Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Carnism: The Psychology of Eating Meat

vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2012 6:44:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In this video, social psychologist Melanie Joy presents her explanation for why it is that people are able to designate some animals as loving companions and other animals as food. After watching the video, what are your thoughts?

Below is a summary of her points. My summary doesn't do her presentation justice but perhaps it will be useful for discussion:

The animals that are deemed edible are deemed such by culture. Only a handful of animals are considered edible by any given culture. To consume an animal that is not on the list of edible species arouses disgust when one contemplates eating said animal. Since most animals aren't considered edible, disgust is the norm.

Most people are strikingly incurious with regard to these issues.

There is a cognitive gap we have that allows us to eat animal that are on the edible list while treating all other animal with a different set of moral standards. This gap robs us of our ability to make dietary choices freely. "Without awareness, there is no free choice".

Meat eating in modern society is a choice which necessarily stems from beliefs (philosophy/ideology).

Joy calls this ideology "carnism".

Carnism is the dominant, violent and invisible belief system that conditions us to eat certain animals.

Carnism uses a set of social and psychological defense mechanisms to enable humane people to participate in inhumane practices without fully realizing what they are doing.

"Carnism teaches us how not to feel".

Though animal body parts are all around us, we almost never see farmed animal alive, even though there are over 30 times more farmed animal than people.

In addition to animals, the victims of carnism include factory farm workers, the environment, and humans in terms of diminished health due to animal foods, meat subsidies and with the "gap in our consciousness".

Carnisms justifies itself with a mythology.
* The 3 Ns of Justification: Eating meat is normal, natural and necessary

* Carnism teaches us to see animal as objects

* Carnism teaches us to see animal as abstractions

* Carnism teaches us to categorize animals such that we can harbor very
different feelings and carry out very different behaviors toward different species.

Eating animals is a social justice issue.

Our caring is both the cause and the solution to carnism.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 1:57:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/11/2012 6:44:01 PM, vbaculum wrote:


In this video, social psychologist Melanie Joy presents her explanation for why it is that people are able to designate some animals as loving companions and other animals as food. After watching the video, what are your thoughts?

Below is a summary of her points. My summary doesn't do her presentation justice but perhaps it will be useful for discussion:

The animals that are deemed edible are deemed such by culture. Only a handful of animals are considered edible by any given culture. To consume an animal that is not on the list of edible species arouses disgust when one contemplates eating said animal. Since most animals aren't considered edible, disgust is the norm.

Most people are strikingly incurious with regard to these issues.

There is a cognitive gap we have that allows us to eat animal that are on the edible list while treating all other animal with a different set of moral standards. This gap robs us of our ability to make dietary choices freely. "Without awareness, there is no free choice".

Meat eating in modern society is a choice which necessarily stems from beliefs (philosophy/ideology).

Joy calls this ideology "carnism".

Carnism is the dominant, violent and invisible belief system that conditions us to eat certain animals.

Carnism uses a set of social and psychological defense mechanisms to enable humane people to participate in inhumane practices without fully realizing what they are doing.

"Carnism teaches us how not to feel".

Though animal body parts are all around us, we almost never see farmed animal alive, even though there are over 30 times more farmed animal than people.

In addition to animals, the victims of carnism include factory farm workers, the environment, and humans in terms of diminished health due to animal foods, meat subsidies and with the "gap in our consciousness".

Carnisms justifies itself with a mythology.
* The 3 Ns of Justification: Eating meat is normal, natural and necessary

* Carnism teaches us to see animal as objects

* Carnism teaches us to see animal as abstractions

* Carnism teaches us to categorize animals such that we can harbor very
different feelings and carry out very different behaviors toward different species.

Eating animals is a social justice issue.

Our caring is both the cause and the solution to carnism.

Do you really think that tens of thousands of years of meat-eating can be just wished away by coming up with terms like "carnism"?

Also, I'd think that it's the very recent modern trend to think of animals as something more than "animals". Thinking of animals as objects/abstractions is probably the normal way in the world.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 5:58:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First of all, let me state that not very many things get me emotionally involved on this site. I tend to be pretty respectful unless something irritates me off. It irritates me , for example, when theists insult their own religion by trying to justify their faith using perverted science.

This is in the same vein.

I personally consider arguments against the consumption of meat to be the result of ignorance and confusion about 99% of the time. The only acceptable argument I know of is the inefficiency of feeding ourselves compared to a widespread vegetarian diet. Anything else is just ludicrous.

To bring in a social psychologist to describe why we eat meat is like bringing in a priest to teach science. It's highly inappropriate.

We eat meat because we are evolutionarily descended from things that eat meat, and because eating meat was selected for. Various parts of our bodies indicate that we are naturally meant to eat meat, and even the fact that we communicate indicate we developed to move together to hunt large prey.

Our compassion towards animals, is actually a "disease". A NYT article exploring why we think things are "cute" show that it's taking advantage of an evolutionary mechanism that reminds us of our own offspring. In short, that adorable baby penguin waddling back and forth? It's abusing the fact that it resembles the uncertain gait of one of our offspring.

We get frightened of people who abuse animals because we think it has something to do with how they will treat others.

Evolution and biology explain everything whereas all this vegetarianism nonsense is backed by nothing but guesswork, irrationality, and an overdeveloped and socially dangerous sense of empathy for things outside the human race.

In short, I call complete and total bullsh*t".

This social psychologist doesn't know what she's talking about and I'm not sure you do either.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 9:58:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel insulted that very few creatures on this planet consider me tasty.
How dare they; I may not be bacon, but I aint no shoe leather either!

Also, does a vegan go into shock if they bite off a small layer of their own tongue?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 10:18:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
From an evolutionary perspective, we eat certain animals just like cheetah's only eat zebras/wildebeast/orwhatever but don't eat monkeys, sloths, or bugs.

However, a unique trait in humans is compassion. I believe that humans should be compassionate towards all animals, including tasty ones. But sometimes, we just gotta eat. (Bugs don't count.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2012 10:27:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 10:18:11 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
From an evolutionary perspective, we eat certain animals just like cheetah's only eat zebras/wildebeast/orwhatever but don't eat monkeys, sloths, or bugs.

However, a unique trait in humans is compassion. I believe that humans should be compassionate towards all animals, including tasty ones. But sometimes, we just gotta eat. (Bugs don't count.)
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 1:07:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/12/2012 5:58:47 PM, Kleptin wrote:
First of all, let me state that not very many things get me emotionally involved on this site. I tend to be pretty respectful unless something irritates me off. It irritates me , for example, when theists insult their own religion by trying to justify their faith using perverted science.

This is in the same vein.

I personally consider arguments against the consumption of meat to be the result of ignorance and confusion about 99% of the time. The only acceptable argument I know of is the inefficiency of feeding ourselves compared to a widespread vegetarian diet. Anything else is just ludicrous.

To bring in a social psychologist to describe why we eat meat is like bringing in a priest to teach science. It's highly inappropriate.

Religions make scientific claims about the universe. For a religion to try to back up its menagerie of scientific claims about the universe using science isn't inappropriate; one expects a claim about the way the world works to be backed up after all. It's not inappropriate; it's just absurd and foolish. For example, when an apologists tries to prove the deluge using modern geology, he or she only shows how week his or her foundational beliefs about world are.

On the other hand, what could be more appropriate than using social science to explain social behavior?



We eat meat because we are evolutionarily descended from things that eat meat, and because eating meat was selected for. Various parts of our bodies indicate that we are naturally meant to eat meat, and even the fact that we communicate indicate we developed to move together to hunt large prey.

In her presentation, Joy argued that since eating meat is a decision, it's a manifestation of beliefs we have about animal ethics. She calls this collection of beliefs "carnism". The reason we eat meat is because of these beliefs.

You're arguing something different though. You are explaining why our paleolithic ancestors ate meat. For them, they didn't have the decision. It was a matter of survival for them. This is why pre-civilized humans ate meat and evolved to eat meat. Once humans became civilized, meat eating became a decision and decision are predicated on beliefs and justifications for those beliefs.

Our compassion towards animals, is actually a "disease". A NYT article exploring why we think things are "cute" show that it's taking advantage of an evolutionary mechanism that reminds us of our own offspring. In short, that adorable baby penguin waddling back and forth? It's abusing the fact that it resembles the uncertain gait of one of our offspring.

Your analogized definition of "disease" seems to be: Any reaction one species has to another species' adaptation which works against the first species interests.

For the moment, let's assume that this is a reasonable definition of disease.

As you know, domesticated farmed animals (pigs, cows, chickens) have, over the millenia, evolved adaptations, through artificial selection, to be more palatable than their undomesticated counterparts. This is why consumers prefer bacon made from domesticate pigs instead of boars.

Now, juxtapose this with the fact that eating the flesh of these animals, which is soaked in cholesterol, unsaturated fat and pathogens, contributes greatly to humans developing heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

So, under your definition of disease, the desire to eat meat is a disease, since domesticated animals have evolved mechanisms to make their flesh more palatable and, thus, act against our interests.

But more importantly, eating meat is not only like a disease, it causes real diseases. Consider that just yesterday, the media reported yet another story on the relationship between meat and premature death.

<i>[According to the latest research from Harvard Medical School], adding an extra portion of unprocessed red meat to someone's daily diet would increase the risk of death by 13%, of fatal cardiovascular disease by 18% and of cancer mortality by 10%. The figures for processed meat were higher, 20% for overall mortality, 21% for death from heart problems and 16% for cancer mortality.</i>

(source: http://www.bbc.co.uk...)

But under your definition of disease, any compassion that works against an individuals interests (our the interests of the individual's gene) should be considered a disease. What if I gave money to a charity like Oxfam. This would work against my interests and that of my genes. Assume that I give the money based on compassion I have for the suffering of other humans. Surly you would say I would be suffering from a disease for doing this. If not, why?

As I remember, Joy's presentation was largely centered on adult cows, pigs and chickens. I don't think these are cute animals - at least not as adults. What causes us to feel compassion for these animals isn't their cuteness. It's the simple realization that, given that their anatomy is almost identical to ours, we have every reason to assume that they experience the world in a very similar way that we do and, therefore, they experience the tortures of the farm and slaughterhouse the same way we would.


We get frightened of people who abuse animals because we think it has something to do with how they will treat others.

Evolution and biology explain everything whereas all this vegetarianism nonsense is backed by nothing but guesswork, irrationality, and an overdeveloped and socially dangerous sense of empathy for things outside the human race.

Being concerned and opposed to the genital mutilation, de-horning, branding (burning), de-beaking, grinding alive, removal of skin and docking of tails, of animals on factory farms without anesthetics, as well as the constant slaughterhouse mishaps that daily result in an untold number of animals being boiled alive, skinned alive and chopped into pieces while fully conscious isn't a result of an "overdeveloped" sense of empathy. This concern would arise in any normal human being.

In short, I call complete and total bullsh*t".

This social psychologist doesn't know what she's talking about and I'm not sure you do either.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 1:12:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 1:07:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:

In her presentation, Joy argued that since eating meat is a decision, it's a manifestation of beliefs we have about animal ethics. She calls this collection of beliefs "carnism". The reason we eat meat is because of these beliefs.

You're arguing something different though. You are explaining why our paleolithic ancestors ate meat. For them, they didn't have the decision. It was a matter of survival for them. This is why pre-civilized humans ate meat and evolved to eat meat. Once humans became civilized, meat eating became a decision and decision are predicated on beliefs and justifications for those beliefs.


I brought up a long time ago that, in certain societies, they don't have a "choice" and they have bigger problems to worry about than the wellbeing of animals. Not only do you imply that these societies are unethical, but you also imply that they are uncivilised. Myopic Eurocentrism for the win.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 3:38:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm going to try to stop eating so much meat.. Heart attacks/strokes are scary.. they're caused by meat/animal products.. and I eat a lot of it.

I'm going to try to go Vegan-lite... Eating Primarily plantstuffs.. and just eating meat /dairy when I go out with people or every once in a while.

I like eating meat though.. and would want to have it from time to time.. and don't have a problem with quickly killing non-intelligent, non-socially aware, animals to eat.

now.. sure, pigs are smarter than cows...
but pork's really tasty :)

I do have a bit of a problem with keeping them in bad conditions.. or if they're in lots of pain..
but I'd still want them Humanely killed for the bacon-strips I'm gonna need to put on my turkey when thanksgiving comes around 8)
(and, in truth.. i don't seem to care so much about the pigs conditions that I'm gonna buy the pricey stuff that certified by whomever as more humane.. money's tight and I have other things that I care for more than I care to put a miniscule dent in the Normal supplier's demand)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 7:49:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 1:07:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Religions make scientific claims about the universe. For a religion to try to back up its menagerie of scientific claims about the universe using science isn't inappropriate; one expects a claim about the way the world works to be backed up after all. It's not inappropriate; it's just absurd and foolish. For example, when an apologists tries to prove the deluge using modern geology, he or she only shows how week his or her foundational beliefs about world are.

I used the term inappropriate because we have science as an alternative. But I also agree that "absurd and foolish" also describe both just as well.

On the other hand, what could be more appropriate than using social science to explain social behavior?

There's nothing wrong with using social science to explain social behavior. Refusing to eat meat is a social behavior. Eating meat is a biological one. We use biology to explain why we eat meat, not social psychology. If there is a social/psychological deviation or a disorder, it involves those who exclude meat from their diet for moral reasons.

In her presentation, Joy argued that since eating meat is a decision, it's a manifestation of beliefs we have about animal ethics. She calls this collection of beliefs "carnism". The reason we eat meat is because of these beliefs.

That's completely reversed. Eating meat is not a deviation from nature. Refusing to do so on moral grounds is, and like I said before, we should be exploring the psychological issues involved with individuals who erroneously believe there are moral issues involving animals instead.

You're arguing something different though. You are explaining why our paleolithic ancestors ate meat. For them, they didn't have the decision. It was a matter of survival for them. This is why pre-civilized humans ate meat and evolved to eat meat. Once humans became civilized, meat eating became a decision and decision are predicated on beliefs and justifications for those beliefs.

Eating meat has never been a decision. It has always been an option, but nowhere in history did someone go "You know what, I decided that animals don't have rights so I'm going to kill and eat them now". To say that eating meat is a decision is to say it's a decision to wear clothes, seek friendship, seek love and sex, seek shelter and security, etc. These are normal things to seek, and things that we actually don't NEED to survive in this society.

Your analogized definition of "disease" seems to be: Any reaction one species has to another species' adaptation which works against the first species interests.

Hence why I used quotation marks. It's best to indicate that it is a patho-psychological side effect, a deviation, a disorder, or a fluke of the mind.

As you know, domesticated farmed animals (pigs, cows, chickens) have, over the millenia, evolved adaptations, through artificial selection, to be more palatable than their undomesticated counterparts. This is why consumers prefer bacon made from domesticate pigs instead of boars.

Okay, I accept this point.

Now, juxtapose this with the fact that eating the flesh of these animals, which is soaked in cholesterol, unsaturated fat and pathogens, contributes greatly to humans developing heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

So, under your definition of disease, the desire to eat meat is a disease, since domesticated animals have evolved mechanisms to make their flesh more palatable and, thus, act against our interests.

But more importantly, eating meat is not only like a disease, it causes real diseases. Consider that just yesterday, the media reported yet another story on the relationship between meat and premature death.

<i>[According to the latest research from Harvard Medical School], adding an extra portion of unprocessed red meat to someone's daily diet would increase the risk of death by 13%, of fatal cardiovascular disease by 18% and of cancer mortality by 10%. The figures for processed meat were higher, 20% for overall mortality, 21% for death from heart problems and 16% for cancer mortality.</i>

(source: http://www.bbc.co.uk...)

But under your definition of disease, any compassion that works against an individuals interests (our the interests of the individual's gene) should be considered a disease. What if I gave money to a charity like Oxfam. This would work against my interests and that of my genes. Assume that I give the money based on compassion I have for the suffering of other humans. Surly you would say I would be suffering from a disease for doing this. If not, why?

I see where you're going with this argument, and I will grant it to you as a legitimate argument for why we should consider reducing meat intake, or rather, TYPE of meat intake, as well as more natural methods of meat farming. However, I don't see this as having anything to do with animal rights, and I don't see why this makes eating meat immoral. It just makes it immoral to saturate the market with UNHEALTHY meat.

As I remember, Joy's presentation was largely centered on adult cows, pigs and chickens. I don't think these are cute animals - at least not as adults. What causes us to feel compassion for these animals isn't their cuteness. It's the simple realization that, given that their anatomy is almost identical to ours, we have every reason to assume that they experience the world in a very similar way that we do and, therefore, they experience the tortures of the farm and slaughterhouse the same way we would.

I fail to see a clear point here. Could you restate this argument more directly? Are you trying to link compassion with...something?

Being concerned and opposed to the genital mutilation, de-horning, branding (burning), de-beaking, grinding alive, removal of skin and docking of tails, of animals on factory farms without anesthetics, as well as the constant slaughterhouse mishaps that daily result in an untold number of animals being boiled alive, skinned alive and chopped into pieces while fully conscious isn't a result of an "overdeveloped" sense of empathy. This concern would arise in any normal human being.

Human beings have a lot of tendencies that are the result of biological and biopsychological flaws. It doesn't mean we have to give in to them. I still don't see a good argument for why we should completely abandon the consumption of meat and I don't see a good argument for why animals deserve our consideration as anything other than objects.

In short, I call complete and total bullsh*t".
This social psychologist doesn't know what she's talking about and I'm not sure you do either.

^I stand by this. At this point, all you've done is offer a good argument that I already accept as legitimate (Eating meat represents poor nutrition), but which doesn't justify the complete halting of meat consumption, only WISE meat consumption.

The rest of it was nebulous heartstring-pulling and an appeal to human condition. I leave that stuff for when I'm NOT on DDO. When I'm here, I want to be objective as possible and it's hard for me to believe that anyone who crusades for something as philosophically absurd as animal rights (rights being a subset of society and society being made up exclusively by humans) is objective.

I'm extremely skeptical.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 7:51:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 3:38:28 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
now.. sure, pigs are smarter than cows...
but pork's really tasty :)

ahh...correlation.. intelligence=tasty?
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 7:55:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh my god. Why does this have a name now? Carnism? I have no problem with a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle so why do you have to invent new ways to make me seem like an evil person? F*ck off dude. I prefer jogging to biking. What's my label now? Or that I drive a Dodge Charger?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 9:16:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 7:49:48 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Human beings have a lot of tendencies that are the result of biological and biopsychological flaws. It doesn't mean we have to give in to them.

If it determines what you care about..why wouldn't you act in keeping with what you care about? o.O

and... what do you mean "flaws"??? by what standard?
Evolutionary Fitness?

Why support fostering evolutionary fitness over making the world so that it best satisfies how you would care to have things?

I still don't see a good argument for why we should completely abandon the consumption of meat and I don't see a good argument for why animals deserve our consideration as anything other than objects.

Why treat people nicely?

In addition to those "rational self interest" type reasons of playing nice for your own benefit (which is akin to 'treating them like objects')

it's B/c I wouldn't want to see people mis-treated.. Empathy.

In short, I call complete and total bullsh*t".
This social psychologist doesn't know what she's talking about and I'm not sure you do either.

^I stand by this. At this point, all you've done is offer a good argument that I already accept as legitimate (Eating meat represents poor nutrition), but which doesn't justify the complete halting of meat consumption, only WISE meat consumption.

The rest of it was nebulous heartstring-pulling and an appeal to human condition. I leave that stuff for when I'm NOT on DDO. When I'm here, I want to be objective as possible and it's hard for me to believe that anyone who crusades for something as philosophically absurd as animal rights (rights being a subset of society and society being made up exclusively by humans) is objective.

In what way do Rights have objective basis?

I'm extremely skeptical.

I'm skeptical of your objective rights.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Irkutsk
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2012 11:18:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Don't worry V, one hundred years from now, people will look upon the consumption of animals as we do now of many things in the past.
Life is like radiation. A uniquely damaging event. Perhaps I will live another thirty years. Perhaps I will die tomorrow. But I have no regrets. I was sometimes forced to make difficult choices. But enough is enough. As Vladimir would say, you can only die once, make sure it is worth it.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 7:16:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 11:18:19 PM, Irkutsk wrote:
Don't worry V, one hundred years from now, people will look upon the consumption of animals as we do now of many things in the past.

Or, they will look at Veganism, and Vegetarianism that way.

NEVER underestimate, bacon....
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 9:12:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Carnism = Normal People.

So therefore, we call them "normal", or people.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 9:55:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 1:07:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
<i>[According to the latest research from Harvard Medical School], adding an extra portion of unprocessed red meat to someone's daily diet would increase the risk of death by 13%, of fatal cardiovascular disease by 18% and of cancer mortality by 10%. The figures for processed meat were higher, 20% for overall mortality, 21% for death from heart problems and 16% for cancer mortality.</i>

From what to what? 100% to 113%?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 10:10:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 9:55:35 AM, mongoose wrote:
At 3/13/2012 1:07:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
<i>[According to the latest research from Harvard Medical School], adding an extra portion of unprocessed red meat to someone's daily diet would increase the risk of death by 13%, of fatal cardiovascular disease by 18% and of cancer mortality by 10%. The figures for processed meat were higher, 20% for overall mortality, 21% for death from heart problems and 16% for cancer mortality.</i>

From what to what? 100% to 113%?

Begs to be asked isn't it? :)

I think that such kinds of studies can be made for almost anything. For example,

"According to the latest research from Harvard Medical School], adding an extra bout of sexual activity to someone's daily routine would increase the risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease by 13%, of fatal cardiovascular disease by 18% and of conception by 10%.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 12:17:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I might be digressing a little.

Has anyone thought about majestic trees - the silent witnesses to the adventures and blunders of humanity. They lead there life at a leisurely pace, without whining or complaining. A single often houses and supports multiple families of birds. A single tree can take decades to grow. There are many that live to centuries.

We should care for animals. On other hand, there is nothing wrong if animals are killed for food. I care much more for trees than chickens and goats.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:30:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 7:49:48 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/13/2012 1:07:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Religions make scientific claims about the universe. For a religion to try to back up its menagerie of scientific claims about the universe using science isn't inappropriate; one expects a claim about the way the world works to be backed up after all. It's not inappropriate; it's just absurd and foolish. For example, when an apologists tries to prove the deluge using modern geology, he or she only shows how week his or her foundational beliefs about world are.

I used the term inappropriate because we have science as an alternative. But I also agree that "absurd and foolish" also describe both just as well.

On the other hand, what could be more appropriate than using social science to explain social behavior?

There's nothing wrong with using social science to explain social behavior. Refusing to eat meat is a social behavior. Eating meat is a biological one. We use biology to explain why we eat meat, not social psychology. If there is a social/psychological deviation or a disorder, it involves those who exclude meat from their diet for moral reasons.

I get what you're saying, but this presentation seems to be about why we eat some animals and not others. Not the fact that we eat animals in general. The decision to eat some animals and not others is significant and very appropriate for a social psychologist to speak on. Eating meat, in general, can be explained by biology, sure. I 100% couldn't agree more. However, the choice to eat only certain meats (not unlike the choice to eat no meat) cannot be explained by biology. The fact that most people in America eat pigs, cows, and chickens and yet most people are repulsed by the thought of eating reptiles and amphibians is a sign that we have been trained through culture to categorize animals into what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to eat. When in reality, the vast majority of animals are very edible. What causes the repulsion and disgust? Some animals may be less practical to eat (snakes for example obviously don't have as much meat as our pigs and cows and can be more dangerous in some cases), but the impracticality of eating snakes shouldn't logically lead to repulsion at the thought of eating snakes. It shouldn't stop you from eating a bite of snake when it's cooked right in front of you. That leads one to conclude that there is something else going on here- something cultural and sociological.

To use an analogy- atheism. An atheist doesn't believe in all gods. A theist (typically) believes in one. A vegetarian who eats no animals asking a meat-eater why they only eat certain animals is like an atheist asking a theist why they believe in only one god and not all, some, or none. Why that god and not others? Why those animals and not others? That is the socio-cultural aspect of this discussion.

In her presentation, Joy argued that since eating meat is a decision, it's a manifestation of beliefs we have about animal ethics. She calls this collection of beliefs "carnism". The reason we eat meat is because of these beliefs..........................


So, in this way, it is a decision. We choose to eat cows and pigs and choose not to eat horses and dogs. Instead of eating the dogs who will inevitably be put down in shelters, maybe for violent tendencies etc., we burn their bodies and let the meat go to waste. Why? I understand that dogs have been domesticated and are our "friends" so-to-speak, but why, if it is in our blood to eat meat, do we choose not to eat dogs deemed too violent for domestication? Why are we repulsed by the thought of it?
These are the types of questions this woman is attempting to answer.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 1:33:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 7:16:31 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/13/2012 11:18:19 PM, Irkutsk wrote:
Don't worry V, one hundred years from now, people will look upon the consumption of animals as we do now of many things in the past.

Or, they will look at Veganism, and Vegetarianism that way.

NEVER underestimate, bacon....

With that one unfortunate comma, you directed your comment at bacon. lol Awesome. Bacon salutes you.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 2:03:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 1:30:19 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 3/13/2012 7:49:48 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/13/2012 1:07:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Religions make scientific claims about the universe. For a religion to try to back up its menagerie of scientific claims about the universe using science isn't inappropriate; one expects a claim about the way the world works to be backed up after all. It's not inappropriate; it's just absurd and foolish. For example, when an apologists tries to prove the deluge using modern geology, he or she only shows how week his or her foundational beliefs about world are.

I used the term inappropriate because we have science as an alternative. But I also agree that "absurd and foolish" also describe both just as well.

On the other hand, what could be more appropriate than using social science to explain social behavior?

There's nothing wrong with using social science to explain social behavior. Refusing to eat meat is a social behavior. Eating meat is a biological one. We use biology to explain why we eat meat, not social psychology. If there is a social/psychological deviation or a disorder, it involves those who exclude meat from their diet for moral reasons.

I get what you're saying, but this presentation seems to be about why we eat some animals and not others. Not the fact that we eat animals in general. The decision to eat some animals and not others is significant and very appropriate for a social psychologist to speak on. Eating meat, in general, can be explained by biology, sure. I 100% couldn't agree more. However, the choice to eat only certain meats (not unlike the choice to eat no meat) cannot be explained by biology. The fact that most people in America eat pigs, cows, and chickens and yet most people are repulsed by the thought of eating reptiles and amphibians is a sign that we have been trained through culture to categorize animals into what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to eat. When in reality, the vast majority of animals are very edible. What causes the repulsion and disgust? Some animals may be less practical to eat (snakes for example obviously don't have as much meat as our pigs and cows and can be more dangerous in some cases), but the impracticality of eating snakes shouldn't logically lead to repulsion at the thought of eating snakes. It shouldn't stop you from eating a bite of snake when it's cooked right in front of you. That leads one to conclude that there is something else going on here- something cultural and sociological.

I choose to eat onions and tomatoes and choose not to eat broccoli and mushrooms. Why?

If it is in our blood to eat vegetables, why do I choose not to eat broccoli? Does this mean that I've been trained through culture to categorize vegetables into what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to eat?

Or could it be as simple as this scenario:

A child is weaned, and is fed solid food. Then it graduates to eat vegetables and meat. Now, will the parents give the child the meat of chicken, pigs, cows, fish, etc. or the meat of snakes, alligators, dogs, etc.?

Hopefully, the parents choose chicken, pigs, cows. Thus, the child grows up with these meats and acquires a taste for them.

This taste has been developed in humans across the centuries because these animals were readily available to be consumed and it grew to be a self-strengthening cycle.

If snakes, alligators, lions, etc. were as readily butchered, then our supermarkets would be stocked with those meats. It's not like we decide one day to suddenly like snake meat.

Why is this fact twisted into something like "culture has trained us"? Of course, culture has trained us. But it's because of practical constraints.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 6:41:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 2:03:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:30:19 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 3/13/2012 7:49:48 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/13/2012 1:07:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Religions make scientific claims about the universe. For a religion to try to back up its menagerie of scientific claims about the universe using science isn't inappropriate; one expects a claim about the way the world works to be backed up after all. It's not inappropriate; it's just absurd and foolish. For example, when an apologists tries to prove the deluge using modern geology, he or she only shows how week his or her foundational beliefs about world are.

I used the term inappropriate because we have science as an alternative. But I also agree that "absurd and foolish" also describe both just as well.

On the other hand, what could be more appropriate than using social science to explain social behavior?

There's nothing wrong with using social science to explain social behavior. Refusing to eat meat is a social behavior. Eating meat is a biological one. We use biology to explain why we eat meat, not social psychology. If there is a social/psychological deviation or a disorder, it involves those who exclude meat from their diet for moral reasons.

I get what you're saying, but this presentation seems to be about why we eat some animals and not others. Not the fact that we eat animals in general. The decision to eat some animals and not others is significant and very appropriate for a social psychologist to speak on. Eating meat, in general, can be explained by biology, sure. I 100% couldn't agree more. However, the choice to eat only certain meats (not unlike the choice to eat no meat) cannot be explained by biology. The fact that most people in America eat pigs, cows, and chickens and yet most people are repulsed by the thought of eating reptiles and amphibians is a sign that we have been trained through culture to categorize animals into what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to eat. When in reality, the vast majority of animals are very edible. What causes the repulsion and disgust? Some animals may be less practical to eat (snakes for example obviously don't have as much meat as our pigs and cows and can be more dangerous in some cases), but the impracticality of eating snakes shouldn't logically lead to repulsion at the thought of eating snakes. It shouldn't stop you from eating a bite of snake when it's cooked right in front of you. That leads one to conclude that there is something else going on here- something cultural and sociological.

I choose to eat onions and tomatoes and choose not to eat broccoli and mushrooms. Why?

If it is in our blood to eat vegetables, why do I choose not to eat broccoli? Does this mean that I've been trained through culture to categorize vegetables into what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to eat?

Or could it be as simple as this scenario:

A child is weaned, and is fed solid food. Then it graduates to eat vegetables and meat. Now, will the parents give the child the meat of chicken, pigs, cows, fish, etc. or the meat of snakes, alligators, dogs, etc.?

Hopefully, the parents choose chicken, pigs, cows. Thus, the child grows up with these meats and acquires a taste for them.

This taste has been developed in humans across the centuries because these animals were readily available to be consumed and it grew to be a self-strengthening cycle.

If snakes, alligators, lions, etc. were as readily butchered, then our supermarkets would be stocked with those meats. It's not like we decide one day to suddenly like snake meat.

Why is this fact twisted into something like "culture has trained us"? Of course, culture has trained us. But it's because of practical constraints.

So, your answer to "why" is simply, "because these animals were readily available"?
That's probably a large part of it. I doubt it's the whole story, though.

I don't think we could argue that we have taken the most practical route, though. It's practical to take advantage of the current system but the current system isn't necessarily practical. Agriculture could have gone in many more efficient and practical routes. But that's tangential.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 7:16:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 6:41:54 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 3/14/2012 2:03:07 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 3/14/2012 1:30:19 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 3/13/2012 7:49:48 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 3/13/2012 1:07:38 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Religions make scientific claims about the universe. For a religion to try to back up its menagerie of scientific claims about the universe using science isn't inappropriate; one expects a claim about the way the world works to be backed up after all. It's not inappropriate; it's just absurd and foolish. For example, when an apologists tries to prove the deluge using modern geology, he or she only shows how week his or her foundational beliefs about world are.

I used the term inappropriate because we have science as an alternative. But I also agree that "absurd and foolish" also describe both just as well.

On the other hand, what could be more appropriate than using social science to explain social behavior?

There's nothing wrong with using social science to explain social behavior. Refusing to eat meat is a social behavior. Eating meat is a biological one. We use biology to explain why we eat meat, not social psychology. If there is a social/psychological deviation or a disorder, it involves those who exclude meat from their diet for moral reasons.

I get what you're saying, but this presentation seems to be about why we eat some animals and not others. Not the fact that we eat animals in general. The decision to eat some animals and not others is significant and very appropriate for a social psychologist to speak on. Eating meat, in general, can be explained by biology, sure. I 100% couldn't agree more. However, the choice to eat only certain meats (not unlike the choice to eat no meat) cannot be explained by biology. The fact that most people in America eat pigs, cows, and chickens and yet most people are repulsed by the thought of eating reptiles and amphibians is a sign that we have been trained through culture to categorize animals into what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to eat. When in reality, the vast majority of animals are very edible. What causes the repulsion and disgust? Some animals may be less practical to eat (snakes for example obviously don't have as much meat as our pigs and cows and can be more dangerous in some cases), but the impracticality of eating snakes shouldn't logically lead to repulsion at the thought of eating snakes. It shouldn't stop you from eating a bite of snake when it's cooked right in front of you. That leads one to conclude that there is something else going on here- something cultural and sociological.

I choose to eat onions and tomatoes and choose not to eat broccoli and mushrooms. Why?

If it is in our blood to eat vegetables, why do I choose not to eat broccoli? Does this mean that I've been trained through culture to categorize vegetables into what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to eat?

Or could it be as simple as this scenario:

A child is weaned, and is fed solid food. Then it graduates to eat vegetables and meat. Now, will the parents give the child the meat of chicken, pigs, cows, fish, etc. or the meat of snakes, alligators, dogs, etc.?

Hopefully, the parents choose chicken, pigs, cows. Thus, the child grows up with these meats and acquires a taste for them.

This taste has been developed in humans across the centuries because these animals were readily available to be consumed and it grew to be a self-strengthening cycle.

If snakes, alligators, lions, etc. were as readily butchered, then our supermarkets would be stocked with those meats. It's not like we decide one day to suddenly like snake meat.

Why is this fact twisted into something like "culture has trained us"? Of course, culture has trained us. But it's because of practical constraints.

So, your answer to "why" is simply, "because these animals were readily available"?
That's probably a large part of it. I doubt it's the whole story, though.

I don't think we could argue that we have taken the most practical route, though. It's practical to take advantage of the current system but the current system isn't necessarily practical. Agriculture could have gone in many more efficient and practical routes. But that's tangential.

Right. This is how it happened. We domesticated fowl, swine and bovines, instead of big felines, reptiles and what not (largely because domestication is possible/feasible only for certain animals)

Not eating other exotic meat, or having "revulsion" towards certain types of meat is largely based on practicalities.

Imagine alligator meat becomes a huge delicacy. Is alligator husbandry actually feasible? Animal husbandry most probably does not work on a majority of animals, so how will you sustain the consumption of their meat?

What gets my goat, so to speak, is that this historical fact is twisted to suit variegated ends.

The studies cited increased health risks for meat consumption. Well, isn't consumption of anything in excess a health risk? Does that mean we stop eating those foods?

Why not shove the health argument and just argue for balanced diets?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 7:27:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agreed with Indophile 100%. Just because we can live without eating meat, doesn't mean we ought. And there are many foods that, in excess, are not good for our health. It's not an ethical reason to stop eating those foods. People who want to be healthy may limit those foods, but it doesn't mean we all ought to---it's a personal choice.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 7:30:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 7:27:06 PM, nonentity wrote:
Agreed with Indophile 100%. Just because we can live without eating meat, doesn't mean we ought. And there are many foods that, in excess, are not good for our health. It's not an ethical reason to stop eating those foods. People who want to be healthy may limit those foods, but it doesn't mean we all ought to---it's a personal choice.

Just remember that your body resorts to eating meat when you are very hungry; namly your own flesh via self-cannibalism (this is how you get thin).

Technically, all vegans are betrayed by their carnivourous bodies...shhh!
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 7:37:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/14/2012 7:30:08 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Just remember that your body resorts to eating meat when you are very hungry; namly your own flesh via self-cannibalism (this is how you get thin).

Technically, all vegans are betrayed by their carnivourous bodies...shhh!

lol I don't know why that sounds horribly disgusting.

I've thought about going vegan to lose weight but it's enough work eating a balanced diet without scrapping it altogether.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 8:39:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wounder how many tens of thousands of tax payer dollars were wasted on this worthless study. People eat meat because it is food. Pets are for personal amusement, attachment is just a bi-product. There it is for ya unsugar coated and all for free. Should have asked a farmer first, would have saved the tax payers a crap load of money.
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%
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2012 9:06:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/13/2012 11:18:19 PM, Irkutsk wrote:
Don't worry V, one hundred years from now, people will look upon the consumption of animals as we do now of many things in the past.

Either that, or, more than likely, we will develop in vitro meat.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus