Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page

Eating animals.

|
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:00:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Haha. I just read this on a pro-vegan website.

"Eating for complete protein isn't a scientific system of food combining, where you have to keep track and analyze everything you eat. It's a natural traditional way of eating, which most human beings have thrived on, for thousands of years. Food is a sensual pleasure, and complete protein is a side benefit."

What??!??!?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:12:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I consume 1 fillet (side) of a mackerel fish, the protein and amino acid complex is as follows :

Protein & Amino Acids for Mackerel:

Amounts Per Selected Serving %DV
Protein-20.8g-42%
Tryptophan-233mg
Threonine-913mg
Isoleucine-960mg
Leucine-1694mg
Lysine-1913mg
Methionine-617mg
Cystine-223mg
Phenylalanine-813mg
Tyrosine-703mg
Valine-1073mg
Arginine-1247mg
Histidine-614mg
Alanine-1260mg
Aspartic acid-2134mg
Glutamic acid-3110mg
Glycine-1000mg
Proline-737mg
Serine-850mg

This is a complete protein complex. Not to mention total omega 3 and 6, and a daily serving of b12, and iron. And that is only within the fish element of the meal. Add whole grain rice for carbs and a salad or vegetable for fiber.

Can any vegetarian compile me a meal that contains all the nutrition that just half a mackerel contains? I am interested to see a specific combination of foods that would result in complete protein consumption.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Oryus
Posts: 7,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 7:58:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2012 7:00:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Haha. I just read this on a pro-vegan website.

"Eating for complete protein isn't a scientific system of food combining, where you have to keep track and analyze everything you eat. It's a natural traditional way of eating, which most human beings have thrived on, for thousands of years. Food is a sensual pleasure, and complete protein is a side benefit."

What??!??!?

Woah.... that just blew my mind....
YYW for prez
At 5/1/2013 11:15:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Crinack is the wall between our understanding and our intuition, it is the wild virtue lost in stifling, rigid forms of communication. It is the wall on which every poet beats, sometimes for an entire lifetime, in the hopes of opening one small crack. Crinack is not a poem. It is the poem.
vbaculum
Posts: 992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 2:49:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2012 7:12:27 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
If I consume 1 fillet (side) of a mackerel fish, the protein and amino acid complex is as follows :

Protein & Amino Acids for Mackerel:

Amounts Per Selected Serving %DV
Protein-20.8g-42%
Tryptophan-233mg
Threonine-913mg
Isoleucine-960mg
Leucine-1694mg
Lysine-1913mg
Methionine-617mg
Cystine-223mg
Phenylalanine-813mg
Tyrosine-703mg
Valine-1073mg
Arginine-1247mg
Histidine-614mg
Alanine-1260mg
Aspartic acid-2134mg
Glutamic acid-3110mg
Glycine-1000mg
Proline-737mg
Serine-850mg

This is a complete protein complex. Not to mention total omega 3 and 6, and a daily serving of b12, and iron. And that is only within the fish element of the meal. Add whole grain rice for carbs and a salad or vegetable for fiber.

Can any vegetarian compile me a meal that contains all the nutrition that just half a mackerel contains? I am interested to see a specific combination of foods that would result in complete protein consumption.

That amino acid profile is based on 230 calories of mackerel.
(http://nutritiondata.self.com...)

230 calories of tofu beats mackerel on almost every nutrient you specified.
(http://nutritiondata.self.com...).

Nutrient MACK TOFU WINNER
--------------------------------------
Tryptophan 233 404 TOFU
Threonine 913 1351 TOFU
Isoleucine 960 1458 TOFU
Leucine 1694 2393 TOFU
Lysine 1913 1519 MACK
Methionine 617 362 MACK
Cystine 223 98 MACK
Phenylalanine 813 1438 TOFU
Tyrosine 703 1205 TOFU
Valine 1073 1495 TOFU
Arginine 1247 2354 TOFU
Histidine 614 738 TOFU
Alanine 1260 1331 TOFU
Aspartic acid 2134 3505 TOFU
Glutamic acid 3110 5661 TOFU
Glycine 1000 1263 TOFU
Proline 737 1863 TOFU
Serine 850 1746 TOFU

Iron 1.8 5.22 TOFU
Omega-3 2991 595 MACK
Omega-6 215O 5269 TOFU

Note: Fortified tofu typcially contains 100% DV of B12 for that many calories (http://www.healthaliciousness.com...).
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
vbaculum
Posts: 992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 2:57:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2012 7:00:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Haha. I just read this on a pro-vegan website.

"Eating for complete protein isn't a scientific system of food combining, where you have to keep track and analyze everything you eat. It's a natural traditional way of eating, which most human beings have thrived on, for thousands of years. Food is a sensual pleasure, and complete protein is a side benefit."

What??!??!?

I don't quit get what they are saying.

However, vegans can easily get all the essential and non-essential amino-acids.

"You don't need to eat foods from animals to have enough protein in your diet. Plant proteins alone can provide enough of the essential and non-essential amino acids, as long as sources of dietary protein are varied and caloric intake is high enough to meet energy needs.
Whole grains, legumes, vegetables, seeds and nuts all contain both essential and non-essential amino acids. You don't need to consciously combine these foods ("complementary proteins") within a given meal."


(source: http://www.heart.org...)
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
OberHerr
Posts: 12,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 9:14:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2012 7:00:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Haha. I just read this on a pro-vegan website.

"Eating for complete protein isn't a scientific system of food combining, where you have to keep track and analyze everything you eat. It's a natural traditional way of eating, which most human beings have thrived on, for thousands of years. Food is a sensual pleasure, and complete protein is a side benefit."

What??!??!?

Vegans are crazy, and should be abolished from society.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

Signature Quote

<pending>

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 12:54:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2012 2:57:00 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/22/2012 7:00:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Haha. I just read this on a pro-vegan website.

"Eating for complete protein isn't a scientific system of food combining, where you have to keep track and analyze everything you eat. It's a natural traditional way of eating, which most human beings have thrived on, for thousands of years. Food is a sensual pleasure, and complete protein is a side benefit."

What??!??!?

I don't quit get what they are saying.

However, vegans can easily get all the essential and non-essential amino-acids.

"You don't need to eat foods from animals to have enough protein in your diet. Plant proteins alone can provide enough of the essential and non-essential amino acids, as long as sources of dietary protein are varied and caloric intake is high enough to meet energy needs.
Whole grains, legumes, vegetables, seeds and nuts all contain both essential and non-essential amino acids. You don't need to consciously combine these foods ("complementary proteins") within a given meal."


(source: http://www.heart.org...)

The idea is that we need every protein, a complete set of proteins in order the function well on all levels. I do not believe it is plausible to consume that complex without consuming meat at a continuous level, without forming serious health problems. Even at an elementary level, one can note the unlikely-hood of plant matter consisting of the proper protein complex needed to produce, build, and maintain animal flesh - it just doesn't equate.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 1:45:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2012 12:54:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 2:57:00 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/22/2012 7:00:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Haha. I just read this on a pro-vegan website.

"Eating for complete protein isn't a scientific system of food combining, where you have to keep track and analyze everything you eat. It's a natural traditional way of eating, which most human beings have thrived on, for thousands of years. Food is a sensual pleasure, and complete protein is a side benefit."

What??!??!?

I don't quit get what they are saying.

However, vegans can easily get all the essential and non-essential amino-acids.

"You don't need to eat foods from animals to have enough protein in your diet. Plant proteins alone can provide enough of the essential and non-essential amino acids, as long as sources of dietary protein are varied and caloric intake is high enough to meet energy needs.
Whole grains, legumes, vegetables, seeds and nuts all contain both essential and non-essential amino acids. You don't need to consciously combine these foods ("complementary proteins") within a given meal."


(source: http://www.heart.org...)

Correction -

The idea is that we need every protein, a complete set of proteins in order the function well on all levels. I do not believe it is plausible to consume that complex on a continuous level without consuming meat, without forming serious health problems. Even at an elementary level, one can note the unlikely-hood of plant matter consisting of the proper protein complex needed to produce, build, and maintain animal flesh - it just doesn't equate.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
vbaculum
Posts: 992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2012 7:18:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/23/2012 1:45:17 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 12:54:57 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/23/2012 2:57:00 AM, vbaculum wrote:
At 4/22/2012 7:00:45 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Haha. I just read this on a pro-vegan website.

"Eating for complete protein isn't a scientific system of food combining, where you have to keep track and analyze everything you eat. It's a natural traditional way of eating, which most human beings have thrived on, for thousands of years. Food is a sensual pleasure, and complete protein is a side benefit."

What??!??!?

I don't quit get what they are saying.

However, vegans can easily get all the essential and non-essential amino-acids.

"You don't need to eat foods from animals to have enough protein in your diet. Plant proteins alone can provide enough of the essential and non-essential amino acids, as long as sources of dietary protein are varied and caloric intake is high enough to meet energy needs.
Whole grains, legumes, vegetables, seeds and nuts all contain both essential and non-essential amino acids. You don't need to consciously combine these foods ("complementary proteins") within a given meal."


(source: http://www.heart.org...)

Correction -

The idea is that we need every protein, a complete set of proteins in order the function well on all levels. I do not believe it is plausible to consume that complex on a continuous level without consuming meat, without forming serious health problems. Even at an elementary level, one can note the unlikely-hood of plant matter consisting of the proper protein complex needed to produce, build, and maintain animal flesh - it just doesn't equate.

I happen to be of a different opinion. I believe that a diet of strictly plant-based foods provides an adequate source of protein. I base this on several things. The American Dietetic Association states that "Research indicates that an assortment of plant foods eaten over the course of a day can provide all essential amino acids and ensure ad-
equate nitrogen retention and use in healthy adults; thus, complementary proteins do not need to be consumed at the same meal" and "Well-planned vegan, lacto-vegetarian, and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy and lactation." (http://www.eatright.org...)

The American Heart Association, as I've already said, states that, "You don't need to eat foods from animals to have enough protein in your diet. Plant proteins alone can provide enough of the essential and non-essential amino acids, as long as sources of dietary protein are varied and caloric intake is high enough to meet energy needs.
Whole grains, legumes, vegetables, seeds and nuts all contain both essential and non-essential amino acids. You don't need to consciously combine these foods ("complementary proteins") within a given meal."

Clearly, the scientific consensus is that plant-based diets provide adequate sources of protein.

There is also the science itself. The Oxford Vegetarian Study of 6,000 vegetarians and 5,000 carnists (www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/525S.full.pdf) show that vegans receive protein intakes that are right on target in meeting dietary recommendations. This is confirmed by about a dozen other studies done on smaller groups in various Western countries.

I also have studied the amino acid profiles of plant-based foods (like tofu) and have concluded that they are superior sources of protein to many meat such as your beloved mackerel.

There is also the (somewhat relevant) fact that there is zero science that indicates that vegans, whose caloric intake is high enough to meet energy needs, get sick due to a lack of protein in their diet.

What scientific evidence do you have that vegans, as you claim, eventually develop serious health problems due to a lack a protein (or anything else for that matter)? If you can't provide scientific evidence for this opinion then it isn't a justifiable belief. There has been to much research done on vegans and vegetarians to say that it is an open-ended or debatable claim.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
vbaculum
Posts: 992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:47:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2012 10:43:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Consuming meat is natural for humans. It tastes good too, don't let it go.

There's that appeal to nature again.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 7:03:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2012 10:43:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Consuming meat is natural for humans. It tastes good too, don't let it go.

Why restrict certain types of meat then? Consuming those meats are also natural.
drafterman
Posts: 15,183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 7:08:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 7:03:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/24/2012 10:43:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Consuming meat is natural for humans. It tastes good too, don't let it go.

Why restrict certain types of meat then? Consuming those meats are also natural.

Arbitrary social pressures.
YYW as write-in candidate for 2013 DDO President!
Pass it on!

DDO Houses: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 7:48:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't see any reason for ranking life based on rationality or capacity for sentience. Would it be justified to cannibalize non-sentient humans (like infants or the mentally incompetent) or humans who cannot feel pain (such individuals do exist)? No. None of those people are considered worth less for having those properties. There is thus no reason not to extend such considerations to animals, plants, and other living creatures.
drafterman
Posts: 15,183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 7:53:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 7:48:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't see any reason for ranking life based on rationality or capacity for sentience. Would it be justified to cannibalize non-sentient humans (like infants or the mentally incompetent) or humans who cannot feel pain (such individuals do exist)? No. None of those people are considered worth less for having those properties. There is thus no reason not to extend such considerations to animals, plants, and other living creatures.

This is why I rank life based on whether or not it is human.
YYW as write-in candidate for 2013 DDO President!
Pass it on!

DDO Houses: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 8:10:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 7:53:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:48:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't see any reason for ranking life based on rationality or capacity for sentience. Would it be justified to cannibalize non-sentient humans (like infants or the mentally incompetent) or humans who cannot feel pain (such individuals do exist)? No. None of those people are considered worth less for having those properties. There is thus no reason not to extend such considerations to animals, plants, and other living creatures.

This is why I rank life based on whether or not it is human

That's just as arbitrary . . .
drafterman
Posts: 15,183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 8:16:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 8:10:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:53:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:48:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't see any reason for ranking life based on rationality or capacity for sentience. Would it be justified to cannibalize non-sentient humans (like infants or the mentally incompetent) or humans who cannot feel pain (such individuals do exist)? No. None of those people are considered worth less for having those properties. There is thus no reason not to extend such considerations to animals, plants, and other living creatures.

This is why I rank life based on whether or not it is human

That's just as arbitrary . . .

Not at all. I have an inherent vested interest in the continued existence of my species. This is not arbitrary.
YYW as write-in candidate for 2013 DDO President!
Pass it on!

DDO Houses: http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 8:19:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 8:16:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:10:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:53:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:48:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't see any reason for ranking life based on rationality or capacity for sentience. Would it be justified to cannibalize non-sentient humans (like infants or the mentally incompetent) or humans who cannot feel pain (such individuals do exist)? No. None of those people are considered worth less for having those properties. There is thus no reason not to extend such considerations to animals, plants, and other living creatures.

This is why I rank life based on whether or not it is human

That's just as arbitrary . . .

Not at all. I have an inherent vested interest in the continued existence of my species. This is not arbitrary.

Why do you have a vested interest in the continued existence of your species? Don't other species have to survive in order for your species to survive as well? Finally, why does that explain why humans are objectively worth more than other forms of life? Wouldn't that mean that other species (like alien species, for examples), could justifiably hold their species to be valuable and humans to be worthless?
drafterman
Posts: 15,183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 8:23:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 8:19:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:16:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:10:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:53:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:48:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't see any reason for ranking life based on rationality or capacity for sentience. Would it be justified to cannibalize non-sentient humans (like infants or the mentally incompetent) or humans who cannot feel pain (such individuals do exist)? No. None of those people are considered worth less for having those properties. There is thus no reason not to extend such considerations to animals, plants, and other living creatures.

This is why I rank life based on whether or not it is human

That's just as arbitrary . . .

Not at all. I have an inherent vested interest in the continued existence of my species. This is not arbitrary.

Why do you have a vested interest in the continued existence of your species?

Because evolution.

Don't other species have to survive in order for your species to survive as well?

Yes, as a food source.

Finally, why does that explain why humans are objectively worth more than other forms of life?

I don't believe we're objectively worth more. It's entirely subjective. We are worth more to ourselves.

Wouldn't that mean that other species (like alien species, for examples), could justifiably hold their species to be valuable and humans to be worthless?

Ayup.
YYW as write-in candidate for 2013 DDO President!
Pass it on!

DDO Houses: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 15,183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 8:23:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 8:23:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:19:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:16:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:10:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:53:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:48:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't see any reason for ranking life based on rationality or capacity for sentience. Would it be justified to cannibalize non-sentient humans (like infants or the mentally incompetent) or humans who cannot feel pain (such individuals do exist)? No. None of those people are considered worth less for having those properties. There is thus no reason not to extend such considerations to animals, plants, and other living creatures.

This is why I rank life based on whether or not it is human

That's just as arbitrary . . .

Not at all. I have an inherent vested interest in the continued existence of my species. This is not arbitrary.

Why do you have a vested interest in the continued existence of your species?

Because evolution.

Don't other species have to survive in order for your species to survive as well?

Yes, as a food source.

Finally, why does that explain why humans are objectively worth more than other forms of life?

I don't believe we're objectively worth more. It's entirely subjective. We are worth more to ourselves.

Wouldn't that mean that other species (like alien species, for examples), could justifiably hold their species to be valuable and humans to be worthless?

Ayup.

"To Serve Man"
YYW as write-in candidate for 2013 DDO President!
Pass it on!

DDO Houses: http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 11,969
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 8:36:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 7:03:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/24/2012 10:43:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Consuming meat is natural for humans. It tastes good too, don't let it go.

Why restrict certain types of meat then? Consuming those meats are also natural.
http://www.khaleejesque.com... http://web.bryant.edu...
OberHerr
Posts: 12,175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 8:37:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 7:03:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/24/2012 10:43:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Consuming meat is natural for humans. It tastes good too, don't let it go.

Why restrict certain types of meat then? Consuming those meats are also natural.

The sad truth for Muslims: They will never know the incredibleness that is Bacon. :(
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

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

Signature Quote

<pending>

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 9:47:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 8:23:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:19:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:16:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:10:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:53:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:48:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't see any reason for ranking life based on rationality or capacity for sentience. Would it be justified to cannibalize non-sentient humans (like infants or the mentally incompetent) or humans who cannot feel pain (such individuals do exist)? No. None of those people are considered worth less for having those properties. There is thus no reason not to extend such considerations to animals, plants, and other living creatures.

This is why I rank life based on whether or not it is human

That's just as arbitrary . . .

Not at all. I have an inherent vested interest in the continued existence of my species. This is not arbitrary.

Why do you have a vested interest in the continued existence of your species?

Because evolution.

Evolution doesn't explain why you have a vested interest in the existence of your species. It explains why your species exists.
Don't other species have to survive in order for your species to survive as well?

Yes, as a food source.

So other life forms don't have an intrinsic purpose other than to serve as the food source for humans?
Finally, why does that explain why humans are objectively worth more than other forms of life?

I don't believe we're objectively worth more. It's entirely subjective. We are worth more to ourselves.

Fair enough.
Wouldn't that mean that other species (like alien species, for examples), could justifiably hold their species to be valuable and humans to be worthless?

Ayup.
Ok then. At least you are consistent.
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 9:48:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 8:36:36 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:03:37 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/24/2012 10:43:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Consuming meat is natural for humans. It tastes good too, don't let it go.

Why restrict certain types of meat then? Consuming those meats are also natural.
http://www.khaleejesque.com... http://web.bryant.edu...

It's not really a red herring. Your argument is that consuming meat is natural and we shouldn't restrict it. I am asking you why you don't eat pork. That is entirely relevant to this discussion of whether or not we should have restrictions on the meat we eat.
drafterman
Posts: 15,183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 9:52:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 9:47:33 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:23:20 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:19:29 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:16:13 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 8:10:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:53:30 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/26/2012 7:48:08 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I don't see any reason for ranking life based on rationality or capacity for sentience. Would it be justified to cannibalize non-sentient humans (like infants or the mentally incompetent) or humans who cannot feel pain (such individuals do exist)? No. None of those people are considered worth less for having those properties. There is thus no reason not to extend such considerations to animals, plants, and other living creatures.

This is why I rank life based on whether or not it is human

That's just as arbitrary . . .

Not at all. I have an inherent vested interest in the continued existence of my species. This is not arbitrary.

Why do you have a vested interest in the continued existence of your species?

Because evolution.

Evolution doesn't explain why you have a vested interest in the existence of your species. It explains why your species exists.

My species exists because it has a vested interest in its continuation. That is one of our survival traits.

Don't other species have to survive in order for your species to survive as well?

Yes, as a food source.

So other life forms don't have an intrinsic purpose other than to serve as the food source for humans?

No life form has any intrinsic purpose what-so-ever.

Finally, why does that explain why humans are objectively worth more than other forms of life?

I don't believe we're objectively worth more. It's entirely subjective. We are worth more to ourselves.

Fair enough.
Wouldn't that mean that other species (like alien species, for examples), could justifiably hold their species to be valuable and humans to be worthless?

Ayup.
Ok then. At least you are consistent.
YYW as write-in candidate for 2013 DDO President!
Pass it on!

DDO Houses: http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 11,969
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 10:54:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 9:48:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It's not really a red herring. Your argument is that consuming meat is natural and we shouldn't restrict it. I am asking you why you don't eat pork. That is entirely relevant to this discussion of whether or not we should have restrictions on the meat we eat.
It's definitely a red herring. I never mentioned any restrictions. Snake meat is consumed in the Orient, did I say it should be restricted? For all I care, people can eat whatever they want, despite the fact that they shouldn't. (Key word.) I don't eat pork, but my Christian neighbor is always welcome to.
royalpaladin
Posts: 21,680
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 11:09:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 10:54:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/26/2012 9:48:38 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
It's not really a red herring. Your argument is that consuming meat is natural and we shouldn't restrict it. I am asking you why you don't eat pork. That is entirely relevant to this discussion of whether or not we should have restrictions on the meat we eat.
It's definitely a red herring. I never mentioned any restrictions. Snake meat is consumed in the Orient, did I say it should be restricted? For all I care, people can eat whatever they want, despite the fact that they shouldn't. (Key word.) I don't eat pork, but my Christian neighbor is always welcome to.

LOL, your argument is that we should not restrict meat-eating because eating meat is natural. I am asking why you believe in a restriction of pork in response to your statement. It's not a red herring just because I am pointing out a contradiction in your beliefs.
Mirza
Posts: 11,969
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 9:30:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 11:09:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
LOL, your argument is that we should not restrict meat-eating because eating meat is natural.
Didn't say that. Maybe I wrote in Chinese. I just repeated in English. Understand now?

I am asking why you believe in a restriction of pork in response to your statement.
I don't. Eat it freely.

It's not a red herring just because I am pointing out a contradiction in your beliefs.
There's no contradiction. Should and can are different terms. I don't think people should eat all kinds of animals for moral reasons (e.g., due to health protection), but I think people can do so.

I'm certain I wrote all this in English this time.
Cermank
Posts: 879
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2012 12:13:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2012 9:30:02 PM, Mirza wrote:
I don't think people should eat all kinds of animals for moral reasons (e.g., due to health protection), but I think people can do so.


This pretty much sums my stand. And I'm a vegetarian.

People shouldn't eat animals because deriving pleasure out of pain and sufferings of a sentient creature is immoral.
http://aayushi-notsosimple.blogspot.in...

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

"Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

- Mahatma Gandhi
Avamys
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 9:17:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Well animals contain a lot of protein and fat that we need. Also, farming cannot provide enough food if there is a drought or locusts, so we have to consume animals. Eating animals is for survival, so it is not immoral.
www.GlobalTestMarket.com