The Morality of Eating Meat

Off Topic
101

[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
how do you think vegetables feel? the are planted and forced to grow with no hopes of escape and then chopped down by those merciless farmers and eaten by zombie-like vegetarians. im sorry but that is disguisting i dont know how you guys can sleep at night.

Vegetables and plants lack a central nervous system and thus consciousness. The neurological activity of animals and humans in pain can be clearly seen via certain imaging machines.[/quote]

are you fucking Dr Dolitte? you can communicate with animals? you know how they feel about shit? no you dont. you love animals so much well blame them for sucking so bad that were at the top of the food chain and can eat any of them.

you guys all wanna talk about feelings and caging things up. why dont you get all up in arms about jail? forcing people to subpar living conditions, isolation, etc. im mean thats what youre all mad about right? and it actually has the capacity to affect a person as we actually have a pysche. nah see you just want to whine about shit. guess what, no matter how many people you cry to no one is going to care because people are fucking hungry and im not going to slow down the human race because you have a problem with caged pigs…at least they arent getting raped and knifed in the laundry room.

102

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Did you read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond? If you did you would know that barbarity had nothing to do with it.

I did read it. That day was not a picnic and the Spanish soldiers did not convince the Inca’s to kill themselves. They won by using whatever methods they had at their disposal. I’m not using the term babarity as a judgement, just as a way to discribe their approach vs. the approach of the native people. It was barbaric by comparison as most of the take-overs are.[/quote]

Then your reading comprehension sucks. The whole point of the book was to dispel the notion of racial superiority, or that one population succeeded because it was more ruthless than another. Populations come into conflict because they grow as large as their resource base and means of food production allow, then when rains don’t come, or herds are decimated by disease, they go to war to control the resources that are left. If the Incas had the European’s technology they would have expanded into Europe, or Africa, or Asia, rather than tearing themselves apart in civil war, as they did just before the Spanish arrived.

Approach had nothing to do with the battle in question, other than perhaps the Incas were over-confident in their numbers and let their guard down. The Spanish destroyed the Incas and not the other way around because the Spanish had superior military tactics, which were learned through 2000 years of written military history, and vastly superior weaponry, the Guns and Steel of the title. They had superior weaponry because their culture had the advantage of superior methods of food production. Superior food production meant their society had surplus labor which could go into the development of better weapons and technology.

103

Back on topic…a few years back my family raised two pigs. They were named Babe and Pork Chops. Now THAT was some good meat. We kept them in a pen that was about 12x12 feet, with a little wood house for them to sleep in. I guess that makes me a horrible person.

104

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Then your reading comprehension sucks. [/quote]

You need to have some class and learn how to engage people in a dignified way instead of what you do. Your behaviour is shameful.

Good day rude person.

105

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Then your reading comprehension sucks.

You need to have some class and learn how to engage people in a dignified way instead of what you do. Your behaviour is shameful.
[/quote]

Not as shameful as trying to back up a weak argument with a misrepresentation of a good book.

So good day to you, intellectually dishonest person.

106

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Not as shameful as trying to back up a weak argument with a misrepresentation of a good book.

So good day to you, intellectually dishonest person.[/quote]

I appreciate that you admit your behavior was shameful.

You are implying that I am intellectually dishonest and misrepresented a good book because I brought up the “battle” between the Incas and the Spanish in which 168 men killed 7000 and effectively beat an army of 80000.

I suggested that where there is the will and the means the Europeans would do whatever it took to win. I even implied that it could be very brutal - it would have to be for 7000 people to die in battle. To me it is irrelevant who the people were or where they were from, but the poster I was engaging made reference to Europeans so I engagement them about that.

It is not intellectually dishonest to bring in real world evidence to refute someone’s theory. I’d go as far to say that doing so is the definition of intellectual honesty.

107

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
You are implying that I am intellectually dishonest and misrepresented a good book because I brought up the “battle” between the Incas and the Spanish in which 168 men killed 7000 and effectively beat an army of 80000.

I suggested that where there is the will and the means the Europeans would do whatever it took to win. I even implied that it could be very brutal - it would have to be for 7000 people to die in battle. To me it is irrelevant who the people were or where they were from, but the poster I was engaging made reference to Europeans so I engagement them about that.

…the Americas would have had vast aboriginal populations and early Europeans would have been easily driven back into the Atlantic.

It is not intellectually dishonest to bring in real world evidence to refute someone’s theory. I’d go as far to say that doing so is the definition of intellectual honesty.[/quote]

No, you’re still representing the book. If you had read past the first 81 pages of the book you would have understood that the entire premise of the book is that European dominance over North and South America was almost inevitable after contact, because 1-Europe had larger populations supported by superior methods of food production (which both facilitates military conquest, and necessitates expansion) and 2- they had superior technology, which was made possible by the surplus man hours that are freed up by superior methods of food production.

So you are quoting out of context a book that agrees entirely with Push’s argument that Native American populations faced frequent periods of starvation, to try to refute his argument.

That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. In fact, if you read Push’s post very closely you will see that he has probably read another good book called “War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage” by Robert Edgerton which, if you read the book and try to understand what it says, rather than contort it to fit into your own preconceptions, shows that all peoples are equally capable of the most extreme brutality, and that all peoples are willing to do whatever it takes to win when their survival is threatened.

So when I was “rude” by saying your reading comprehension sucked I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you weren’t simply a liar.

But now it is obvious that you are a liar, because you either 1- didn’t read the whole book as you claimed, or 2- [u]read the whole book, and yet tried to turn its basic premiss on its head to win an argument.[/u] I put that in bold and underlined it because it is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to learn something today.

Now why don’t you throw up your hands and run off crying again because I’m such a big meanie?

109

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In the case cited above, the Incas were just plain stupid and superstitious. It’s more complicated than just “Spanish technology trumped vast numbers of South American aboriginals”. Are you sure you read the whole book?

Regardless, my original point remains unchallenged.

Modern agriculture feeds a world that’s many times larger than the days of yore and the days of yore were not paradisaical utopias where fat, happy people had all the game they could eat.[/quote]

I did read the entire book. I took out of it that ALL human beings have effectively the same potential regardless of where they were born. It is their experiences that make the difference.

Regarding that battle - my perception of it was that the Spanish had more experience with fighting (a much longer history of it). The Incas didn’t know what happened because they had zero experience with fighting like that.

I agree completely with your original point that modern agriculture feeds more people than organic farming methods couple.

110

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Modern agriculture feeds a world that’s many times larger than the days of yore [/quote]

True. But at what cost to the environment? Extinct species, dirty air, dirty water, overdrafting of groundwater , overgrazing, extensive slash-and-burn and resulting soil exhaustion and erosion have to be factored in.

We’re screwing up Nature at an alarming rate.

Whoever said it was?

Our ancestors did not have plentiful food, but they treated the animals they ate with more respect than what we are doing right now. Animals were of course seen as food, but we had a much closer relationship with them that meant we didn’t treat them as burgers on feet. Go to some place where food production isn’t industrialized and watch the people interact with their livestock.

We are slowly turning the planet into a feedlot, and growth-hormone abused cattle just happen to be victims among many others.

113

I didn’t read all the posts but wanted to throw this one out there.

Composition of the animal’s body can play into that too.

Cows, four stomachs, designed to eat grass and the occasional bug.

Dogs/pigs/snakes/lobsters/etc have a genetic makeup that allows them to digest whatever crap they put into their mouth, that’s why they can handle rotten or spoiled or decaying “food”. Our bodies may or may not be able to digest an animal designed to digest the crap of the world. I don’t know, I don’t have the proof or a strong opion either way.

Trace that back thousands of years and you’ve got a division of acceptable edible animals, this the basis for reasoning behind “God’s chosen people” not being affected by plagues, because they held themselves to a diet and hygeine regimen that set themselves aside from certain problems. (Muslims/ no pork, Jews/kosher food)

just a thought.

Animal Crackers being the obvious exception, where you can eat monkeys and hippos and giraffes and be okay there.

114

[quote]pushharder wrote:
And my original point was that if North American native populations would have been large due to having developed an agricultural infrastructure, even say one-TENTH of the population of NA today which would make that number around 35 million, a few hundreds or thousands of colonial Europeans would have been driven back into the sea, regardless of superior military technology.

However, like Gabby alluded to, a vibrant ag infrastructure would have most likely indirectly produced more advanced weaponry also.[/quote]

I see what you were getting at now. Fair point.

115

this question of morality is dumb.

116

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
No, you’re still representing the book. If you had read past the first 81 pages of the book you would have understood that the entire premise of the book is that European dominance over North and South America was almost inevitable after contact, because 1-Europe had larger populations supported by superior methods of food production (which both facilitates military conquest, and necessitates expansion) and 2- they had superior technology, which was made possible by the surplus man hours that are freed up by superior methods of food production. [/quote]

I get what you are saying. You’re suggesting that the civilization that the Incas developed would have eventually had guns IF there had not been periods of food scarcity OR if someone who had the technology had shared the technology with them.

I never suggested otherwise.

You know, I actually understand what you’re saying now. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.

Careful though, you are implying that I’m saying and doing a number of things that you have no evidence that I am doing.

Again with the rudeness and the name calling. I was with you to here. When you do this, it’s very hard to continue to read what you say believing that you have an honest desire to educate me.

What is funny is that by me pointing out your rude behavior the quality of discourse actually improved; at least for a couple of paragraphs. There’s hope for you.

I understand what you are saying, you express yourself very well, but I don’t understand why you come out with the rudeness as opposed to good quality stuff you’re capable of. Why do you do that? Why is lashing out your MO when dealing with opposing POV’s or POV’s that are not in line with yours?

117

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OK, I see what you mean. If we “respect” them, then and only then is it OK to eat them. [/quote]

No. That’s not what I wrote. It’s as OK for us to eat them as it is OK for them to eat us.

I made an observation about the way we currently treat livestock, which derives from the greedy societies we live in.

No, I don’t. All you have to do is observe the cultures where industrialization hasn’t completely taken over. Watch how they interact with animals and compare.

So, I’m supposed to generalize based on the account of one tribe and from a clearly heavily biased source?

I think not.

118

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
No, you’re still representing the book. If you had read past the first 81 pages of the book you would have understood that the entire premise of the book is that European dominance over North and South America was almost inevitable after contact, because 1-Europe had larger populations supported by superior methods of food production (which both facilitates military conquest, and necessitates expansion)

and 2- they had superior technology, which was made possible by the surplus man hours that are freed up by superior methods of food production.

I get what you are saying. You’re suggesting that the civilization that the Incas developed would have eventually had guns IF there had not been periods of food scarcity OR if someone who had the technology had shared the technology with them.

I never suggested otherwise.

So you are quoting out of context a book that agrees entirely with Push’s argument that Native American populations faced frequent periods of starvation, to try to refute his argument. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, if you read Push’s post very closely you will see that he has probably read another good book called “War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage” by Robert Edgerton which, if you read the book and try to understand what it says, rather than contort it to fit into your own preconceptions, shows that all peoples are equally capable of the most extreme brutality, and that all peoples are willing to do whatever it takes to win when their survival is threatened.

You know, I actually understand what you’re saying now. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.

Careful though, you are implying that I’m saying and doing a number of things that you have no evidence that I am doing.

So when I was “rude” by saying your reading comprehension sucked I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you weren’t simply a liar. But now it is obvious that you are a liar, because you either 1- didn’t read the whole book as you claimed, or 2- [u]read the whole book, and yet tried to turn its basic premiss on its head to win an argument.[/u]

I put that in bold and underlined it because it is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to learn something today.

Again with the rudeness and the name calling. I was with you to here. When you do this, it’s very hard to continue to read what you say believing that you have an honest desire to educate me.

Now why don’t you throw up your hands and run off crying again because I’m such a big meanie?

What is funny is that by me pointing out your rude behavior the quality of discourse actually improved; at least for a couple of paragraphs. There’s hope for you.

I understand what you are saying, you express yourself very well, but I don’t understand why you come out with the rudeness as opposed to good quality stuff you’re capable of. Why do you do that? Why is lashing out your MO when dealing with opposing POV’s or POV’s that are not in line with yours?[/quote]

Good God in heaven… Every single thing you said is incorrect.

119

[quote]905Patrick wrote:
more stuff
[/quote]

I need no evidence to prove what you are trying to do. I have your posts. Push made a valid point, and you brought up the description of a battle from “Guns, Germs and Steel,” to try to make the counter point that the Europeans dominated because they were more brutal than everybody else.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the book, which proves that you are either intellectually dishonest, or didn’t understand what you read.

As to your trying to claim the high ground because I’m being rude to you, I would point out 2 things.

1-Respect is something one has to earn. You haven’t earned it.

2- Courtesy is something I show to everyone, until they prove they don’t deserve it.

I showed you courtesy when I asked you if you had actually read “Guns, Germs and Steel” which was my way of giving you a chance to back away from your earlier misstatement about the book. But you persisted, proving you either don’t know what you are talking about, or are deliberately being dishonest. Therefore, I no longer owe you much in the way of courtesy.

120

This thread could have ended HERE.

[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
We use animals because we can.

Some for food, and some for companionship or protection. This varies by culture.
[/quote]

IF there no foreseeable consequences of your behavior that you might disagree with - feel free to behave as such.