The Secret Reason We Eat Some Animals (And Not Others) - General

You can breathe but maybe you shouldn't it could be a fallacy!!!! [editline]24th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Matrix374;52399044]We are meant to eat meat tho? It's a good source of energy and if we weren't meant to, our digestive system wouldnt be able to properly digest meats[/QUOTE] Or our teeth be omnivorous. Herbivores have molar like front teeth.

How the hell did you guys watch this video and only pay attention to the part after the slaughtering about the 3N's?

[QUOTE=Matrix374;52399044]We are meant to eat meat tho? It's a good source of energy and if we weren't meant to, our digestive system wouldnt be able to properly digest meats[/QUOTE] That's not what 'meant' means though. 'Meant' implies purpose and makes a statement prescriptive rather than purely descriptive. [QUOTE=thrawn2787;52399047]You can breathe but maybe you shouldn't it could be a fallacy!!!! [/QUOTE] What is the relevance of that? If you don't breathe you die.

You can live but maybe you shouldn't it could be a fallacy!!!!

I apologize before hand for sperging, but holy fuck is the woman ignorant. Just gonna go on her first comments regarding food's we eat, and food we supposedly do not eat. Swans - No. Loadsa people hunt them and do consume them and their other cousins(goose/geese). Yes, you can also make buffalo wings out of them: [t]http://honest-food.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ganseklein-bits-600px.jpg[/t] Give this ol' Buffalo native a few tries and I'll make you some buffalo wings out of swan legs that'll knock you off your ass. Rat Burgers - Nutria, guinea pig, giant rat, the list goes on and on. Loadsa people consume them and it's actually well liked in certain southern states here in the US for gumbo. Pig Milk - Impractical. We milk cows because of the amount of milk they produce, not because we have a specific taste for their milk. Pig milk has actually been used to make cheese to be sold for charities and such, and is considered one of the most expensive cheeses known to man. Even though many creatures produce milk, it's the issue of getting a substainable amount vs. amount of resources put in.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;52399066]You can live but maybe you shouldn't it could be a fallacy!!!![/QUOTE] Mate you're rambling, you should try and elaborate instead of doing whatever this is All I'm saying is you're claiming we're [I]meant[/I] to eat meat [B]solely[/B] on the basis we [I]can[/I] eat meat, which is not a valid argument.

[QUOTE=Maosaic;52399073]Mate you're rambling, you should try and elaborate instead of doing whatever this is[/QUOTE] The irony is so thick you can almost touch it.

[QUOTE=Damjen;52399078]The irony is so thick you can almost touch it.[/QUOTE] Explain.

[QUOTE=Matrix374;52399044]We are meant to eat meat tho? It's a good source of energy and if we weren't meant to, our digestive system wouldnt be able to properly digest meats[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/this-guy-has-eaten-nothing-but-raw-meat-for-five-years\[/url] this guy wouldn't exist if we were not capable of surviving off of it of course, he is a somewhat special case, because of his genetics, but its a thing humans [U]can[/U] do

[QUOTE=Maosaic;52399082]Explain.[/QUOTE] Thrawn was sarcastically trying to call out your obsession of calling everything a fallacy, but you failed to realize he was joking.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;52399089]Thrawn was sarcastically trying to call out your obsession of calling everything a fallacy, but you failed to realize he was joking.[/QUOTE] Mate. I've pointed out [I]one[/I] (totally relevant) fallacy. Is thrawn allergic to the word? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt and loves meat" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

I've never heard of is-ought before but it's a fallacy itself if you go even a little deep. Why do anything? Why breathe? Why live? You start debating the meaning of everything and a valid answer is there is none and the universe is invariant so you should just cease all function. Often the people that call out "fallacies" don't really know how to argue and just throw out buzz terms without thinking about it. And yes having the capability to eat meat means we should, if we choose to. Not all animals have this capability. Arguably that's more than enough reason to eat meat. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] Thank you crapt

So since Maosaic didn't present an argument against Thrawns teeth point I decided to do it but then I realized that the only think I could think of were fallacies and arguing against the word "meant", and then i ended up basically confirming exactly what he said by going "well, we WERE evolved to eat it, we were designed to eat meat through evolution", basically arguing his point for him.

[QUOTE=Maosaic;52399073]Mate you're rambling, you should try and elaborate instead of doing whatever this is All I'm saying is you're claiming we're [I]meant[/I] to eat meat [B]solely[/B] on the basis we [I]can[/I] eat meat, which is not a valid argument.[/QUOTE] We, as humans/primates, are omnivores. We can eat meat or plants all we like. Our biology deigns us to be able to do so. One can choose to defy it, with conscious effort, but there is nothing inherently wrong with us for being able to eat and process meat. (It's also obvious that Maosaic is/was an alt to spout and antagonize what they knew would be an unfavorable perspective)

[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;52399107]We, as humans/primates, are omnivores. We can eat meat or plants all we like. Our biology deigns us to be able to do so. One can choose to defy it, with conscious effort, but there is nothing inherently wrong with us for being able to eat and process meat. (It's also obvious that Maosaic is/was an alt to spout and antagonize what they knew would be an unfavorable perspective)[/QUOTE] I think the point he was trying to make is that while we CAN eat meat, that doesn't necessarily mean that we HAVE to. However, there are many places in the world where people need to eat meat like in the poor areas of the Philippines because meats such as fish are their only source of protein and nutrition. I believe this was mentioned in the video. For modern people living in the first world, we have ways to get the protein and nutrients we normally need to get from meat that didn't exist a thousand years ago, namely supplements and meat alternatives like nuts and tofu. These options are generally more expensive though, so only rich people living in first world countries can afford them. Only about 1% of the population are vegetarian/vegan and for most people who attempt a vegan/vegetarian diet there's a 97% failure rate. When you combine that with the fact that two thirds of the human population cannot possibly afford a vegan/vegetarian diet, the idea of converting everyone to vegetarianism or veganism doesn't seem like something that's going to happen any time soon. A person's idea of whether it's okay to eat animals or not seems to be determined by how intelligent one considers animals to be. On the one hand, people tend to anthropomorphize animal behavior and attribute a greater level of intelligence than actually exists. On the other hand, it's perhaps a bit easy dismiss aspects of animal intelligence when it's convenient to do so. To me, it seems there's more of a fuzzy line between human intelligence and the level of intelligence of all other animal species rather than a clear-cut distinction. Animals such as dolphins, whales and elephants seem to possess a level of intelligence that is much closer to humans, for example. Dogs, pigs, cows and horses might be on a level below dolphins, whales and elephants. Chickens and rodents could be on the tier below that. Fish would be on a second-lowest tier just above very simple creatures with pre-programmed robot-like behavior like ants and other insects. Based on these varying levels of intelligence, I imagine we could modify how we treat the animals in question. Perhaps we shouldn't eat the highest tier of animals such as whales, dolphins and elephants. The second tier we could eat but attempt to reduce the amount of stress and pain we cause to the animal as much as possible. The third tier we could eat and keep the amount of stress and pain to a minimum amount. On the lowest tiers, we could just try to reduce pain where its inexpensive to do so, but the treatment of such creatures would be much less restricted. Also, holy moly over 40 responses in only a few hours.

personally i think we should be eating bugs more for our protein rather than beef, pork, chicken, ect. for efficiency reasons but fuck it if nice juicy steaks, pork ribs, and fried chicken aren't delicious.

Righto Dr Joy. You can have your tofu and I'll stick with steaks.

[QUOTE=Matrix374;52399044]We are meant to eat meat tho? It's a good source of energy and if we weren't meant to, our digestive system wouldnt be able to properly digest meats[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/"]Atherosclerosis[/URL] :v: [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Dr.C;52399052]How the hell did you guys watch this video and only pay attention to the part after the slaughtering about the 3N's?[/QUOTE] Because they're being what most carnists are when confronted about the ethics and sustainability of their dietary choices, intellectually dishonest.

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;52399278][URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/"]Atherosclerosis[/URL] :v: [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] Because they're being what most carnists are when confronted about the ethics and sustainability of their dietary choices, intellectually dishonest.[/QUOTE] Just so that you should know the relation between dietary cholesterol and atherosclerosis is actually still a controversial topic. The only real consensus we have right now are that trans fats taken in sufficient quantities are a measure for atherosclerosis developing in the future, along with existing risk factors in various populations. Another researcher has mentioned something to the effect that oxysterols (created when frying foods mainly, or acquired from processed foods and smoking) are actually the causative agent for atherosclerosis by encouraging calcium deposition and subsequent clot formation in vessels. So reducing or eliminating sources of these will substantially reduce the risk of clot formation, as will actually, you know, leading a healthy lifestyle with exercise and watching how much you eat every day. Sources: [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757713/[/url] [url]http://www.lipidcenter.com/pdf/Oxysterols.pdf[/url]

Hey I know the secret We eat them because our bodies run on this thing called protein and meat has a lot of it Just eat in moderation and healthy and your body will run juuuuuust fine Boom, video over, take your high doctorate in bullshit made up science and shove it, I'm not gonna start eating your alternative poisons just to satisfy your delusional hippie fantasies

"Have you ever thought about that?" "Yes, of course" "Any have you ever thought about why you never thought about that?" "wat" "I wondered why I would rather eat pork than golden retriever" "Because we love dogs as pets and part of our family" "I just couldn't figure it out" "I'm leaving"

I'm an ultra-lurker but I had to say something about this. Sure, we ate animals in the past (although it's debatable if we truly evolved for it) and the majority around you eat meat but is that really a justification? Most animals are sentient and don't deserve to be slaughtered, just like humans. There is no difference between humans and animals that makes it okay to slaughter animals. If there is I would like to hear it. So I ask, how do you justify killing these creatures? It has been proven time and again that we can all be perfectly healthy on plant-based diets. It's a little late so it's hard to piece my thoughts together but I hope you can understand the moral and logical hypocrisy in your guys' stance. That being that it's perfectly okay to slaughter a cow but not your neighbor.

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399415] Most animals are sentient and don't deserve to be slaughtered, just like humans. There is no difference between humans and animals that makes it okay to slaughter animals. If there is I would like to hear it. [/QUOTE] The lack of ability to ponder on their experience, as in, lack of conscious self-awareness and intentionality. Lack of consciousness entirely. There. That's why it's okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not your neighbour.

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399415]I'm an ultra-lurker but I had to say something about this. Sure, we ate animals in the past (although it's debatable if we truly evolved for it) and the majority around you eat meat but is that really a justification? Most animals are sentient and don't deserve to be slaughtered, just like humans. There is no difference between humans and animals that makes it okay to slaughter animals. If there is I would like to hear it. So I ask, how do you justify killing these creatures? It has been proven time and again that we can all be perfectly healthy on plant-based diets. It's a little late so it's hard to piece my thoughts together but I hope you can understand the moral and logical hypocrisy in your guys' stance. That being that it's perfectly okay to slaughter a cow but not your neighbor.[/QUOTE] Comparing killing an animal to killing a human is not morally equivalent - I put to you humans are far more intelligent and aware than any animal. If you put philosophical discussions of consciousness aside - examination of human history will tell you the killing of animals has never been comparable to the killing of fellow humans. On a practical level a plant based diet doesn't work for everyone. Arable land suitable for grazing is not usually suitable for planting equivalent human-consumable crops. Plants require more space, time and effort than the equal animal yield. Farming involves environmental destruction (treating the land with chemicals and pesticides - killing local pests and deforestation). The switch from animal farming to plant-only is not feasible and would have detrimental economical impacts. A superior choice to a plant based diet would be an insect based diet, if you truly cared about the environmental impact. Easy to "grow", magnitudes more compact in space, quick to replenish and far more nutritious than plants - recommended by the UN as the best way to solve potential future food shortages.

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399415]I'm an ultra-lurker but I had to say something about this. Sure, we ate animals in the past (although it's debatable if we truly evolved for it) and the majority around you eat meat but is that really a justification? Most animals are sentient and don't deserve to be slaughtered, just like humans. There is no difference between humans and animals that makes it okay to slaughter animals. If there is I would like to hear it. So I ask, how do you justify killing these creatures? It has been proven time and again that we can all be perfectly healthy on plant-based diets. It's a little late so it's hard to piece my thoughts together but I hope you can understand the moral and logical hypocrisy in your guys' stance. That being that it's perfectly okay to slaughter a cow but not your neighbor.[/QUOTE] What makes animals not deserve to be slaughtered? I actually want to know what about animal sentience actually makes it a matter of deserve. While I don't think it's a justification for the killing of animals for food, it's pretty clear when you probe deeper that our ideas about when it is right or wrong to kill someone become rather plastic. It's wrong to kill animals to eat, yes? What about when they threaten our agricultural products; we routinely kill populations of agricultural pests and destroy habitats in order to safeguard our plant-based crops, is that okay; we're not killing them [I]for[/I] food, but we're killing them for our food? What about the fact that our habits of consumption demand continual destruction of habitats, is that okay? We kill animals as a matter of convenience for us - animals are routinely killed in the harvest of crops because it's too much effort to relocate them temporarily. My point is that this line of argument comes from a place where you're certain that your ethical position is correct, when the foundation of your point isn't quite so concrete. You're arguing as if consumption of meat the only way in which animals are killed and eradicated, and that by not participating in their consumption, you hold the moral imperative compared to those that do, when that's simply not the case.

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399415]I'm an ultra-lurker but I had to say something about this. Sure, we ate animals in the past (although it's debatable if we truly evolved for it) and the majority around you eat meat but is that really a justification? Most animals are sentient and don't deserve to be slaughtered, just like humans. There is no difference between humans and animals that makes it okay to slaughter animals. If there is I would like to hear it. So I ask, how do you justify killing these creatures? It has been proven time and again that we can all be perfectly healthy on plant-based diets. It's a little late so it's hard to piece my thoughts together but I hope you can understand the moral and logical hypocrisy in your guys' stance. That being that it's perfectly okay to slaughter a cow but not your neighbor.[/QUOTE] would you kill a wolf to save a child?

I don't think there was anything wrong with Maosaic's argument... I think he was just saying that evolution and morals don't correlate. Is that not true? We might have evolved to kill and eat animals, but that doesn't [I]necessarily[/I] mean it is [I]right[/I] to do so. If we agreed that eating animals is immoral, then it wouldn't matter that we have evolved to do so.

[QUOTE=gudman;52399426]The lack of ability to ponder on their experience, as in, lack of conscious self-awareness and intentionality. Lack of consciousness entirely. There. That's why it's okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not your neighbour.[/QUOTE] So is it okay to murder a retarded person who can't ponder their experiences? [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Inspector N;52399434]Comparing killing an animal to killing a human is not morally equivalent - I put to you humans are far more intelligent and aware than any animal. If you put philosophical discussions of consciousness aside - examination of human history will tell you the killing of animals has never been comparable to the killing of fellow humans. On a practical level a plant based diet doesn't work for everyone. Arable land suitable for grazing is not usually suitable for planting equivalent human-consumable crops. Plants require more space, time and effort than the equal animal yield. Farming involves environmental destruction (treating the land with chemicals and pesticides - killing local pests and deforestation). The switch from animal farming to plant-only is not feasible and would have detrimental economical impacts. A superior choice to a plant based diet would be an insect based diet, if you truly cared about the environmental impact. Easy to "grow", magnitudes more compact in space, quick to replenish and far more nutritious than plants - recommended by the UN as the best way to solve potential future food shortages.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying their morally equivalent, but the logic is the same. Animals do have moral value but just because it's lesser than humans doesn't mean it's okay to murder them. Also I think you're underestimating the havoc that the animal agriculture industry has on the environment.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52399444]I don't think there was anything wrong with Maosaic's argument... I think he was just saying that evolution and morals don't correlate. Is that not true? We might have evolved to kill and eat animals, but that doesn't [I]necessarily[/I] mean it is [I]right[/I] to do so. If we agreed that eating animals is immoral, then it wouldn't matter that we have evolved to do so.[/QUOTE] I would amend the position to evolution and morals don't [I]always [/I]correlate. Consider morals [I]can [/I]be derived from how humans "are" i.e. how we have evolved.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52399444]I don't think there was anything wrong with Maosaic's argument... I think he was just saying that evolution and morals don't correlate. Is that not true? We might have evolved to kill and eat animals, but that doesn't [I]necessarily[/I] mean it is [I]right[/I] to do so. If we agreed that eating animals is immoral, then it wouldn't matter that we have evolved to do so.[/QUOTE] Except he was going about it in the most obnoxious, irritating way possible. Nobody's going to assess the substance of an argument if the arguer is going about it like a total asshat.