would experience in it's life.

The point is in the animal kingdom exists a food chain, and I don't understand how my eating fish is anti-moral, or of an unacceptable set of morals. Furthermore, i believe the world is always in a state of population control on a total level, and as new fisherman will be born into society, so will new vegetarians.

Fish don't have a "cerebral cortex" they don't feel pain. Their reactions are instinctual. Yes, yes, yes, you will now post a litany of studies that say they do. They don't feel pain. They are inconclusive studies. The fish reacts therefore it feels pain. Not true, in the sense that animals with a cerebral cortex feel pain.

Be them inconclusive, I still recognize the possibility of fish and even plants feeling pain. In many cases, I do not limit my mind to the confines of scientific evidence - as it is usually inconclusive.

"I do not limit my mind to the confines of scientific evidence -"

So does that mean that govt should take this approch when burding everyone with it's endless regulation and banning of everything. Wait it does that, now never mind.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 10:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 7:58:50 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:

What i mean is, while the way the "fishing industry" handles fish, it does to translate into my personal handling of their lives. Since, I view them as no more or less important than myself, I consider myself to consciously put any fish through as little pain as possible.

I see. So you don't contribute to the fish industry and don't support their moral behavior. Do you not suffocate your fish then? How do you kill them?

Just because we do not require specific foods all the time does not mean that we do not require a well balanced diet. In my worldly situation, proteins and omega complex acids are not cheap or easy to obtain. I live by the sea and I happen to be successful and experienced at targeting and harvesting specific species of marine life for my own well being. Again, eating fish is morally justifiable when one does so for health reasons. Scientifically speaking, the human body is able to fully break down and utilize animal flesh, not to mention the basic observation of our canine teeth - which I'm sure nature didn't design for absolutely nothing.

Are you saying that you don't have access to beans, grains, legumes, seeds and nuts. These are all good sources of protein and, in the case of walnuts and flax seeds, a good source of omega-3. If you don't have access to these foods then you don't have a well-balanced diet anyway.

It doesn't matter if the human body can digest meat or that we have canine teeth. This is an appeal to nature. Like I said, the science is very clear that a diet free of animal products is healthier than one without animal products. Dietetics isn't concerned with pointy teeth.

Nuts and flax seeds are very expensive per weight and nutritional content, I simply cannot afford them. A specific case in my instance is that, theoretically, a single fishing rod and a single lure which amounts to amounts to about $30 can be used to catch spanish mackerel year round. Being self sufficient is very important to me.

Walnuts are one of our most nutritious food sources (http://www.whfoods.com...). You can get all your omegas in one hand-full. Are you really unable to afford a hand-full of nuts a day?

The mercury content found in fish not only rises exponentially with the size of the fish, but also varies greatly from species to species and location to location. The land that we grow our crops in is totally contaminated, with cases of vegetables being contaminated with lead, copper, zinc, and cadmium to name a few, but this doesn't scare anybody away from consuming vegetables.

Of course it does. This is why there is such a huge demand for organic foods.

The FDA also considers french fries to be a vegetable, but I do not let the 'FDA' depict all of my nutritional needs. It also clearly depicts the levels being in question are only in certain species - those of which I am aware of and avoid.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 10:53:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Proof that vegetarians are unnatural abominations: Bacon.

Nuff said.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 11:44:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 10:48:01 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/19/2012 7:58:50 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:

What i mean is, while the way the "fishing industry" handles fish, it does to translate into my personal handling of their lives. Since, I view them as no more or less important than myself, I consider myself to consciously put any fish through as little pain as possible.

I see. So you don't contribute to the fish industry and don't support their moral behavior. Do you not suffocate your fish then? How do you kill them?

I do not contribute to the fish 'industry' - this is known as commercial fishing, which is a capital interest. No, I do not suffocate the fish, I actually use a tool made specifically for the euthanasia of fish. It looks like a bat, but is it not the kind used for recreation.

Just because we do not require specific foods all the time does not mean that we do not require a well balanced diet. In my worldly situation, proteins and omega complex acids are not cheap or easy to obtain. I live by the sea and I happen to be successful and experienced at targeting and harvesting specific species of marine life for my own well being. Again, eating fish is morally justifiable when one does so for health reasons. Scientifically speaking, the human body is able to fully break down and utilize animal flesh, not to mention the basic observation of our canine teeth - which I'm sure nature didn't design for absolutely nothing.

Are you saying that you don't have access to beans, grains, legumes, seeds and nuts. These are all good sources of protein and, in the case of walnuts and flax seeds, a good source of omega-3. If you don't have access to these foods then you don't have a well-balanced diet anyway.

Yes I have 'access' to vegetables and grains.

It doesn't matter if the human body can digest meat or that we have canine teeth. This is an appeal to nature. Like I said, the science is very clear that a diet free of animal products is healthier than one without animal products. Dietetics isn't concerned with pointy teeth.

What science supports that a diet consisting of plants is more healthy than a diet of plants + fish? I would love to view the evidence.

Nuts and flax seeds are very expensive per weight and nutritional content, I simply cannot afford them. A specific case in my instance is that, theoretically, a single fishing rod and a single lure which amounts to amounts to about $30 can be used to catch spanish mackerel year round. Being self sufficient is very important to me.

Walnuts are one of our most nutritious food sources (http://www.whfoods.com...). You can get all your omegas in one hand-full. Are you really unable to afford a hand-full of nuts a day?

To be honest, I do eat nuts. However, I do not consider a well balanced diet to be solely about nutritional contents, in that case multivitamins would suffice. I consider it to be exactly as it is defined - Well Balanced

Well - In a satisfactory way
Balanced - having all different elements of proper proportion

Well balanced diet = consuming all different food groups in the proper proportion.

Therefore a diet that is:

A.) Plants, nuts, and fish

Is more 'well balanced' than

B.) Plants and nuts.

The well balanced diet consists of mainly plants and minimal meat.

The mercury content found in fish not only rises exponentially with the size of the fish, but also varies greatly from species to species and location to location. The land that we grow our crops in is totally contaminated, with cases of vegetables being contaminated with lead, copper, zinc, and cadmium to name a few, but this doesn't scare anybody away from consuming vegetables.

Of course it does. This is why there is such a huge demand for organic foods.

Organic foods do nothing to alleviate the problem of contaminated soil, the are only free of chemical spraying. You can harvest seeds from a tomato and plant them above a leech field and label them 'organic' - they're still grown in soil that is potentially contaminated.

The FDA also considers french fries to be a vegetable, but I do not let the 'FDA' depict all of my nutritional needs. It also clearly depicts the levels being in question are only in certain species - those of which I am aware of and avoid.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 11:54:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just don't understand how activists can give supreme meaning to animals based on their comparable traits to humans.

First it's human rights, then animal rights, then once science finds out a few more correlations between animals and plants they will lobby for "plants rights" at which time 'dry vegans' will arise and all nourishment will come from drinking de-ionized water (once sodium ions obtain rights) and microwaving instant powder+water bars.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 2:08:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 11:44:01 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/19/2012 10:48:01 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/19/2012 7:58:50 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:

What i mean is, while the way the "fishing industry" handles fish, it does to translate into my personal handling of their lives. Since, I view them as no more or less important than myself, I consider myself to consciously put any fish through as little pain as possible.

I see. So you don't contribute to the fish industry and don't support their moral behavior. Do you not suffocate your fish then? How do you kill them?

I do not contribute to the fish 'industry' - this is known as commercial fishing, which is a capital interest. No, I do not suffocate the fish, I actually use a tool made specifically for the euthanasia of fish. It looks like a bat, but is it not the kind used for recreation.

So you bludgeon your fish?

Just because we do not require specific foods all the time does not mean that we do not require a well balanced diet. In my worldly situation, proteins and omega complex acids are not cheap or easy to obtain. I live by the sea and I happen to be successful and experienced at targeting and harvesting specific species of marine life for my own well being. Again, eating fish is morally justifiable when one does so for health reasons. Scientifically speaking, the human body is able to fully break down and utilize animal flesh, not to mention the basic observation of our canine teeth - which I'm sure nature didn't design for absolutely nothing.

Are you saying that you don't have access to beans, grains, legumes, seeds and nuts. These are all good sources of protein and, in the case of walnuts and flax seeds, a good source of omega-3. If you don't have access to these foods then you don't have a well-balanced diet anyway.

Yes I have 'access' to vegetables and grains.
Then you likely have access to high quality plant-based proteins and omega-3 fatty acids.

It doesn't matter if the human body can digest meat or that we have canine teeth. This is an appeal to nature. Like I said, the science is very clear that a diet free of animal products is healthier than one without animal products. Dietetics isn't concerned with pointy teeth.

What science supports that a diet consisting of plants is more healthy than a diet of plants + fish? I would love to view the evidence.

That wasn't my claim. I think a diet that contains plant + fish diet is probably as healthy as a plant-only diet that contains good sources of omega-3's. There is, however, a legitimate concern regarding mercury, PCB'S and other toxins in fish. So it is reasonable to assume that the pesca-vegan is at a disadvantage to the vegan.


Nuts and flax seeds are very expensive per weight and nutritional content, I simply cannot afford them. A specific case in my instance is that, theoretically, a single fishing rod and a single lure which amounts to amounts to about $30 can be used to catch spanish mackerel year round. Being self sufficient is very important to me.

Walnuts are one of our most nutritious food sources (http://www.whfoods.com...). You can get all your omegas in one hand-full. Are you really unable to afford a hand-full of nuts a day?

To be honest, I do eat nuts. However, I do not consider a well balanced diet to be solely about nutritional contents, in that case multivitamins would suffice. I consider it to be exactly as it is defined - Well Balanced

Well - In a satisfactory way
Balanced - having all different elements of proper proportion

Well balanced diet = consuming all different food groups in the proper proportion.

Therefore a diet that is:

A.) Plants, nuts, and fish

Is more 'well balanced' than

B.) Plants and nuts.

The well balanced diet consists of mainly plants and minimal meat.


What's the point of eating fish then if the nutrients found in fish are also found in plants? You can say it's "well balanced", define well balanced, and so on. But what exactly is the point. I think it is that you simply like to fish and like to eat fish. But that doesn't justify eating fish on moral or health grounds.

The mercury content found in fish not only rises exponentially with the size of the fish, but also varies greatly from species to species and location to location. The land that we grow our crops in is totally contaminated, with cases of vegetables being contaminated with lead, copper, zinc, and cadmium to name a few, but this doesn't scare anybody away from consuming vegetables.

Of course it does. This is why there is such a huge demand for organic foods.

Organic foods do nothing to alleviate the problem of contaminated soil, the are only free of chemical spraying. You can harvest seeds from a tomato and plant them above a leech field and label them 'organic' - they're still grown in soil that is potentially contaminated.

Yeah, I suppose there isn't a enough science to support a legitimate concern regarding contaminated soil. This isn't the case, however, for fish.

The FDA also considers french fries to be a vegetable, but I do not let the 'FDA' depict all of my nutritional needs. It also clearly depicts the levels being in question are only in certain species - those of which I am aware of and avoid.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 2:27:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 11:54:02 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
I just don't understand how activists can give supreme meaning to animals based on their comparable traits to humans.

First it's human rights, then animal rights, then once science finds out a few more correlations between animals and plants they will lobby for "plants rights" at which time 'dry vegans' will arise and all nourishment will come from drinking de-ionized water (once sodium ions obtain rights) and microwaving instant powder+water bars.

That's silly. The only things humans can truly value are their own subjective mental states and, to varying degrees, that of other sentient creatures.

In your OP, you made clear that the well being of fish was of interest to you. This is because you made the simple observation that they have brains and nervous systems and, therefore, are likely to have the capacity to feel pain which you, as a fellow animal regard as bad.

This acknowledgement - that other creatures can suffer - has animated all animal welfare/animal rights movements. The acknowledgement that others can suffer has animated all social justice movements.

The idea that humans will (or could) one day value non-sentient objects is an idea so bizarre that I don't think any sane person could possibly entertain it.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 9:02:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think this is probably going to remain circular
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 9:03:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I do not however, feel immoral.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 3:40:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We need to eat animals, it's important.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 4:12:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 3:44:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 4/20/2012 3:40:44 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
We need to eat animals, it's important.

Your forum sweep will not succeed.

Already screen capped it.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"