Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God's compassion? Or ours?

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 2:56:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

Um... so we wouldn't grind innocent little piglets into sausage.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:02:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

I feel as though there is a part of this question that is if/then structured that isn't present.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:06:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:02:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

I feel as though there is a part of this question that is if/then structured that isn't present.

Always. But I find it interesting that those people were happy to eat the sausage until they saw the piglet. I'm waiting to see where this goes.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:10:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 2:56:57 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

Um... so we wouldn't grind innocent little piglets into sausage.

I would agree with that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:15:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:02:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

I feel as though there is a part of this question that is if/then structured that isn't present.

No, sorry. That's really all there is. The Bible suggests that it's okay for us to behave as omnivores, yet we have some rather obvious instincts which are more consistent with herbivores.

Do was it God's idea, or our idea? Of course, there is a biblical answer, but it proposes that God had a plan, and then gave into to human wants. So we can eat animals, even though it wasn't part of the plan... but we can't wear mixed fibers?

Mostly, I was just interested in the total change in reactions. Complicity is fine as long as you're allowed some distance from reality... or so it seems.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:30:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:15:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:02:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

I feel as though there is a part of this question that is if/then structured that isn't present.

No, sorry. That's really all there is. The Bible suggests that it's okay for us to behave as omnivores, yet we have some rather obvious instincts which are more consistent with herbivores.

which would also mean we have some obvious instincts which are more consistant with carnivores, making the 'omnivore' seem... well, logical.

Do was it God's idea, or our idea? Of course, there is a biblical answer, but it proposes that God had a plan, and then gave into to human wants. So we can eat animals, even though it wasn't part of the plan... but we can't wear mixed fibers?

Cause seasonally, it looks atrocious.

Mostly, I was just interested in the total change in reactions. Complicity is fine as long as you're allowed some distance from reality... or so it seems.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:32:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:30:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:15:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:02:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

I feel as though there is a part of this question that is if/then structured that isn't present.

No, sorry. That's really all there is. The Bible suggests that it's okay for us to behave as omnivores, yet we have some rather obvious instincts which are more consistent with herbivores.

which would also mean we have some obvious instincts which are more consistant with carnivores, making the 'omnivore' seem... well, logical.
Which of our instincts are carnivorous?

Do was it God's idea, or our idea? Of course, there is a biblical answer, but it proposes that God had a plan, and then gave into to human wants. So we can eat animals, even though it wasn't part of the plan... but we can't wear mixed fibers?

Cause seasonally, it looks atrocious.
God is about free-will, and fashion sense?

Mostly, I was just interested in the total change in reactions. Complicity is fine as long as you're allowed some distance from reality... or so it seems.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:45:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:10:12 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:56:57 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

Um... so we wouldn't grind innocent little piglets into sausage.

I would agree with that.

People are so fickle. It was okay to eat the sausage until they were presented with the reality of what they were really doing. They were partaking in the murder of something innocent. Their reaction was shock and they ran away. Probably straight to the lunch meat counter.

Human compassion is good. Unfortunately we don't always have it unless it's presented to us in a very personal way. I don't assume to know if a God would have compassion that can be compared to human emotion.

I'm going to have nightmares of squealing piglets on toothpicks.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:47:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:32:17 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:30:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:15:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:02:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

I feel as though there is a part of this question that is if/then structured that isn't present.

No, sorry. That's really all there is. The Bible suggests that it's okay for us to behave as omnivores, yet we have some rather obvious instincts which are more consistent with herbivores.

which would also mean we have some obvious instincts which are more consistant with carnivores, making the 'omnivore' seem... well, logical.
Which of our instincts are carnivorous?

I would say the part where people find a good seared steak, salmon, bacon or eggs to be 'tasty'. The instinct of an herbivore is to grab something and eat it, there are still quite a few humans whom enjoy the thrill of the hunt, depending upon the prey.

Do was it God's idea, or our idea? Of course, there is a biblical answer, but it proposes that God had a plan, and then gave into to human wants. So we can eat animals, even though it wasn't part of the plan... but we can't wear mixed fibers?

Cause seasonally, it looks atrocious.
God is about free-will, and fashion sense?

Mostly snark on this part, Beastt. The Bible contains some handy philosophical tips, (the love they enemy thing, btw is something we could have a debate on), as much as it does complete nonsequiturs about what a divine entity would desire in its creations.


Mostly, I was just interested in the total change in reactions. Complicity is fine as long as you're allowed some distance from reality... or so it seems.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 3:53:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:45:48 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:10:12 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:56:57 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

Um... so we wouldn't grind innocent little piglets into sausage.

I would agree with that.

People are so fickle. It was okay to eat the sausage until they were presented with the reality of what they were really doing. They were partaking in the murder of something innocent. Their reaction was shock and they ran away. Probably straight to the lunch meat counter.

Human compassion is good. Unfortunately we don't always have it unless it's presented to us in a very personal way. I don't assume to know if a God would have compassion that can be compared to human emotion.

I'm going to have nightmares of squealing piglets on toothpicks.

Sorry, that was certainly not my intent. But it does give us an interesting peek into human behavior, and the way we can compartmentalize our thoughts. We all know where sausage comes from. But we can just set that aside while shopping at the meat counter. When suddenly confronted with what we already knew, it does alter our perspective and in a fairly dramatic way.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:03:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:53:08 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:45:48 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:10:12 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:56:57 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

Um... so we wouldn't grind innocent little piglets into sausage.

I would agree with that.

People are so fickle. It was okay to eat the sausage until they were presented with the reality of what they were really doing. They were partaking in the murder of something innocent. Their reaction was shock and they ran away. Probably straight to the lunch meat counter.

Human compassion is good. Unfortunately we don't always have it unless it's presented to us in a very personal way. I don't assume to know if a God would have compassion that can be compared to human emotion.

I'm going to have nightmares of squealing piglets on toothpicks.

Sorry, that was certainly not my intent. But it does give us an interesting peek into human behavior, and the way we can compartmentalize our thoughts. We all know where sausage comes from. But we can just set that aside while shopping at the meat counter. When suddenly confronted with what we already knew, it does alter our perspective and in a fairly dramatic way.

I agree.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:04:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:47:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:32:17 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:30:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:15:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:02:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

I feel as though there is a part of this question that is if/then structured that isn't present.

No, sorry. That's really all there is. The Bible suggests that it's okay for us to behave as omnivores, yet we have some rather obvious instincts which are more consistent with herbivores.

which would also mean we have some obvious instincts which are more consistant with carnivores, making the 'omnivore' seem... well, logical.
Which of our instincts are carnivorous?

I would say the part where people find a good seared steak, salmon, bacon or eggs to be 'tasty'. The instinct of an herbivore is to grab something and eat it, there are still quite a few humans whom enjoy the thrill of the hunt, depending upon the prey.
People can learn to think of some rather nasty things as tasty.
- Fried tarantulas in Cambodia
- Casu Marzu Cheese in Sardinia (rotten cheese riddled with insect larva)
- Live octopus in Cambodia
- Kopi Luwak in Indonesia (coffee made from beans extracted from cat excrement)
- Cold snake blood in Japan
- Whipped frog ejaculate in China
- Fried horse parasites in Burma

These aren't just things people will eat, but they're considered delicacies. So is it instinctive to want to eat these things? Or it is learned?

Do was it God's idea, or our idea? Of course, there is a biblical answer, but it proposes that God had a plan, and then gave into to human wants. So we can eat animals, even though it wasn't part of the plan... but we can't wear mixed fibers?

Cause seasonally, it looks atrocious.
God is about free-will, and fashion sense?

Mostly snark on this part, Beastt. The Bible contains some handy philosophical tips, (the love they enemy thing, btw is something we could have a debate on), as much as it does complete nonsequiturs about what a divine entity would desire in its creations.
Some fortune cookies offer some handy philosophical tips as well. So far, I've not heard of one suggesting that anyone kill their own children.


Mostly, I was just interested in the total change in reactions. Complicity is fine as long as you're allowed some distance from reality... or so it seems.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:17:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 4:04:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:47:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:32:17 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:30:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:15:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:02:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

I feel as though there is a part of this question that is if/then structured that isn't present.

No, sorry. That's really all there is. The Bible suggests that it's okay for us to behave as omnivores, yet we have some rather obvious instincts which are more consistent with herbivores.

which would also mean we have some obvious instincts which are more consistant with carnivores, making the 'omnivore' seem... well, logical.
Which of our instincts are carnivorous?

I would say the part where people find a good seared steak, salmon, bacon or eggs to be 'tasty'. The instinct of an herbivore is to grab something and eat it, there are still quite a few humans whom enjoy the thrill of the hunt, depending upon the prey.
People can learn to think of some rather nasty things as tasty.
- Fried tarantulas in Cambodia
- Casu Marzu Cheese in Sardinia (rotten cheese riddled with insect larva)
- Live octopus in Cambodia
- Kopi Luwak in Indonesia (coffee made from beans extracted from cat excrement)
- Cold snake blood in Japan
- Whipped frog ejaculate in China
- Fried horse parasites in Burma

These aren't just things people will eat, but they're considered delicacies. So is it instinctive to want to eat these things? Or it is learned?

That doesn't demonstrate that humans can't be omnivores, or engage in carnivorous tendency. Food is food, asking whether its learned to be liked or not is subject to taste. I have never really enjoyed tomatoes, love beets, hate broccoli. Because I have a preference for certain vegetables doesn't mean I learned to like or dislike them. I am confident in those countries listed, you will find a percentage of the population that doesn't care if you call it fried gold, they are still not eating it. They have no preference or taste for it.


Do was it God's idea, or our idea? Of course, there is a biblical answer, but it proposes that God had a plan, and then gave into to human wants. So we can eat animals, even though it wasn't part of the plan... but we can't wear mixed fibers?

Cause seasonally, it looks atrocious.
God is about free-will, and fashion sense?

Mostly snark on this part, Beastt. The Bible contains some handy philosophical tips, (the love they enemy thing, btw is something we could have a debate on), as much as it does complete nonsequiturs about what a divine entity would desire in its creations.
Some fortune cookies offer some handy philosophical tips as well. So far, I've not heard of one suggesting that anyone kill their own children.
Case in point about a nonsequitur. Fast on the heals of that later comes Proverbs, but slogging through Leviticus is tough work, and detracts (to me, insurmountably so) from the subject of the Bible as a whole.



Mostly, I was just interested in the total change in reactions. Complicity is fine as long as you're allowed some distance from reality... or so it seems.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:26:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 4:17:00 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 4:04:41 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:47:41 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:32:17 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:30:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:15:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:02:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

I feel as though there is a part of this question that is if/then structured that isn't present.

No, sorry. That's really all there is. The Bible suggests that it's okay for us to behave as omnivores, yet we have some rather obvious instincts which are more consistent with herbivores.

which would also mean we have some obvious instincts which are more consistant with carnivores, making the 'omnivore' seem... well, logical.
Which of our instincts are carnivorous?

I would say the part where people find a good seared steak, salmon, bacon or eggs to be 'tasty'. The instinct of an herbivore is to grab something and eat it, there are still quite a few humans whom enjoy the thrill of the hunt, depending upon the prey.
People can learn to think of some rather nasty things as tasty.
- Fried tarantulas in Cambodia
- Casu Marzu Cheese in Sardinia (rotten cheese riddled with insect larva)
- Live octopus in Cambodia
- Kopi Luwak in Indonesia (coffee made from beans extracted from cat excrement)
- Cold snake blood in Japan
- Whipped frog ejaculate in China
- Fried horse parasites in Burma

These aren't just things people will eat, but they're considered delicacies. So is it instinctive to want to eat these things? Or it is learned?

That doesn't demonstrate that humans can't be omnivores, or engage in carnivorous tendency. Food is food, asking whether its learned to be liked or not is subject to taste. I have never really enjoyed tomatoes, love beets, hate broccoli. Because I have a preference for certain vegetables doesn't mean I learned to like or dislike them. I am confident in those countries listed, you will find a percentage of the population that doesn't care if you call it fried gold, they are still not eating it. They have no preference or taste for it.
I didn't say humans can't be omnivores. I pointed out that we harbor some instincts which don't fit well with being omnivorous. But it seems that if it doesn't deviate too greatly from your outlook, then it's instinctive. And if it does, then it's learned? Is that accurate?


Do was it God's idea, or our idea? Of course, there is a biblical answer, but it proposes that God had a plan, and then gave into to human wants. So we can eat animals, even though it wasn't part of the plan... but we can't wear mixed fibers?

Cause seasonally, it looks atrocious.
God is about free-will, and fashion sense?

Mostly snark on this part, Beastt.
Or perhaps just a lack of humor on the part of the reader.

The Bible contains some handy philosophical tips, (the love they enemy thing, btw is something we could have a debate on), as much as it does complete nonsequiturs about what a divine entity would desire in its creations.
Some fortune cookies offer some handy philosophical tips as well. So far, I've not heard of one suggesting that anyone kill their own children.
Case in point about a nonsequitur. Fast on the heals of that later comes Proverbs, but slogging through Leviticus is tough work, and detracts (to me, insurmountably so) from the subject of the Bible as a whole.




Mostly, I was just interested in the total change in reactions. Complicity is fine as long as you're allowed some distance from reality... or so it seems.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:42:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would say the part where people find a good seared steak, salmon, bacon or eggs to be 'tasty'. The instinct of an herbivore is to grab something and eat it, there are still quite a few humans whom enjoy the thrill of the hunt, depending upon the prey.
People can learn to think of some rather nasty things as tasty.
- Fried tarantulas in Cambodia
- Casu Marzu Cheese in Sardinia (rotten cheese riddled with insect larva)
- Live octopus in Cambodia
- Kopi Luwak in Indonesia (coffee made from beans extracted from cat excrement)
- Cold snake blood in Japan
- Whipped frog ejaculate in China
- Fried horse parasites in Burma

These aren't just things people will eat, but they're considered delicacies. So is it instinctive to want to eat these things? Or it is learned?

That doesn't demonstrate that humans can't be omnivores, or engage in carnivorous tendency. Food is food, asking whether its learned to be liked or not is subject to taste. I have never really enjoyed tomatoes, love beets, hate broccoli. Because I have a preference for certain vegetables doesn't mean I learned to like or dislike them. I am confident in those countries listed, you will find a percentage of the population that doesn't care if you call it fried gold, they are still not eating it. They have no preference or taste for it.
I didn't say humans can't be omnivores. I pointed out that we harbor some instincts which don't fit well with being omnivorous. But it seems that if it doesn't deviate too greatly from your outlook, then it's instinctive. And if it does, then it's learned? Is that accurate?

Not at all. There are various palates across the planet which will widely differ from mine that can be chalked up to learned or aquired as much as instinctive. I would probably never eat whale, but there are plenty of Northern cultures that do. By now, it might be a safe bet to say that their hunting has become quite instinctive, whatever ques they look for to provide for the group has become bred in.

Now, in stating there are some instincts which don't fit well with being omnivorous, wouldn't that also mean that there are some instincts that do? I must think that to be the case, as your choice of words otherwise would have indicated 'all' rather than 'some'. As in 'all our' instincts don't fit well with being omnivorous instead of 'some of' our instincts don't fit well. If there are SOME that do fit for being omnivorous, it would make me wonder if the compassion is learned, rather than eating meat.

Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 4:53:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 4:42:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I would say the part where people find a good seared steak, salmon, bacon or eggs to be 'tasty'. The instinct of an herbivore is to grab something and eat it, there are still quite a few humans whom enjoy the thrill of the hunt, depending upon the prey.
People can learn to think of some rather nasty things as tasty.
- Fried tarantulas in Cambodia
- Casu Marzu Cheese in Sardinia (rotten cheese riddled with insect larva)
- Live octopus in Cambodia
- Kopi Luwak in Indonesia (coffee made from beans extracted from cat excrement)
- Cold snake blood in Japan
- Whipped frog ejaculate in China
- Fried horse parasites in Burma

These aren't just things people will eat, but they're considered delicacies. So is it instinctive to want to eat these things? Or it is learned?

That doesn't demonstrate that humans can't be omnivores, or engage in carnivorous tendency. Food is food, asking whether its learned to be liked or not is subject to taste. I have never really enjoyed tomatoes, love beets, hate broccoli. Because I have a preference for certain vegetables doesn't mean I learned to like or dislike them. I am confident in those countries listed, you will find a percentage of the population that doesn't care if you call it fried gold, they are still not eating it. They have no preference or taste for it.
I didn't say humans can't be omnivores. I pointed out that we harbor some instincts which don't fit well with being omnivorous. But it seems that if it doesn't deviate too greatly from your outlook, then it's instinctive. And if it does, then it's learned? Is that accurate?

Not at all. There are various palates across the planet which will widely differ from mine that can be chalked up to learned or aquired as much as instinctive. I would probably never eat whale, but there are plenty of Northern cultures that do. By now, it might be a safe bet to say that their hunting has become quite instinctive, whatever ques they look for to provide for the group has become bred in.

Now, in stating there are some instincts which don't fit well with being omnivorous, wouldn't that also mean that there are some instincts that do? I must think that to be the case, as your choice of words otherwise would have indicated 'all' rather than 'some'. As in 'all our' instincts don't fit well with being omnivorous instead of 'some of' our instincts don't fit well. If there are SOME that do fit for being omnivorous, it would make me wonder if the compassion is learned, rather than eating meat.

Why would we learn a compassion which violates our instincts? Do you know of any hunters who rush to find their downed prey so they can rip into it's still warm body with their teeth and feel the warm blood ooze down their throats? That's what we find in predatory animals. Show a bird to a cat, and it will start to salivate. Do you salivate when you look at a cow? Did you salivate when you saw the piglets?

And does it seem more like the compassion is instinctive and the appetite is learned if you note that our digestive system is consistent with that of a mono-gastric herbivore, rather than that of an omnivore? I don't wish to deviate from the theistic implications to any great degree, but there are 19 traits of a mammalian digestive system which indicate whether it is best structured for herbivorous, omnivorous or carnivorous diet. And humans are herbivorous by each of those traits.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 5:06:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 4:53:39 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 4:42:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I would say the part where people find a good seared steak, salmon, bacon or eggs to be 'tasty'. The instinct of an herbivore is to grab something and eat it, there are still quite a few humans whom enjoy the thrill of the hunt, depending upon the prey.
People can learn to think of some rather nasty things as tasty.
- Fried tarantulas in Cambodia
- Casu Marzu Cheese in Sardinia (rotten cheese riddled with insect larva)
- Live octopus in Cambodia
- Kopi Luwak in Indonesia (coffee made from beans extracted from cat excrement)
- Cold snake blood in Japan
- Whipped frog ejaculate in China
- Fried horse parasites in Burma

These aren't just things people will eat, but they're considered delicacies. So is it instinctive to want to eat these things? Or it is learned?

That doesn't demonstrate that humans can't be omnivores, or engage in carnivorous tendency. Food is food, asking whether its learned to be liked or not is subject to taste. I have never really enjoyed tomatoes, love beets, hate broccoli. Because I have a preference for certain vegetables doesn't mean I learned to like or dislike them. I am confident in those countries listed, you will find a percentage of the population that doesn't care if you call it fried gold, they are still not eating it. They have no preference or taste for it.
I didn't say humans can't be omnivores. I pointed out that we harbor some instincts which don't fit well with being omnivorous. But it seems that if it doesn't deviate too greatly from your outlook, then it's instinctive. And if it does, then it's learned? Is that accurate?

Not at all. There are various palates across the planet which will widely differ from mine that can be chalked up to learned or aquired as much as instinctive. I would probably never eat whale, but there are plenty of Northern cultures that do. By now, it might be a safe bet to say that their hunting has become quite instinctive, whatever ques they look for to provide for the group has become bred in.

Now, in stating there are some instincts which don't fit well with being omnivorous, wouldn't that also mean that there are some instincts that do? I must think that to be the case, as your choice of words otherwise would have indicated 'all' rather than 'some'. As in 'all our' instincts don't fit well with being omnivorous instead of 'some of' our instincts don't fit well. If there are SOME that do fit for being omnivorous, it would make me wonder if the compassion is learned, rather than eating meat.

Why would we learn a compassion which violates our instincts? Do you know of any hunters who rush to find their downed prey so they can rip into it's still warm body with their teeth and feel the warm blood ooze down their throats? That's what we find in predatory animals. Show a bird to a cat, and it will start to salivate. Do you salivate when you look at a cow? Did you salivate when you saw the piglets?

I know plenty of hunters whom rush to prepare said food to keep it fresh, anglers whom from their dock toss quickly gut and then grill said fish, and in keeping with this example, indeed, a thick salmon or some large eggs, or lobster with thick claws gets my mind racing at the thought of an upcoming meal.

I don't do that over an orange. Or grapes. Or a carrot.


And does it seem more like the compassion is instinctive and the appetite is learned if you note that our digestive system is consistent with that of a mono-gastric herbivore, rather than that of an omnivore? I don't wish to deviate from the theistic implications to any great degree, but there are 19 traits of a mammalian digestive system which indicate whether it is best structured for herbivorous, omnivorous or carnivorous diet. And humans are herbivorous by each of those traits.

So then yes, you mean 'all' not some, that humans are herbivores (by insert means here), and that we have compassion by instinct rather than learning it. That being the emotional response to a creature would always by default be sympathetic, rather than looking at it as a potential food source if needed.

This then makes me wonder why humans EVER hunted ANYTHING as it seems like being strictly herbacious would be a LOT less dangerous and taxing.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 5:19:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 5:06:29 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 10/31/2014 4:53:39 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 4:42:15 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I would say the part where people find a good seared steak, salmon, bacon or eggs to be 'tasty'. The instinct of an herbivore is to grab something and eat it, there are still quite a few humans whom enjoy the thrill of the hunt, depending upon the prey.
People can learn to think of some rather nasty things as tasty.
- Fried tarantulas in Cambodia
- Casu Marzu Cheese in Sardinia (rotten cheese riddled with insect larva)
- Live octopus in Cambodia
- Kopi Luwak in Indonesia (coffee made from beans extracted from cat excrement)
- Cold snake blood in Japan
- Whipped frog ejaculate in China
- Fried horse parasites in Burma

These aren't just things people will eat, but they're considered delicacies. So is it instinctive to want to eat these things? Or it is learned?

That doesn't demonstrate that humans can't be omnivores, or engage in carnivorous tendency. Food is food, asking whether its learned to be liked or not is subject to taste. I have never really enjoyed tomatoes, love beets, hate broccoli. Because I have a preference for certain vegetables doesn't mean I learned to like or dislike them. I am confident in those countries listed, you will find a percentage of the population that doesn't care if you call it fried gold, they are still not eating it. They have no preference or taste for it.
I didn't say humans can't be omnivores. I pointed out that we harbor some instincts which don't fit well with being omnivorous. But it seems that if it doesn't deviate too greatly from your outlook, then it's instinctive. And if it does, then it's learned? Is that accurate?

Not at all. There are various palates across the planet which will widely differ from mine that can be chalked up to learned or aquired as much as instinctive. I would probably never eat whale, but there are plenty of Northern cultures that do. By now, it might be a safe bet to say that their hunting has become quite instinctive, whatever ques they look for to provide for the group has become bred in.

Now, in stating there are some instincts which don't fit well with being omnivorous, wouldn't that also mean that there are some instincts that do? I must think that to be the case, as your choice of words otherwise would have indicated 'all' rather than 'some'. As in 'all our' instincts don't fit well with being omnivorous instead of 'some of' our instincts don't fit well. If there are SOME that do fit for being omnivorous, it would make me wonder if the compassion is learned, rather than eating meat.

Why would we learn a compassion which violates our instincts? Do you know of any hunters who rush to find their downed prey so they can rip into it's still warm body with their teeth and feel the warm blood ooze down their throats? That's what we find in predatory animals. Show a bird to a cat, and it will start to salivate. Do you salivate when you look at a cow? Did you salivate when you saw the piglets?

I know plenty of hunters whom rush to prepare said food to keep it fresh, anglers whom from their dock toss quickly gut and then grill said fish, and in keeping with this example, indeed, a thick salmon or some large eggs, or lobster with thick claws gets my mind racing at the thought of an upcoming meal.
Note the reasons; to preserve freshness, to prepare for cooking. Do you know why people cook meat? Do you know why cats, bears, wolves, etc., don't need to?

I don't do that over an orange. Or grapes. Or a carrot.
Yet, you do experience physiological changes consistent with the digestive system getting ready. Close your eyes and concentrate. Imagine biting into a sweet juicy grape. If you didn't salivate, you're either of a rather small minority, or your focus wasn't fixed.


And does it seem more like the compassion is instinctive and the appetite is learned if you note that our digestive system is consistent with that of a mono-gastric herbivore, rather than that of an omnivore? I don't wish to deviate from the theistic implications to any great degree, but there are 19 traits of a mammalian digestive system which indicate whether it is best structured for herbivorous, omnivorous or carnivorous diet. And humans are herbivorous by each of those traits.

So then yes, you mean 'all' not some, that humans are herbivores (by insert means here), and that we have compassion by instinct rather than learning it. That being the emotional response to a creature would always by default be sympathetic, rather than looking at it as a potential food source if needed.

This then makes me wonder why humans EVER hunted ANYTHING as it seems like being strictly herbacious would be a LOT less dangerous and taxing.
I think if we look at human development, we can find that we're slowly (very slowly), becoming a more compassionate species. And I believe it's reasonable to suggest that this has been a gradual process for a very, very long time. Even a passive domestic cat tends to have no problem savagely killing a baby squirrel (although when a mothering mindset is induced by oxytocin, this isn't always true). The video provides a fairly candid look at the distance between learned eating patterns, and instinctive compassion (at least, I believe that is the reality).

So it would make sense that before humans were able to produce sufficient food sources, they might show less natural compassion. And as food becomes more plentiful (in those areas of the world where it is), compassion seems to rise.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 5:41:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I know plenty of hunters whom rush to prepare said food to keep it fresh, anglers whom from their dock toss quickly gut and then grill said fish, and in keeping with this example, indeed, a thick salmon or some large eggs, or lobster with thick claws gets my mind racing at the thought of an upcoming meal.
Note the reasons; to preserve freshness, to prepare for cooking. Do you know why people cook meat? Do you know why cats, bears, wolves, etc., don't need to?

Would they if they could? ;) I know my cats prefer smoked turkey to the bird before it goes in the oven. Figure that one out.


I don't do that over an orange. Or grapes. Or a carrot.
Yet, you do experience physiological changes consistent with the digestive system getting ready. Close your eyes and concentrate. Imagine biting into a sweet juicy grape. If you didn't salivate, you're either of a rather small minority, or your focus wasn't fixed.

Gotta admit, when first I read this, I immediately heard 'You haven't found God because you either weren't focused enough, or aren't in the small population he revealed himself too'.

I prefer my corn creamed (cooked), apples peeled and baked, asparagus and mushroom sauted. I salivate after bananas, I will give you that one, but at the same time, I do so over a good flank steak and mesquite on the grill.

And does it seem more like the compassion is instinctive and the appetite is learned if you note that our digestive system is consistent with that of a mono-gastric herbivore, rather than that of an omnivore? I don't wish to deviate from the theistic implications to any great degree, but there are 19 traits of a mammalian digestive system which indicate whether it is best structured for herbivorous, omnivorous or carnivorous diet. And humans are herbivorous by each of those traits.

So then yes, you mean 'all' not some, that humans are herbivores (by insert means here), and that we have compassion by instinct rather than learning it. That being the emotional response to a creature would always by default be sympathetic, rather than looking at it as a potential food source if needed.

This then makes me wonder why humans EVER hunted ANYTHING as it seems like being strictly herbacious would be a LOT less dangerous and taxing.
I think if we look at human development, we can find that we're slowly (very slowly), becoming a more compassionate species. And I believe it's reasonable to suggest that this has been a gradual process for a very, very long time. Even a passive domestic cat tends to have no problem savagely killing a baby squirrel
(although when a mothering mindset is induced by oxytocin, this isn't always true). The video provides a fairly candid look at the distance between learned eating patterns, and instinctive compassion (at least, I believe that is the reality).

So it would make sense that before humans were able to produce sufficient food sources, they might show less natural compassion. And as food becomes more plentiful (in those areas of the world where it is), compassion seems to rise.

Wouldn't this mean that a human's 'compassion', then is only as long as its full stomach lasts?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 10:52:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:45:48 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:10:12 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:56:57 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

Um... so we wouldn't grind innocent little piglets into sausage.

I would agree with that.

People are so fickle. It was okay to eat the sausage until they were presented with the reality of what they were really doing. They were partaking in the murder of something innocent. Their reaction was shock and they ran away. Probably straight to the lunch meat counter.

The main reason for the reaction (my assumption) is because the machine apparently grinds bones, brain, teeth, bladder, kidney, bowels, feces, and urine into a sausage, which would be pretty gross in my opinion.

Also, if our power grid were to go down in the winter, the slaughter of animals for food would suddenly be more commonplace. Basically, consumer's ignorance and/or disgust by what they are not familiar with would quickly disappear, or they would.

Human compassion is good. Unfortunately we don't always have it unless it's presented to us in a very personal way. I don't assume to know if a God would have compassion that can be compared to human emotion.

When survival is in the balance, compassion toward animals is sometimes reduced to killing them with as little suffering as possible.

I'm going to have nightmares of squealing piglets on toothpicks.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 11:01:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 3:15:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
No, sorry. That's really all there is. The Bible suggests that it's okay for us to behave as omnivores, yet we have some rather obvious instincts which are more consistent with herbivores.

lol, pork is tasty

we were definitely built (through natural selection or 'creation')to eat meat as well as other things... our empathetic feelings to piglets not withstanding.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 11:19:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 10:52:33 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:45:48 AM, jodybirdy wrote:


The main reason for the reaction (my assumption) is because the machine apparently grinds bones, brain, teeth, bladder, kidney, bowels, feces, and urine into a sausage, which would be pretty gross in my opinion.

Also, if our power grid were to go down in the winter, the slaughter of animals for food would suddenly be more commonplace. Basically, consumer's ignorance and/or disgust by what they are not familiar with would quickly disappear,

When survival is in the balance, compassion toward animals is sometimes reduced to killing them with as little suffering as possible.

I have no doubt even the most avid vegan would eat meat to survive if that was the only thing available. I love animals and that's evident with the number of spoiled pets I'm my house. I have multiple bird feeders in my yard. I don't like to eat meat because of my personal taste preferences. But I'd be first in line for a bowl of rabbit stew if I was starving regardless of how much I prefer a living bunny to a cooked one.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 11:28:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 11:19:52 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 10:52:33 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:45:48 AM, jodybirdy wrote:


The main reason for the reaction (my assumption) is because the machine apparently grinds bones, brain, teeth, bladder, kidney, bowels, feces, and urine into a sausage, which would be pretty gross in my opinion.

Also, if our power grid were to go down in the winter, the slaughter of animals for food would suddenly be more commonplace. Basically, consumer's ignorance and/or disgust by what they are not familiar with would quickly disappear,

When survival is in the balance, compassion toward animals is sometimes reduced to killing them with as little suffering as possible.

I have no doubt even the most avid vegan would eat meat to survive if that was the only thing available. I love animals and that's evident with the number of spoiled pets I'm my house. I have multiple bird feeders in my yard. I don't like to eat meat because of my personal taste preferences. But I'd be first in line for a bowl of rabbit stew if I was starving regardless of how much I prefer a living bunny to a cooked one.

+1
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 9:38:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 11:01:37 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:15:10 AM, Beastt wrote:
No, sorry. That's really all there is. The Bible suggests that it's okay for us to behave as omnivores, yet we have some rather obvious instincts which are more consistent with herbivores.

lol, pork is tasty

we were definitely built (through natural selection or 'creation')to eat meat as well as other things... our empathetic feelings to piglets not withstanding.

I'm trying to think of a nice way to point out that you're just as blatantly incorrect as is possible. But I'm also aware that people are as emotionally attached to their diets, as they are to their religions.

So why don't you do this; go ahead and point out the various physiological digestive traits which indicate the type of food a given digestive system is best structured for, and then show that the human digestive tract is consistent with an omnivorous diet. Because it isn't. It's a tradition, not an instinct.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 9:41:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 9:38:24 PM, Beastt wrote:

The human palette is consistent with being omnivorous because pork is tasty.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 9:48:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 9:41:08 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 10/31/2014 9:38:24 PM, Beastt wrote:


The human palette is consistent with being omnivorous because pork is tasty.

I haven't gone to the trouble of finding a real paper about it... but a 5 second google-search landed me a Vegetarian website that disavows the claim that we're naturally herbivores: https://www.vrg.org...

and they claim our physical traits from teeth to intestines support our being omnivores..

and, as I said... Our palettes definitely support that...

as does the fact that we need lots of protein to feed our Brain :P
(and, yes there are other ways of getting it.. but Throwing sticks at squirrels and bunnies is the easiest way)
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 9:51:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 10:52:33 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:45:48 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 3:10:12 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:56:57 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/31/2014 2:28:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Why would God have provided us with the teeth, digestive system and compassion of a herbivore?

Um... so we wouldn't grind innocent little piglets into sausage.

I would agree with that.

People are so fickle. It was okay to eat the sausage until they were presented with the reality of what they were really doing. They were partaking in the murder of something innocent. Their reaction was shock and they ran away. Probably straight to the lunch meat counter.

The main reason for the reaction (my assumption) is because the machine apparently grinds bones, brain, teeth, bladder, kidney, bowels, feces, and urine into a sausage, which would be pretty gross in my opinion.
I'm not so sure. Firstly, sausage often contains many cuts of meat and slaughterhouse "waste" products to begin with. And we have automated olive pitting, peach pitting, etc., and many people have little idea what is and isn't possible, even in a small manually powered contraption. It seems pretty clear to me that the main reason for the reactions it that the people suddenly make an extremely undeniable connection with where that food comes from. Watch their faces when they here the pig begin squealing.

Also, if our power grid were to go down in the winter, the slaughter of animals for food would suddenly be more commonplace. Basically, consumer's ignorance and/or disgust by what they are not familiar with would quickly disappear, or they would.
When one spends more time studying food production, it becomes apparent that this is not true. While growing food takes far longer than butchering a live animal, one has to feed those animals. And for every 100 calories you feed livestock (on average), you extract 10 calories in meat. The loss over the range of most common livestock is a full 90%. In fact, it has been calculated and confirmed that - transport and distribution problems aside (which are major factors), if the grain fed to animals was consumed directly by people, it would result in so much reserved food that no one on the planet would be without sufficient nutrition. Raising animals is horrifically costly. Compare a pound of beef to a pound of wheat. The beef requires (on average), about 2,500 gallons of water, while the wheat requires 25-gallons of water. And the wheat requires little else, while the cow still has to be fed.

Human compassion is good. Unfortunately we don't always have it unless it's presented to us in a very personal way. I don't assume to know if a God would have compassion that can be compared to human emotion.

When survival is in the balance, compassion toward animals is sometimes reduced to killing them with as little suffering as possible.

I'm going to have nightmares of squealing piglets on toothpicks.

I haven't seen any indication that there is any compassionate force in the universe, aside from what we find among biological life.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 9:55:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 9:41:08 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 10/31/2014 9:38:24 PM, Beastt wrote:


The human palette is consistent with being omnivorous because pork is tasty.

As I've pointed out already, depending on who you ask
- Fried tarantulas (in Cambodia)
- Casu Marzu Cheese in Sardinia (rotten cheese riddled with insect larva)
- Live octopus( in Cambodia)
- Kopi Luwak in Indonesia (coffee made from beans extracted from cat excrement)
- Cold snake blood (in Japan)
- Whipped frog ejaculate (in China)
- Fried horse parasites (in Burma)

...are all quite tasty too. What makes you think you're any less conditioned to like the taste of pork, than people in Japan are to like drinking cold snake blood?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2014 9:58:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/31/2014 9:55:57 PM, Beastt wro
What makes you think you're any less conditioned to like the taste of pork, than people in Japan are to like drinking cold snake blood?

Everybody likes pork... I mean ALL of those places you named.

The jews and Muslims needed to call it Evil to keep people from eating it.

Have you ever Smelled Bacon? o.O