Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fit for consumption.

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:41:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just wondering, what do you think would be the most accurate definition of the species fit for slaughter and subsequent consumption. I think it can be one of this following idea.

1. Non-Human, Non-Humanistic species: We don't eat human, for obvious reason and in case we have explored the space and found a species with similar characteristic to human race (let's say like the Avatar), we spare them too.

2. Uncivilised Species: Human is technically monkey, yet some people eat monkey. Probably we can do so to the race we may discovered in the future "without an ability to create tool, no verbal or written language, and do not live in artificial building". Guest we'll stop eating honey if somehow the bee can speak with us.

3. Traditional Consumable Specie: Eat only what we had been previously eating. The pig can speak? We eat them anyway.

4. Vegetable : Slaughtering animal is wrong, let's go veggy!

5. Fruit, Egg, and Milk: Slaughtering animal is wrong, slaughtering plant is wrong too. So let's eat something nobody hurt.

6. Religion Designated Species: Because god will it...

or either of this or something else, what do you think?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:56:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Capability to have rational thoughts is a good cutoff point.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:00:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:56:31 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Capability to have rational thoughts is a good cutoff point.

Kind of agreed. How do you judge "rational thoughts"? I do like the idea of fruit, eggs, milk (anything else that doesn't really harm or kill an organism, beans?) and their derivatives
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:02:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:00:47 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
How do you judge "rational thoughts"?

As best you can. As far as we know: Brains are required for thoughts. Thus, plants are kosher. Animals become a sticky wicket, and the line is hard to draw.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:07:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:02:24 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:00:47 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
How do you judge "rational thoughts"?

As best you can. As far as we know: Brains are required for thoughts. Thus, plants are kosher. Animals become a sticky wicket, and the line is hard to draw.

I'd prefer to judge on self-awareness, although that is hard to define and understand also.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:29:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

But energy conservation alone seems insufficient. I mean, I can agree with a lot of your points (though, I buy shredded cheese because I can eat the 5-pound Costco bag in a week, and it's somehow the cheapest by volume). But what if there were a fully self-aware, conscious and conversing animal that it would be the best energy conservation-wise, to eat? By that logic alone, we'd eat it, even though I would think you'd agree that's pretty awful.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:35:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

Animals create different nutrients for us, and higher energy density I believe. Although it's still an argument to consider.

By doing work in the kitchen we not only expend energy, but time and effort as well. Although I agree with ridding unnecessary chemicals.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:38:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:29:41 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

But energy conservation alone seems insufficient. I mean, I can agree with a lot of your points (though, I buy shredded cheese because I can eat the 5-pound Costco bag in a week, and it's somehow the cheapest by ?mass?). But what if there were a fully self-aware, conscious and conversing animal that it would be the best energy conservation-wise, to eat? By that logic alone, we'd eat it, even though I would think you'd agree that's pretty awful.

Also what do you think about eating certain things after they've died? Would it be ok to eat something self-aware after it has died?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:38:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:00:47 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:56:31 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Capability to have rational thoughts is a good cutoff point.

Kind of agreed. How do you judge "rational thoughts"? I do like the idea of fruit, eggs, milk (anything else that doesn't really harm or kill an organism, beans?) and their derivatives

I'm not sure, actually. Maybe the ability to use tools?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:46:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:29:41 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

But energy conservation alone seems insufficient. I mean, I can agree with a lot of your points (though, I buy shredded cheese because I can eat the 5-pound Costco bag in a week, and it's somehow the cheapest by volume). But what if there were a fully self-aware, conscious and conversing animal that it would be the best energy conservation-wise, to eat? By that logic alone, we'd eat it, even though I would think you'd agree that's pretty awful.

There are no animals that are energy-efficient to eat; only plants.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:54:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:35:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

Animals create different nutrients for us, and higher energy density I believe. Although it's still an argument to consider.

I think the vegetarians would disagree. Try some legumes. Energy density is inferior to energy conservation - if we are saving 90% of the energy in our foods by eating plants, then it's not a big deal to simply have a little more of them.

By doing work in the kitchen we not only expend energy, but time and effort as well. Although I agree with ridding unnecessary chemicals.

More time and effort goes into having to work full-time at a factory to slice cheese for lazy a55holes. Producing and maintaining the machinery is another point to consider. Although if you are a capitalist and believe more jobs=better society, then nothing I'm going to say is going to move you. We can all work 100 hours a week at factories and in service so that in our 5 hours a week of free time we can spend it not doing anything...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:55:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:38:36 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:29:41 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

But energy conservation alone seems insufficient. I mean, I can agree with a lot of your points (though, I buy shredded cheese because I can eat the 5-pound Costco bag in a week, and it's somehow the cheapest by ?mass?). But what if there were a fully self-aware, conscious and conversing animal that it would be the best energy conservation-wise, to eat? By that logic alone, we'd eat it, even though I would think you'd agree that's pretty awful.

Also what do you think about eating certain things after they've died? Would it be ok to eat something self-aware after it has died?

You can eat me if I die. I want my wanker saved to be bronzed and put in a museum, however.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:58:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:46:01 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:

There are no animals that are energy-efficient to eat; only plants.

That sidesteps the point, though.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:00:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:38:36 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Also what do you think about eating certain things after they've died? Would it be ok to eat something self-aware after it has died?

Well, the crux of the self-awareness problem is being the cause of a self-aware being's ceasing to exist. If you aren't the cause of that, then it's kosher.

Buddhism technically has a similar rule, actually: it was once (and is still to some) okay to take offered meat if it was meat that was killed with no regard for you (not specially cooked for you), in that case, where someone offers you some meat that otherwise they would eat, or would go to waste, it was kosher.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:13:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:54:12 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:35:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

Animals create different nutrients for us, and higher energy density I believe. Although it's still an argument to consider.

I think the vegetarians would disagree. Try some legumes. Energy density is inferior to energy conservation - if we are saving 90% of the energy in our foods by eating plants, then it's not a big deal to simply have a little more of them.

The reason we are the way we are today is theorised to be because we eat highly energy dense foods. We can only put so much food in our body, which means that more energy dense it is, the more energy we have. I do understand we have plenty of energy provided in modern society though.


By doing work in the kitchen we not only expend energy, but time and effort as well. Although I agree with ridding unnecessary chemicals.

More time and effort goes into having to work full-time at a factory to slice cheese for lazy a55holes. Producing and maintaining the machinery is another point to consider. Although if you are a capitalist and believe more jobs=better society, then nothing I'm going to say is going to move you. We can all work 100 hours a week at factories and in service so that in our 5 hours a week of free time we can spend it not doing anything...

Lazy? You think that wasting time, energy and effort unnecessarily is a good thing? Do you despise the industrial revolution, because it provided people with washing machines, gas cookers and central heating? People are so "lazy" nowadays that they don't even hunt their own food or collect their own fire-wood.

The good thing about modern manufacturing is that is actually frees up our time not limits it. We can use this time for anything, relaxing (we need to reduce stress in our society), thinking (obviously a good thing), socialising (time with family and friends or anyone, like talking to people on DDO).

There are negatives we need to counter, but I think overall it is very beneficial.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:15:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:00:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:38:36 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Also what do you think about eating certain things after they've died? Would it be ok to eat something self-aware after it has died?

Well, the crux of the self-awareness problem is being the cause of a self-aware being's ceasing to exist. If you aren't the cause of that, then it's kosher.

Buddhism technically has a similar rule, actually: it was once (and is still to some) okay to take offered meat if it was meat that was killed with no regard for you (not specially cooked for you), in that case, where someone offers you some meat that otherwise they would eat, or would go to waste, it was kosher.

So if I killed you it would be ok to eat you? Sorry if I've misunderstood your point.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:47:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:15:28 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:00:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:38:36 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Also what do you think about eating certain things after they've died? Would it be ok to eat something self-aware after it has died?

Well, the crux of the self-awareness problem is being the cause of a self-aware being's ceasing to exist. If you aren't the cause of that, then it's kosher.

Buddhism technically has a similar rule, actually: it was once (and is still to some) okay to take offered meat if it was meat that was killed with no regard for you (not specially cooked for you), in that case, where someone offers you some meat that otherwise they would eat, or would go to waste, it was kosher.

So if I killed you it would be ok to eat you? Sorry if I've misunderstood your point.

No, it wouldn't, because you caused the cessation of the rational being.

The point is that it's wrong to cause that cessation; eating it is incidental, even if it's the reason for the murder.

Think of it this way: If there's a dead guy in a forest in a post-zombocalyptic world, clutching a gun, is it wrong to take the gun? I think most would say "no", because that guy's dead, he has no use for it. But is it wrong to kill him, then, to take that gun? I think it's fairly obvious what the difference is and why.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 12:49:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Or to explain it a different way:

If you killed me, and then inferno came by, he could eat me. But if you killed me with the purpose of feeding me to inferno, then that would be wrong.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:24:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:49:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Or to explain it a different way:

If you killed me, and then inferno came by, he could eat me. But if you killed me with the purpose of feeding me to inferno, then that would be wrong.

Yes yes, I understand your point. I thought you made the opposite point for some reason. So if something is already dead, without your doing, then it's ok to eat it?

To be honest I'd probably agree, unless the being wished their dead body to be put to some other use. Although I personally probably wouldn't have the stomach to eat a self-aware being.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:30:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 1:24:51 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

Yes yes, I understand your point. I thought you made the opposite point for some reason. So if something is already dead, without your doing, then it's ok to eat it?

To be honest I'd probably agree, unless the being wished their dead body to be put to some other use. Although I personally probably wouldn't have the stomach to eat a self-aware being.

Well there's "ethically okay" and "what you'd want to do"

To paraphrase Chris Rock:

"You can do it, that doesn't mean it's to be done!"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 3:53:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's only 2 criteria for whether we can eat something:

1. Do I want to reserve this animal for other purposes?

2. Does it taste good?

So we can debunk all options as follows:

1. To a polar bear or a vampire, humans taste good.

2. Monkeys taste good.

3. With the right spices, anything tastes good.

4. Meat tastes good.

5. Vegetable soup with chopped bacon. Mmm...

6. Up yours God, pork is delicious!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 4:02:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:58:21 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:46:01 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:

There are no animals that are energy-efficient to eat; only plants.

That sidesteps the point, though.

Since there is no such thing as a conscious plant, I don't see any use in addressing an impossible hypothetical. The beauty of the system revolves around the fact that the leats intelligent are also the highest in energy efficiency.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 4:11:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 4:02:50 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:58:21 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:46:01 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:

There are no animals that are energy-efficient to eat; only plants.

That sidesteps the point, though.

Since there is no such thing as a conscious plant, I don't see any use in addressing an impossible hypothetical. The beauty of the system revolves around the fact that the leats intelligent are also the highest in energy efficiency.

But that "beauty" is incidental, and there is a difference between what is actually impossible, and what is simply not currently the case. When a coin flip happens, it could land heads or tails. That it lands heads does not mean that it was impossible to have landed tails.

Which is the problem. If there were a conscious plant (or a conscious animal that was an efficient energy source), your system says you'd eat it.

So your system is entirely predicated on something which is only ethically acceptable with the constraints we currently have. I could make up some kind of criteria that happens to fit my preferred diet, too, but for ethical systems to be useful we have to know what they'd say in a situation we aren't currently in. It's sort of like falsifiability: if your system could lead to a clearly bad result, then the system should be modified to prevent that.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 4:51:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 12:13:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:54:12 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:35:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

Animals create different nutrients for us, and higher energy density I believe. Although it's still an argument to consider.

I think the vegetarians would disagree. Try some legumes. Energy density is inferior to energy conservation - if we are saving 90% of the energy in our foods by eating plants, then it's not a big deal to simply have a little more of them.

The reason we are the way we are today is theorised to be because we eat highly energy dense foods.

Well I won't disagree that obesity is probably because of highly-dense foods...

We can only put so much food in our body, which means that more energy dense it is, the more energy we have. I do understand we have plenty of energy provided in modern society though.

Are vegetarians notably lethargic?

By doing work in the kitchen we not only expend energy, but time and effort as well. Although I agree with ridding unnecessary chemicals.

More time and effort goes into having to work full-time at a factory to slice cheese for lazy a55holes. Producing and maintaining the machinery is another point to consider. Although if you are a capitalist and believe more jobs=better society, then nothing I'm going to say is going to move you. We can all work 100 hours a week at factories and in service so that in our 5 hours a week of free time we can spend it not doing anything...

Lazy? You think that wasting time, energy and effort unnecessarily is a good thing? Do you despise the industrial revolution, because it provided people with washing machines, gas cookers and central heating? People are so "lazy" nowadays that they don't even hunt their own food or collect their own fire-wood.

Obviously the advent of farms made hunting obsolete, but people who don't cook and clean are wastes of sperm and eggs. We don't have to be hunter/gatherer people to be able to cut down on wasteful goods and services that destroy the environment, create many menial-labor positions, and turn us into invalids who can't manage to cook a hamburger on a skillet because it's too difficult and we don't have time because we need to update our Facebook statuses.

The good thing about modern manufacturing is that is actually frees up our time not limits it. We can use this time for anything, relaxing (we need to reduce stress in our society), thinking (obviously a good thing), socialising (time with family and friends or anyone, like talking to people on DDO).

There are negatives we need to counter, but I think overall it is very beneficial.

Some modern manufacturing and services frees up our time, but excessive amounts of it do the opposite. How many people do you know that work >40 hrs per week? If we are spending all our time at work, then saving a little time at home to cook a hamburger makes no sense. All these new products and services we are using require more and more work from citizens to accomplish. Why not just use less products and services, let people work less, and we'll have our own free time at home to cook our own meals without depending on McDonalds?

You might say that this is all within our personal choice of action, but I don't think it's really anybody's personal choice to spend their free time under the heel of a supervisor instead of at home doing things for yourself as a free person (being "clocked-in" at work is the very antithesis of "free"). Consider Disney's "The Magic Highway." In this video, we are told that technology is going to save us time, giving us "more time for liesure" in the future. Someone in 1958, if given the chance to talk to us 50 years later, would want to know just how we find enough things to do to fill all the recreational time we've all earned by creating machines that do everything for us. Imagine their horror when we tell them that that's not how it turned out... more technology might mean we do less things for ourselves, but we didn't consider the fact that more goods and services means more jobs to do. It means more insurance, more administration, more production, more government, more regulations, more laws, more lawyers, more advertising, more pollution, more sprawl, more customer service, more technical support, more bills... and MORE TIME AT WORK TO DO ALL THESE THINGS.

You are making the precise mistake Disney did 50 years ago.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:21:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:46:01 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:29:41 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

But energy conservation alone seems insufficient. I mean, I can agree with a lot of your points (though, I buy shredded cheese because I can eat the 5-pound Costco bag in a week, and it's somehow the cheapest by volume). But what if there were a fully self-aware, conscious and conversing animal that it would be the best energy conservation-wise, to eat? By that logic alone, we'd eat it, even though I would think you'd agree that's pretty awful.

There are no animals that are energy-efficient to eat; only plants.

False. There are areas which are better left as wild woodlands, for groundwater regeneration and other purposes. In these areas, the wildlife is perfectly energy efficient to eat, as it subsists off of a system completely unsustained by human labor. A family which raises chickens free-range on non-productive land can raise animals efficiently. This is a generalization which applies to livestock, but even that doesn't apply to all cases. Goats are sometimes raised on Phragmites australis subsp. australis, an invasive grass which destroys wetlands. The plant has huge negative utility which is transformed into food by the animal.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:29:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My stance on it is the following: there is no moral reason not to eat meat. There are health and sustainability reasons to not shovel hotdogs and hamburgers into one's mouth day in and day out. Generally, I eat meat sparingly (Beef Stroganoff once in a while, bacon in some dishes, Chicken Francaise with pasta ever so often, seafood ~once a week, but mostly just experimentation). The idea of eating a steak every day is just as disgusting to me as the idea of eating a stick of butter every day. Meats are the bold tones, crisp and stark, of the culinary palette. Overuse them and the result is a blaze, predictable dish.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:35:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:29:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
My stance on it is the following: there is no moral reason not to eat meat.

I think there can be moral arguments to not eat meat. Particularly if we leave the realm of hypothetical and enter the realm of the real world, where the meat industry is often monstrous.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:48:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 4:51:41 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/8/2013 12:13:49 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:54:12 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:35:06 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:26:47 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
I believe energy conservation is the only logical standpoint. We should eat mostly produce, because if we feed the produce to the animals and then eat them, we lose 90% of the available energy. Animals can still be consumed sparingly, especially when the end of their life is near.

We should also reduce the human effort... Buying cheese by the block, for instance, instead of shredded, reduces energy consumption (not to mention anti-caking agents, preservatives, etc.). We should be doing as much work in the kitchen as possible, so that others don't have to do the work in a shitty factory somewhere.

Animals create different nutrients for us, and higher energy density I believe. Although it's still an argument to consider.

I think the vegetarians would disagree. Try some legumes. Energy density is inferior to energy conservation - if we are saving 90% of the energy in our foods by eating plants, then it's not a big deal to simply have a little more of them.

The reason we are the way we are today is theorised to be because we eat highly energy dense foods.

Well I won't disagree that obesity is probably because of highly-dense foods...

We can only put so much food in our body, which means that more energy dense it is, the more energy we have. I do understand we have plenty of energy provided in modern society though.

Are vegetarians notably lethargic?

By doing work in the kitchen we not only expend energy, but time and effort as well. Although I agree with ridding unnecessary chemicals.

More time and effort goes into having to work full-time at a factory to slice cheese for lazy a55holes. Producing and maintaining the machinery is another point to consider. Although if you are a capitalist and believe more jobs=better society, then nothing I'm going to say is going to move you. We can all work 100 hours a week at factories and in service so that in our 5 hours a week of free time we can spend it not doing anything...

Lazy? You think that wasting time, energy and effort unnecessarily is a good thing? Do you despise the industrial revolution, because it provided people with washing machines, gas cookers and central heating? People are so "lazy" nowadays that they don't even hunt their own food or collect their own fire-wood.

Obviously the advent of farms made hunting obsolete, but people who don't cook and clean are wastes of sperm and eggs. We don't have to be hunter/gatherer people to be able to cut down on wasteful goods and services that destroy the environment, create many menial-labor positions, and turn us into invalids who can't manage to cook a hamburger on a skillet because it's too difficult and we don't have time because we need to update our Facebook statuses.

The good thing about modern manufacturing is that is actually frees up our time not limits it. We can use this time for anything, relaxing (we need to reduce stress in our society), thinking (obviously a good thing), socialising (time with family and friends or anyone, like talking to people on DDO).

There are negatives we need to counter, but I think overall it is very beneficial.

Some modern manufacturing and services frees up our time, but excessive amounts of it do the opposite. How many people do you know that work >40 hrs per week? If we are spending all our time at work, then saving a little time at home to cook a hamburger makes no sense. All these new products and services we are using require more and more work from citizens to accomplish. Why not just use less products and services, let people work less, and we'll have our own free time at home to cook our own meals without depending on McDonalds?

You might say that this is all within our personal choice of action, but I don't think it's really anybody's personal choice to spend their free time under the heel of a supervisor instead of at home doing things for yourself as a free person (being "clocked-in" at work is the very antithesis of "free"). Consider Disney's "The Magic Highway." In this video, we are told that technology is going to save us time, giving us "more time for liesure" in the future. Someone in 1958, if given the chance to talk to us 50 years later, would want to know just how we find enough things to do to fill all the recreational time we've all earned by creating machines that do everything for us. Imagine their horror when we tell them that that's not how it turned out... more technology might mean we do less things for ourselves, but we didn't consider the fact that more goods and services means more jobs to do. It means more insurance, more administration, more production, more government, more regulations, more laws, more lawyers, more advertising, more pollution, more sprawl, more customer service, more technical support, more bills... and MORE TIME AT WORK TO DO ALL THESE THINGS.

You are making the precise mistake Disney did 50 years ago.

You think we work longer now than we did in the past and have less leisure time? I'd rather live in modern society than in the past, thanks.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:50:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:35:01 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
My stance on it is the following: there is no moral reason not to eat meat.

I think there can be moral arguments to not eat meat. Particularly if we leave the realm of hypothetical and enter the realm of the real world, where the meat industry is often monstrous.

That's a reason not to eat factory farmed meat, not a reason not to eat meat. I live in a rural area, so I have many options open to me.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -