Total Posts:160|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

To eat or not to eat: Vegetarian/Vegan ethics

kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:25:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi! I want to make a forum where people can discuss and/or challenge veganism and vegetarianism with civility and open-mindedness.

I'd also be interested in talking about various ways in which speciesism (not even a word according to spellcheck!) manifests itself in society, whether this is a good thing or a problem, policies that can make changes, and the like.

To start us off, I'd like to ask two broad questions that y'all can interpret as you will: What do you consider to be the place of the nonhuman animal in society (human)? And: Do you think there are systematic problems with how human society views/treats nonhuman animals? Why or why not?

Thanks for your time!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:34:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:25:27 PM, kbub wrote:
Hi! I want to make a forum where people can discuss and/or challenge veganism and vegetarianism with civility and open-mindedness.

I'd also be interested in talking about various ways in which speciesism (not even a word according to spellcheck!) manifests itself in society, whether this is a good thing or a problem, policies that can make changes, and the like.

To start us off, I'd like to ask two broad questions that y'all can interpret as you will: What do you consider to be the place of the nonhuman animal in society (human)? And: Do you think there are systematic problems with how human society views/treats nonhuman animals? Why or why not?

Thanks for your time!

Watch the vid and decide for yourself (this goes on all the time). How we treat animals is sickening and repulsive in my opinion.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:15:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:34:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:25:27 PM, kbub wrote:
Hi! I want to make a forum where people can discuss and/or challenge veganism and vegetarianism with civility and open-mindedness.

I'd also be interested in talking about various ways in which speciesism (not even a word according to spellcheck!) manifests itself in society, whether this is a good thing or a problem, policies that can make changes, and the like.

To start us off, I'd like to ask two broad questions that y'all can interpret as you will: What do you consider to be the place of the nonhuman animal in society (human)? And: Do you think there are systematic problems with how human society views/treats nonhuman animals? Why or why not?

Thanks for your time!



Watch the vid and decide for yourself (this goes on all the time). How we treat animals is sickening and repulsive in my opinion.

Wow. Videos like that never cease to shock me. Thanks for the input.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:52:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm a vegetarian for these reasons:

1. It bothers me that the meat industry is so gigantic and often cruel.

2. I drastically reduce the risk of developing a variety of diseases, including cancer.

3. I save money.

4. I have vegetarian street cred.

5. I choose vegetarianism over veganism because I think it's actually more humane to retain a healthy relationship with animals by using any products they can offer without being harmed. Whole species could go extinct if we had no use for them. Imagine chickens without the need for eggs. Plus cheese and chocolate are just too amazing.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:24:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Watch the vid and decide for yourself (this goes on all the time). How we treat animals is sickening and repulsive in my opinion.
Does that apply to all animals or just some?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:34:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 10:24:31 PM, nummi wrote:
Watch the vid and decide for yourself (this goes on all the time). How we treat animals is sickening and repulsive in my opinion.
Does that apply to all animals or just some?

No. For instance, I don't care for insects. You can stomp a bug in front of me and I wouldn't care lol
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 11:21:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:52:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm a vegetarian for these reasons:

1. It bothers me that the meat industry is so gigantic and often cruel.
Then get your meat from pasture farms and small farms, and such, where animals are actually cared for... just saying...

Of course industry meat comes from cruel and evil methods where animals are fed primarily grains (which isn't in reality food even for cows), then injected full of chemicals, they can't move around and never see sun light, etc. No aware enough person would eat animals so sick, no real person would allow the treatment of animals in such ways.
Industry cares only for money. They do not care for quality, quality they can lie about. Quantity they cannot lie about, that they either have or not. So they sell contaminated "food" in large quantities and claim it being safe (it is not). To living off of that kind of inferior crap there is one important thing to say "Being alive and living are not the same!"

I read from somewhere that 90% of grains, globally I think it was, are fed to farmed animals. 90% of grains - that is a lot of land. They could let animals live on that land and eat off of it, instead being in a box.

2. I drastically reduce the risk of developing a variety of diseases, including cancer.
And you drastically increase the risk of a variety of other diseases.
You could reduce the risk even more drastically if you ate meat and relied for energy on animals fat. Cancer cells eat about 4 to 5 times as much sugar as normal body cells. If you got cancer and were a "vegetarian" then you would die of that cancer. Fruits are full of sugar and you'd need to eat lots of them to meet your daily energy needs.

3. I save money.
Health is not about money.
Truth is the healthiest foods tend to be the cheapest, once you know what is true healthy food. Some even free, money wise. For example, when in season, go to a forest and pick it clean of wild berries like cranberries, blueberries, cowberries (or whatever they were), etc. or whatever you have growing in your area.

4. I have vegetarian street cred.
Which is completely irrelevant in any case.

5. I choose vegetarianism over veganism because I think it's actually more humane to retain a healthy relationship with animals by using any products they can offer without being harmed. Whole species could go extinct if we had no use for them. Imagine chickens without the need for eggs. Plus cheese and chocolate are just too amazing.

Surviving requires the killing of other life one way or another. You giving any excuses not to eat meat such as "animal cruelty" or "animals are harmed" is being hypocritical. You are a human and humans need meat, have for millions of years down the line and still do. (Needs vary from person to person but all, to some extent, do need meat at least at some point, even more when doing something physical.)
You are not a plant, you do not have roots that suck nutrients from the ground, not harming anything or anyone. You are an animal, you are an omnivore, and your body needs meat whether you consciously register it or not. That you can make a decision, follow something specific, does not necessarily make it true or the best decision.

You mean like we don't have uses for numerous animals living on the planet, in the wild?

Chickens without the need for eggs would be chickens raised for their meat.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 11:23:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 10:34:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:24:31 PM, nummi wrote:
Watch the vid and decide for yourself (this goes on all the time). How we treat animals is sickening and repulsive in my opinion.
Does that apply to all animals or just some?

No. For instance, I don't care for insects. You can stomp a bug in front of me and I wouldn't care lol
Didn't mean insects, I meant mammals and birds.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 8:30:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People who argue so vehemently against vegetarianism are interesting. It's obvious they're trying to bury a moral sense.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 8:42:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
5. I choose vegetarianism over veganism because I think it's actually more humane to retain a healthy relationship with animals by using any products they can offer without being harmed. Whole species could go extinct if we had no use for them. Imagine chickens without the need for eggs. Plus cheese and chocolate are just too amazing.

Nice! I'm a vegetarian too! I'm not a vegan yet, because cheese and chocolate are indeed just way too delicious. However, I am planning on doing so eventually. Did you know that the veal industry primarily comes from the diary industry? The male cows who are born have no use so are sent to be made into veal. Male chicks are often seen as useless, and so are....ground up alive. The chickens and diary cows are usually kept in awful environments, but I'm with you about having positive mutually-beneficial relationships with nonhuman animals. But I think in the status quo that's rather rare....
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 9:02:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 11:21:45 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:52:11 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm a vegetarian for these reasons:

1. It bothers me that the meat industry is so gigantic and often cruel.
Then get your meat from pasture farms and small farms, and such, where animals are actually cared for... just saying...


Sorry, but the ethical local meat story is a myth. 99% of meat comes from factory farms. Around 99% of that 1% still engage in terrible unethical practices (artificial insemination, abuse, obese chickens in constant pain, etc.). Even in that .01%, the innocent nonhuman animals are still killed, and killed painfully.

Of course industry meat comes from cruel and evil methods where animals are fed primarily grains (which isn't in reality food even for cows), then injected full of chemicals, they can't move around and never see sun light, etc. No aware enough person would eat animals so sick, no real person would allow the treatment of animals in such ways.

I didn't know about the grains information. Learn something new everyday :). For me though, that's one of my least concerns. It seems that, if I may say so, it seems you are more worried about the quality of your meat than the quality of the nonhuman animal's life. Is that the case?

Industry cares only for money. They do not care for quality, quality they can lie about. Quantity they cannot lie about, that they either have or not. So they sell contaminated "food" in large quantities and claim it being safe (it is not). To living off of that kind of inferior crap there is one important thing to say "Being alive and living are not the same!"


Absolutely. The industry only cares about what is economically feasible. In doing so, they minimize life and maximize suffering.

I read from somewhere that 90% of grains, globally I think it was, are fed to farmed animals. 90% of grains - that is a lot of land. They could let animals live on that land and eat off of it, instead being in a box.

I'd love it if that happened! Unfortunately, like you said, factory farms only care about minimizing expenditures and maximizing profit. If we can't prove that the animals' dead bodies are tastier by not being imprisoned for their entire lives (and probably even if we do), the factory farm owners will not change.


2. I drastically reduce the risk of developing a variety of diseases, including cancer.
And you drastically increase the risk of a variety of other diseases.
You could reduce the risk even more drastically if you ate meat and relied for energy on animals fat. Cancer cells eat about 4 to 5 times as much sugar as normal body cells. If you got cancer and were a "vegetarian" then you would die of that cancer. Fruits are full of sugar and you'd need to eat lots of them to meet your daily energy needs.


That's also a myth I'm afraid. Vegetarian diets are fantastic for cancer. You don't need massive amount of calories (energy) or sugar. This is what is causing a health crisis in many industrialized nations.

3. I save money.
Health is not about money.
Truth is the healthiest foods tend to be the cheapest, once you know what is true healthy food. Some even free, money wise. For example, when in season, go to a forest and pick it clean of wild berries like cranberries, blueberries, cowberries (or whatever they were), etc. or whatever you have growing in your area.

I'm not sure where both of you are coming from. I'm pretty sure vegetarianism is more expensive, but maybe I'm not doing it right!


4. I have vegetarian street cred.
Which is completely irrelevant in any case.

When you come across those vegetarian gangs that terrorize San Francisco or the Jolley Green Giant, you'll think differently. :P


5. I choose vegetarianism over veganism because I think it's actually more humane to retain a healthy relationship with animals by using any products they can offer without being harmed. Whole species could go extinct if we had no use for them. Imagine chickens without the need for eggs. Plus cheese and chocolate are just too amazing.

Surviving requires the killing of other life one way or another. You giving any excuses not to eat meat such as "animal cruelty" or "animals are harmed" is being hypocritical. You are a human and humans need meat, have for millions of years down the line and still do. (Needs vary from person to person but all, to some extent, do need meat at least at some point, even more when doing something physical.)
You are not a plant, you do not have roots that suck nutrients from the ground, not harming anything or anyone. You are an animal, you are an omnivore, and your body needs meat whether you consciously register it or not. That you can make a decision, follow something specific, does not necessarily make it true or the best decision.


Humans do not need to kill others. That is a fact. Living without meat has empirically shown to help you live longer. That we require meat to be healthy is another, hate to say it, myth.

You mean like we don't have uses for numerous animals living on the planet, in the wild?

Chickens without the need for eggs would be chickens raised for their meat.

Or, chickens surviving in the wild. We would need to keep the captive awhile longer to artificially select the least fat to reduce their fatness, but then yeah, they could potentially be assisted in returning to the wild.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 9:04:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 8:30:12 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
People who argue so vehemently against vegetarianism are interesting. It's obvious they're trying to bury a moral sense.

Haha indeed often. That was me two years ago XD
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 9:20:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 8:42:31 AM, kbub wrote:
5. I choose vegetarianism over veganism because I think it's actually more humane to retain a healthy relationship with animals by using any products they can offer without being harmed. Whole species could go extinct if we had no use for them. Imagine chickens without the need for eggs. Plus cheese and chocolate are just too amazing.

Nice! I'm a vegetarian too! I'm not a vegan yet, because cheese and chocolate are indeed just way too delicious. However, I am planning on doing so eventually. Did you know that the veal industry primarily comes from the diary industry? The male cows who are born have no use so are sent to be made into veal. Male chicks are often seen as useless, and so are....ground up alive. The chickens and diary cows are usually kept in awful environments, but I'm with you about having positive mutually-beneficial relationships with nonhuman animals. But I think in the status quo that's rather rare....
Cheese and chocolate have fat in them, the reason they are delicious to you. Cheese has protein in it, another reason it is delicious to you. Chocolate has iron and magnesium in it, the primary reason it is delicious to you. Other things in them too. (I don't eat dairy at all, because I noticed negative side effects when consuming some; chocolate ain't good either, especially dark, get a bad reaction from it.)
If something tastes really good that means it has in it something your body needs. If your body has an excess of that something then the particular food would taste bad or very bland or just disgusting.

That which you get from those two items is what your body needs to function somewhat normally ("somewhat" because they are not good food items). You can never have a normally (or rather as close to "optimally" as possible) functioning body nor mind with a plant, fruit, and vegetable only diet. You need animal protein and fat (at least from time to time), fact of reality, deal with it (unless you really do not care about your own health).
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 9:54:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:25:27 PM, kbub wrote:
Hi! I want to make a forum where people can discuss and/or challenge veganism and vegetarianism with civility and open-mindedness.
Challenge accepted

I'd also be interested in talking about various ways in which speciesism (not even a word according to spellcheck!) manifests itself in society, whether this is a good thing or a problem, policies that can make changes, and the like.
It's really not a problem.

To start us off, I'd like to ask two broad questions that y'all can interpret as you will: What do you consider to be the place of the nonhuman animal in society (human)?
If we have dominance over them, then they're lower than us.

And: Do you think there are systematic problems with how human society views/treats nonhuman animals? Why or why not?
Nope not really. They're inferior to humans. We have the people who will preserve them to keep the food supply, and those who actually eat them because humans are naturally omnivorous.

Thanks for your time!
You're welcome.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:10:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm disinclined to think that taste has anything at all to do with nutritional value actually, but that it is merely recognition then overlaid with programming. This would account for difference in taste and serve to keep the human animal alive much more simply. Really, to propose anything else is to propose an overload of processing, which would make for evolutionary infeasibility, realistically speaking; let alone that it doesn't account for difference in taste. And then we did all drink a lot of milk when we were kids.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:13:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
1. It bothers me that the meat industry is so gigantic and often cruel.
Then get your meat from pasture farms and small farms, and such, where animals are actually cared for... just saying...
Sorry, but the ethical local meat story is a myth. 99% of meat comes from factory farms.
99%? Really? You base that claim on what? I know for a fact that it is not true. How about you do some research first?

Around 99% of that 1% still engage in terrible unethical practices (artificial insemination, abuse, obese chickens in constant pain, etc.). Even in that .01%, the innocent nonhuman animals are still killed, and killed painfully.
You base this on what?

Animals are killed, true. You would rather eat them alive?
None of it has anything to do with innocence. We need food, they are food, it's that simple. It has been this way for so long that we have evolved to require meat.

Of course industry meat comes from cruel and evil methods where animals are fed primarily grains (which isn't in reality food even for cows), then injected full of chemicals, they can't move around and never see sun light, etc. No aware enough person would eat animals so sick, no real person would allow the treatment of animals in such ways.
I didn't know about the grains information. Learn something new everyday :). For me though, that's one of my least concerns. It seems that, if I may say so, it seems you are more worried about the quality of your meat than the quality of the nonhuman animal's life. Is that the case?
Those grains are raised with, mostly, chemical fertilizers because the dung that comes from mega animal farms is too toxic for plants. The farmlands are polluted with chemicals and mega farms produce dung that's as well full of chemicals and toxins. And humans are supposed to eat all of them, grains (which are extremely harmful for humans; think obesity, autism, cardio-vascular problems, acne, stupidity, etc.) and those sick animals (full of injected hormones, chemicals, antibiotics, etc.). Lose-lose for all life.

There is only one way to have true quality meat - if the animal has quality life.
They may be raised for food, but they are alive just like us. They are not some things, and so you cannot and may not treat them as if they are. Our existence depends on life that is around us, and if we through our actions do not care for any of it... then we do not care for ourselves either.
People, in general, are incapable of seeing the consequences of their actions down the line.

Industry cares only for money. They do not care for quality, quality they can lie about. Quantity they cannot lie about, that they either have or not. So they sell contaminated "food" in large quantities and claim it being safe (it is not). To living off of that kind of inferior crap there is one important thing to say "Being alive and living are not the same!"
Absolutely. The industry only cares about what is economically feasible. In doing so, they minimize life and maximize suffering.
Minimizing life and suffering is the result of going for quantity and $$$. The goal is not to make them suffer, the goal is to make money no matter the consequences. They simply do not care for anything but money.

I read from somewhere that 90% of grains, globally I think it was, are fed to farmed animals. 90% of grains - that is a lot of land. They could let animals live on that land and eat off of it, instead being in a box.
I'd love it if that happened! Unfortunately, like you said, factory farms only care about minimizing expenditures and maximizing profit. If we can't prove that the animals' dead bodies are tastier by not being imprisoned for their entire lives (and probably even if we do), the factory farm owners will not change.
Actually, it is easy to prove. Simply have to taste dead bodies of both.

2. I drastically reduce the risk of developing a variety of diseases, including cancer.
And you drastically increase the risk of a variety of other diseases.
You could reduce the risk even more drastically if you ate meat and relied for energy on animals fat. Cancer cells eat about 4 to 5 times as much sugar as normal body cells. If you got cancer and were a "vegetarian" then you would die of that cancer. Fruits are full of sugar and you'd need to eat lots of them to meet your daily energy needs.
That's also a myth I'm afraid. Vegetarian diets are fantastic for cancer. You don't need massive amount of calories (energy) or sugar. This is what is causing a health crisis in many industrialized nations.
You do need an energy source and the best is animal fat.
Vegetarian diets don't come anywhere near how good all raw 70-90% carnivorous diets are against cancer.
3. I save money.
Health is not about money.
Truth is the healthiest foods tend to be the cheapest, once you know what is true healthy food. Some even free, money wise. For example, when in season, go to a forest and pick it clean of wild berries like cranberries, blueberries, cowberries (or whatever they were), etc. or whatever you have growing in your area.
I'm not sure where both of you are coming from. I'm pretty sure vegetarianism is more expensive, but maybe I'm not doing it right!
Vegetarianism would be more expensive definitely. Raw fat costs, depending where you live, about 0.5$-3$/kg (2.2 pounds). That would be the main energy source, and it is cheap. Animal organs tend to be cheap as well, and the cheapest pieces of meat tend to be the best ones as well.
Calorically, 100 grams (0.22 pounds) of fat is about 900 calories.

4. I have vegetarian street cred.
Which is completely irrelevant in any case.
When you come across those vegetarian gangs that terrorize San Francisco or the Jolley Green Giant, you'll think differently. :P
Nah, they'll recognize a predator and run, being herbivores and such. Pure instinct.

5. I choose vegetarianism over veganism because I think it's actually more humane to retain a healthy relationship with animals by using any products they can offer without being harmed. Whole species could go extinct if we had no use for them. Imagine chickens without the need for eggs. Plus cheese and chocolate are just too amazing.
Surviving requires the killing of other life one way or another. You giving any excuses not to eat meat such as "animal cruelty" or "animals are harmed" is being hypocritical. You are a human and humans need meat, have for millions of years down the line and still do. (Needs vary from person to person but all, to some extent, do need meat at least at some point, even more when doing something physical.)
You are not a plant, you do not have roots that suck nutrients from the ground, not harming anything or anyone. You are an animal, you are an omnivore, and your body needs meat whether you consciously register it or not. That you can make a decision, follow something specific, does not necessarily make it true or the best decision.
Humans do not need to kill others. That is a fact. Living without meat has empirically shown to help you live longer. That we require meat to be healthy is another, hate to say it, myth.
We do need to kill others, and eat them, to stay healthy (not all as much as others but in general it is so). I bet living on raw only and mostly carnivorous will help live even longer.
If you eat crap then that's what you yourself are, if you eat deficiently then that's what you are. You are what you eat; if you eat healthy food, and as much and what your body needs, then you are healthy.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:18:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To start us off, I'd like to ask two broad questions that y'all can interpret as you will: What do you consider to be the place of the nonhuman animal in society (human)?
If we have dominance over them, then they're lower than us.

Hmmm...are you suggesting that might makes right?
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:21:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 10:10:27 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I'm disinclined to think that taste has anything at all to do with nutritional value actually, but that it is merely recognition then overlaid with programming. This would account for difference in taste and serve to keep the human animal alive much more simply. Really, to propose anything else is to propose an overload of processing, which would make for evolutionary infeasibility, realistically speaking; let alone that it doesn't account for difference in taste. And then we did all drink a lot of milk when we were kids.

It has to do with what your body craves, what it needs, I know this from personal experience. Raw liver, have a craving for it, taste it and it's this wonderful sweet flavor. Other times I don't have a craving for it but think I'd best eat some, I taste it and it feels bland.

If your body needs and is asking for something then it will taste better than otherwise.

Milk is food for small kids, it's the purpose of it. Of course you will drink lots of it.
Or are you referring to cow's milk? Humans shouldn't consume that in the first place... for the fact that it is not for humans and never has been.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:22:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 10:18:06 AM, kbub wrote:
To start us off, I'd like to ask two broad questions that y'all can interpret as you will: What do you consider to be the place of the nonhuman animal in society (human)?
If we have dominance over them, then they're lower than us.

Hmmm...are you suggesting that might makes right?

Yes, there's something called survival of the fittest. To create a superior earth we need to act to the best of our dominance possible. Just as an example, when we create things like chickens that are so fat that they can't even walk, we're creating a chicken that wouldn't survive in the wilderness. Can you imagine a chicken that can't walk trying to survive in the wild? We're just choosing who eats them. They're inferior and deserve to be killed and eaten. It's best we do it that way instead of killing the ones that actually have a chance.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:03:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 10:21:50 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/29/2014 10:10:27 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I'm disinclined to think that taste has anything at all to do with nutritional value actually, but that it is merely recognition then overlaid with programming. This would account for difference in taste and serve to keep the human animal alive much more simply. Really, to propose anything else is to propose an overload of processing, which would make for evolutionary infeasibility, realistically speaking; let alone that it doesn't account for difference in taste. And then we did all drink a lot of milk when we were kids.

It has to do with what your body craves, what it needs, I know this from personal experience. Raw liver, have a craving for it, taste it and it's this wonderful sweet flavor. Other times I don't have a craving for it but think I'd best eat some, I taste it and it feels bland.

"Most of all he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine" - James Joyce, Ulysses.

You are mistaken, in fact, in thinking that it is what your body craves, for it is what you crave; in most instances, this being immorality or, at least, to stave off mortality for just a little longer. James Joyce illustrates this above.

If your body needs and is asking for something then it will taste better than otherwise.

This is an unsubstantiated assertion and, furthermore, one positing the unnecessary, the contradictory, and the overcomplicated. How come everything healthy doesn't taste good, then?

Milk is food for small kids, it's the purpose of it. Of course you will drink lots of it.
Or are you referring to cow's milk? Humans shouldn't consume that in the first place... for the fact that it is not for humans and never has been.

I'm saying that the reason it tastes good is because it's recognised as being healthy by that taste and from past experience, in contrast to your saying it just tastes good because it's healthy.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 2:06:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It has to do with what your body craves, what it needs, I know this from personal experience. Raw liver, have a craving for it, taste it and it's this wonderful sweet flavor. Other times I don't have a craving for it but think I'd best eat some, I taste it and it feels bland.

"Most of all he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine" - James Joyce, Ulysses.

You are mistaken, in fact, in thinking that it is what your body craves, for it is what you crave; in most instances, this being immorality or, at least, to stave off mortality for just a little longer. James Joyce illustrates this above.

Ok, I really agree with most of what you said, but I must admit I am confused by this quote.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:19:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 7:34:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 7:25:27 PM, kbub wrote:
Hi! I want to make a forum where people can discuss and/or challenge veganism and vegetarianism with civility and open-mindedness.

I'd also be interested in talking about various ways in which speciesism (not even a word according to spellcheck!) manifests itself in society, whether this is a good thing or a problem, policies that can make changes, and the like.

To start us off, I'd like to ask two broad questions that y'all can interpret as you will: What do you consider to be the place of the nonhuman animal in society (human)? And: Do you think there are systematic problems with how human society views/treats nonhuman animals? Why or why not?

Thanks for your time!



Watch the vid and decide for yourself (this goes on all the time). How we treat animals is sickening and repulsive in my opinion.

"How we treat animals" What's this "we" crap. That is how "that individual"treats animals. Take your complaint directly to that individual.
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%
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 5:03:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 2:06:33 PM, kbub wrote:
It has to do with what your body craves, what it needs, I know this from personal experience. Raw liver, have a craving for it, taste it and it's this wonderful sweet flavor. Other times I don't have a craving for it but think I'd best eat some, I taste it and it feels bland.

"Most of all he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine" - James Joyce, Ulysses.

You are mistaken, in fact, in thinking that it is what your body craves, for it is what you crave; in most instances, this being immorality or, at least, to stave off mortality for just a little longer. James Joyce illustrates this above.

Ok, I really agree with most of what you said, but I must admit I am confused by this quote.

Basically, I don't believe that there's anything more to taste than to recognise one food from the other and that all the rest (what's good for you, what's bad for you, etc.) is taken care of by intelligence. This is contrary to what nummi is putting forward, but is hugely overcomplicated and contradictory when you consider how the mind and taste actually work. James Joyce, then, makes reference to these workings with that quote, the taste of urine left by the mutton in the man's mouth bringing it to be the man's favourite because it allows him to conquer his mortality to some degree. It brings intelligence very much into why something tastes good or bad.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 5:04:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 2:06:33 PM, kbub wrote:
It has to do with what your body craves, what it needs, I know this from personal experience. Raw liver, have a craving for it, taste it and it's this wonderful sweet flavor. Other times I don't have a craving for it but think I'd best eat some, I taste it and it feels bland.

"Most of all he liked grilled mutton kidneys which gave to his palate a fine tang of faintly scented urine" - James Joyce, Ulysses.

You are mistaken, in fact, in thinking that it is what your body craves, for it is what you crave; in most instances, this being immorality or, at least, to stave off mortality for just a little longer. James Joyce illustrates this above.

Ok, I really agree with most of what you said, but I must admit I am confused by this quote.

Basically, I don't believe that there's anything more to taste than to recognise one food from the other and that all the rest (what's good for you, what's bad for you, etc.) is taken care of by intelligence. This is contrary to what nummi is putting forward which is basically to justify his diet by evolution, but is hugely overcomplicated and contradictory when you consider how the mind and taste actually work. James Joyce, then, makes reference to these workings with that quote, the taste of urine left by the mutton in the man's mouth bringing it to be the man's favourite because it allows him to conquer his mortality to some degree. It brings intelligence very much into why something tastes good or bad.

Fixed. Read this one or it wont make sense lol.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 8:20:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 5:17:46 PM, Cooldudebro wrote:
Why not? Why not eat meat?

Briefly, that's why.

Not so briefly, see the second video.
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,763
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 9:00:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 8:20:54 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/29/2014 5:17:46 PM, Cooldudebro wrote:
Why not? Why not eat meat?



Briefly, that's why.

Not so briefly, see the second video.



Is there anything wrong with hunting for food and resources?
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9

http://www.debate.org...
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 9:04:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 9:00:50 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 1/29/2014 8:20:54 PM, kbub wrote:
At 1/29/2014 5:17:46 PM, Cooldudebro wrote:
Why not? Why not eat meat?



Briefly, that's why.

Not so briefly, see the second video.



Is there anything wrong with hunting for food and resources?

Depends on your moral opinion of killing. I tend to not think eating meat a good enough excuse for making a sentient creature with a well-developed brain bleed to death, but that's certainly not as bad as meat farms or factory farms. Then again, not many things are.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 9:07:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm a vegetarian (I didn't know you were one, FREEDO! Or if I knew I forgot).

I don't eat eggs because the egg industry is as bad, or worse, as the factor meat industry, and it's nigh impossible to get eggs I can feel ethically comfortable with (I will, occasionally buy eggs for baking, because I'm celiac and gluten free baking is hard as heck, even harder when you're trying to use egg substitutes, and I'm not very good at baking. But I hate doing it).

I eat honey on occasion (though I'm pretty cheap, so it's on occasion).

But I eat the HECK out of cheese. Which I probably shouldn't because the milk industry ain't all that great, either. But it's loads better than the egg industry, and when you can't even just eat bread, and you choose not to eat meat, your options are limited. And I like Cheetos, okay?

Were I rich, I would go full vegan (well, except for honey, probably). But vegan cheese ain't cheap.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!