Newly Vegetarian

[liza123]

Enigma dear, do not even bother making up any stories. I know that you cannot answer my post honestly...with reference to your achievements in career, etc. BTW, I have had people who have sent me PMs and taken note of my intelligence even in this forum. So, my piece of advice is cut down down on the marijuana(it will reduce your illusions) and think about reducing that ego as well...

PS- I will be saying goodbye very soon. I have decided to leave this forum. It could be permanent. Most probably, I won't even bother replying or reading your answer to my latest posts.

[liza123]

humans cannot sustain themselves on raw meat. we can eat a certain amount of meat that is not cooked, but if we have a diet of raw meat there will be serious health implications  humans have only been able to include meat as a main source of nutrition since we were able to create and control fire and thus were able to cook the meat.  i know there is a source for this information but after a quick scan of a google search the only info i was finding was related to parasites and bacteria however there is something to do with how we digest and process food in the gut which means that we cannot obtain a nutritional sustenance from raw meat. if necessary i willl do an academic search for some articles. (if any body is interested)

i am not going to make any conclusions about what that might mean for the biology/evolution debate but i thought it was worth mentioning.

Honestly, I read about this in school. Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, etc. ...different ages, etc. They started eating meat after discovering ways to create fire...

[liza123]

"Physical Changes
As hominins developed into humans (Homo sapiens), they underwent various physical changes. Most obviously, our ancestors learned to walk upright on two legs, rather than alternating between two legs and four legs. This straightened the spine, and moved the foramen magnum from the back of the skull to the underside. Hominin faces flattened, and the space between the eyes narrowed, so that they could look forward and see from side to side.

Our ancestors also developed a taste for a broad variety of foods. Early hominins, like Australopithicus robustus, were clearly vegetarian plant-eaters, based on their teeth and jaw structure. But later hominins, including Australopithicus afarensis and Homo erectus, clearly used their incisors to tear meat and their molars to chew it."....
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ancient_History/Human_Evolution/Paleolithic_Age....this link also gives information about fire, research on human evolution(subjective as I posted a few days), etc. Read it to understand about human evolution...

[Karaten]

"Physical Changes
As hominins developed into humans (Homo sapiens), they underwent various physical changes. Most obviously, our ancestors learned to walk upright on two legs, rather than alternating between two legs and four legs. This straightened the spine, and moved the foramen magnum from the back of the skull to the underside. Hominin faces flattened, and the space between the eyes narrowed, so that they could look forward and see from side to side.

Our ancestors also developed a taste for a broad variety of foods. Early hominins, like Australopithicus robustus, were clearly vegetarian plant-eaters, based on their teeth and jaw structure. But later hominins, including Australopithicus afarensis and Homo erectus, clearly used their incisors to tear meat and their molars to chew it."....
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ancient_History/Human_Evolution/Paleolithic_Age

This leads me to believe that a major climate changed caused the need to eat meat. Still, if you go back further, you'll find a point where we had lived in water, therefore, the major differences between us and the early evolutions do not need to be observed for modern humans.

This is an interesting insight, it appears that, through cooking, we eliminated natural selection on that level, thus forming a need for all of us to cook food.


Hmm, either way, that doesn't change the present.

[liza123]

Notice, both carnivores and herbivores have a rather uniform tooth makeup, in which every tooth is ideally the same. This is because the animals teeth serve in a specific use, for carnivores, ripping flesh, and for herbivores, grinding food.

Omnivores like us, however, have a high variation in our mouths, to serve functions of both grinding and ripping. This then makes it highly evident that we are, in fact, meant to eat meat along with plants.


This is the besides the fact that we have the ability to do so, while herbivores don't. We have the inclination to do so, while herbivores don't. We did it naturally, while herbivores don't.  


Quote
What are those evolutionary facts as you call them? Perhaps, you can list them.

The makeup of our teeth is highly evident to show that we in fact consume meat.
Humans oral makeup gives representation of our omnivorous habits.
-Quotes from Karatan and me...listed above

Dear Karaten, are you poor in English? I mentioned evolution not our current teeth structure(assuming that you are human as well)

[liza123]

Notice, both carnivores and herbivores have a rather uniform tooth makeup, in which every tooth is ideally the same. This is because the animals teeth serve in a specific use, for carnivores, ripping flesh, and for herbivores, grinding food.

Omnivores like us, however, have a high variation in our mouths, to serve functions of both grinding and ripping. This then makes it highly evident that we are, in fact, meant to eat meat along with plants.


This is the besides the fact that we have the ability to do so, while herbivores don't. We have the inclination to do so, while herbivores don't. We did it naturally, while herbivores don't. 


Quote
Oh, god, give me patience. Dear Karaten, when did herbivors and carnivors have ideally same teeth structure? (your post listed above)

[Karaten]

Notice, both carnivores and herbivores have a rather uniform tooth makeup, in which every tooth is ideally the same. This is because the animals teeth serve in a specific use, for carnivores, ripping flesh, and for herbivores, grinding food.

Omnivores like us, however, have a high variation in our mouths, to serve functions of both grinding and ripping. This then makes it highly evident that we are, in fact, meant to eat meat along with plants.


This is the besides the fact that we have the ability to do so, while herbivores don't. We have the inclination to do so, while herbivores don't. We did it naturally, while herbivores don't.  


Quote
What are those evolutionary facts as you call them? Perhaps, you can list them.

The makeup of our teeth is highly evident to show that we in fact consume meat.
Humans oral makeup gives representation of our omnivorous habits.
_________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

Dear Karaten, are you poor in English?

No, in fact, I managed to skip several English classes within my time in College, not to include my only needing 1 1/2 half years of high school, which certainly would not be possible if I was, as you say, "poor in English".

I mentioned evolution not our current teeth structure

Our current oral structure is a representation of our evolution. We didn't develop canine teeth within this first generation, if that's what you're getting at. It happened over time.

(assuming that you are human as well)

I sometimes wonder.

[liza123]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/32591.xml&style
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/faq/Encarta/primates.htm
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ancient_History/Human_Evolution/Paleolithic_Age

All the above links....please read them and understand them. It gives enough information, research done, etc. about vegetarianism, human evolution and even quotes from great scientists like Einstein. For those who do not like the religion part, you can ignore it if you want(it is in one of the links).

[Karaten]

Oh, god, give me patience. Dear Karaten, when did herbivors and carnivors have ideally same teeth structure? (your post listed above)

What do you mean? I think the pictures I posted are quite evident.

[liza123]

Karaten, I was being sarcastic when I asked you if you were poor in English(I gather that you know that).

Anyway, I am signing off now...will be saying goodbye soon. Have a nice time in this forum.

[liza123]

Oh, god, give me patience. Dear Karaten, when did herbivors and carnivors have ideally same teeth structure? (your post listed above)

What do you mean? I think the pictures I posted are quite evident.

Not the pictures. LOL. Your written post. 

[Karaten]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/32591.xml&style
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism
http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/faq/Encarta/primates.htm
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ancient_History/Human_Evolution/Paleolithic_Age

All the above links....please read them and understand them. It gives enough information, research done, etc. about vegetarianism, human evolution and even quotes from great scientists like Einstein. For those who do not like the religion part, you can ignore it if you want(it is in one of the links).

Flexitarian would be perfect.

Still, I don't instantly agree with an idea just because someone who was popular said it, no matter their previous credentials.

[Karaten]

Karaten, I was being sarcastic when I asked you if you were poor in English(I gather that you know that).

Anyway, I am signing off now...will be saying goodbye soon. Have a nice time in this forum.

Oh, I don't catch sarcasm well.

Not the pictures. LOL. Your written post.  

Perhaps you misunderstood me.

My point was that our mouths have a rather grandiose diversity which seems to be absent commonly in herbivore animals and carnivores.

[Enigma]

Enigma dear, do not even bother making up any stories. I know that you cannot answer my post honestly...with reference to your achievements in career, etc. BTW, I have had people who have sent me PMs and taken note of my intelligence even in this forum. So, my piece of advice is cut down down on the marijuana(it will reduce your illusions) and think about reducing that ego as well...

PS- I will be saying goodbye very soon. I have decided to leave this forum. It could be permanent. Most probably, I won't even bother replying or reading your answer to my latest posts.

Bahahaha...see, it only does take a minute to "stoop to my level".  You seem quite desperate to convey the fact that you are "intelligent" which leads me to believe you are quite insecure and your posts have led me to believe you are slightly above the level of functional retardation.  I really hope you don't leave as I enjoy debating with idiots, but if you do, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. 

[Ajna]

The fact remains that the meat industry has a majority of the population, a vast majority, of the animals we turn into meat in captivity and is using it for the luxury of the human race. We use animals as resources, and anyone who puts coherent logical thought into the subject deep enough is in a state of denial if they try to say they truly believe that there is nothing wrong with the way that system is ran. we are talking about legitimate lives. their life is negated so that yours can continue. And you are not even doing the killing. Put this on a scale of... most of the people on the entire planet eating from this industry... you have a nation asleep. Most people dont even think about what they are putting in their mouths, and how it got on their plate. When a living creature becomes in the same moral standing as eating a candy bar... certain respects are not being payed. Eating meat in itself is not wrong... but we have totally lost contact with sacrifice that's going on.

[voodoo scientist]

Animals are resources. They're not "sacrificing" their lives so we can eat them, because they don't get a choice in the matter - we're breeding them so we can kill them and eat them, like we always have been. There's nothing to lose touch with because it was never there.

[Karaten]

The fact remains that the meat industry has a majority of the population, a vast majority, of the animals we turn into meat in captivity and is using it for the luxury of the human race. We use animals as resources, and anyone who puts coherent logical thought into the subject deep enough is in a state of denial if they try to say they truly believe that there is nothing wrong with the way that system is ran. we are talking about legitimate lives. their life is negated so that yours can continue. And you are not even doing the killing. Put this on a scale of... most of the people on the entire planet eating from this industry... you have a nation asleep. Most people dont even think about what they are putting in their mouths, and how it got on their plate. When a living creature becomes in the same moral standing as eating a candy bar... certain respects are not being payed. Eating meat in itself is not wrong... but we have totally lost contact with sacrifice that's going on.

You confuse logic with morality. You can'y apply logic to come to a moral conclusion, you can only use logic to justify your moral beliefs.

And still, I don't think animals need to be treated as bad as they are, but it's not a logic issue, it's an issue of unnecessary torment. Unnecessary and illogical is not the same, mind you. It's simply that some people don't care enough about animals to do something about it.

That being, I'm not going to stop animals from being killed for food nor do I want to.

[voodoo scientist]

You confuse logic with morality. You can'y apply logic to come to a moral conclusion, you can only use logic to justify your moral beliefs.

That's idiotic. Why wouldn't you be able to apply logic to come to a moral conclusion? Identify your base assumptions and your goals and work from there like any other conclusions.

[Ajna]

Animals are resources. They're not "sacrificing" their lives so we can eat them, because they don't get a choice in the matter - we're breeding them so we can kill them and eat them, like we always have been. There's nothing to lose touch with because it was never there.

Always?......... always??
I would hope that your perspective can reach a little further than that...
We have only been able to eat animals since weve had fire... and we havent been domesticating them that long... and we have been breeding them in captivity even less than that. In the overall time line of human existance on the planet, we havent a monster like the meat industry long at all... its a mere drop in the ocean of time for our species.... and the earth has been here even longer than that. We are the only species that has ever taken more than we need to consume. Animals arent resources... they are legitimate living organisms... just like us. I think the issue with your perspective is you feel that all things that exist are to be used for the slightest luxury to man... which i must say is a very arrogant opinion.

[Karaten]

You confuse logic with morality. You can'y apply logic to come to a moral conclusion, you can only use logic to justify your moral beliefs.

That's idiotic. Why wouldn't you be able to apply logic to come to a moral conclusion? Identify your base assumptions and your goals and work from there like any other conclusions.

Quite simply, morality is too opinionated.  In order to see anything from an angle of right or wrong, you must discard that which makes it right or that which makes it wrong.

Otherwise, something simply is what it is, with qualities it has. Killing animals is killing animals, which is then used for food, clothes, and various other materials.

Animals feel pain, this is fact. Is that a moral dilemma? To expand on such, animals will always feel pain. Also, most things meet a gruesome end, and is almost always used as a recourse by another animal after death.

This seems fairly logical, still, this goes with the ideology that I have already decided that eating meat is okay.

Reversely, I could say, Animals feel pain, but we don't need to make it worse. Animals are living beings and should be preserved. If they must die, it should only be when absolutely necessary and despite animals killing others being the natural process, humans have gone against that process many times, and we should do so again.

Both of these statements are logical, but are completely contradictory.

For me, it comes to a point where you must simply accept that things suffer, and move on.

[Ajna]

You confuse logic with morality. You can'y apply logic to come to a moral conclusion, you can only use logic to justify your moral beliefs.

That's idiotic. Why wouldn't you be able to apply logic to come to a moral conclusion? Identify your base assumptions and your goals and work from there like any other conclusions.

Quite simply, morality is too opinionated.  In order to see anything from an angle of right or wrong, you must discard that which makes it right or that which makes it wrong.

Otherwise, something simply is what it is, with qualities it has. Killing animals is killing animals, which is then used for food, clothes, and various other materials.

Animals feel pain, this is fact. Is that a moral dilemma? To expand on such, animals will always feel pain. Also, most things meet a gruesome end, and is almost always used as a recourse by another animal after death.

This seems fairly logical, still, this goes with the ideology that I have already decided that eating meat is okay.

Reversely, I could say, Animals feel pain, but we don't need to make it worse. Animals are living beings and should be preserved. If they must die, it should only be when absolutely necessary and despite animals killing others being the natural process, humans have gone against that process many times, and we should do so again.

Both of these statements are logical, but are completely contradictory.

For me, it comes to a point where you must simply accept that things suffer, and move on.

and by that logic... the suffering of humans should be no bother to you as well. The holocaust, if were to repeat, should just be ignored?
Unless the answer is yes... you only have more compassion for humans because you can associate with them. The fact that animals feel pain is only a molecule on the tip of the iceberg. we have several almost entire species labeled as food for humans in pens breeding, feeding our children with their children. And we are not just taking the life to sustain our own... we are taking massive amounts and passing it out as if it came from something no more significant than a magical meat vortex in the sky.

[Karaten]

and by that logic... the suffering of humans should be no bother to you as well.

It's not.

The holocaust, if were to repeat, should just be ignored?

I never said that. I think mankind doesn't need as many people as it has now. There are better ways to solve that, though all of them are considered unethical, and your solution is much more likely to implemented, so I wouldn't ignore it, I would think it would be quite an event, though I would think it was unnecessary as there are easier solutions.

Plus, your assumption that there is any "should" involved shows that you entirely miss my point and have no ability to think beyond perception.

Unless the answer is yes... you only have more compassion for humans because you can associate with them.

Like why you would eat plants instead of animals? You simply set the bar higher, buddy.

The fact that animals feel pain is only a molecule on the tip of the iceberg. we have several almost entire species labeled as food for humans in pens breeding,

Oh, sex! So awful! Oh woe is me!

You're appointing your desire for freedom to animals because you're relating yourself to them.

feeding our children with their children. And we are not just taking the life to sustain our own... we are taking massive amounts and passing it out as if it came from something no more significant than a magical meat vortex in the sky.

That would be something to see.

[voodoo scientist]

Animals are resources. They're not "sacrificing" their lives so we can eat them, because they don't get a choice in the matter - we're breeding them so we can kill them and eat them, like we always have been. There's nothing to lose touch with because it was never there.

Always?......... always??
I would hope that your perspective can reach a little further than that...
We have only been able to eat animals since weve had fire... and we havent been domesticating them that long... and we have been breeding them in captivity even less than that. In the overall time line of human existance on the planet, we havent a monster like the meat industry long at all... its a mere drop in the ocean of time for our species.... and the earth has been here even longer than that. We are the only species that has ever taken more than we need to consume. Animals arent resources... they are legitimate living organisms... just like us. I think the issue with your perspective is you feel that all things that exist are to be used for the slightest luxury to man... which i must say is a very arrogant opinion.

First of all, our brains - and by extension, our mastery of fire - is a part of our evolution. I'm not sure how that managed to elude you, but it's been a feature in our DNA for quite a number of years. Learned skills are not some kind of floaty ability that "don't count" in the evolutionary game, learned skills are an inevitable result of the capacity of our brains on an evolutionary timeline. For instance: it is inevitable that we will eventually know everything the human brain is capable of knowing.

Secondly, "legitimate living organisms" means baloney. Some animals have an imperative to ensure the success of their species, others don't, but we have an imperative to ensure the success of our species. It doesn't automatically overlap because we're both "living organisms." We consume neither more or less than we "need" to consume, we consume what we "want" to consume because we're the dominant species.

All things that exist are, from the perspective of a human being, best used in the pursuits of the success of the human race. Even if every human being was completely happy and content in every way, there would be no rational reason to make animals feel good. There's also no rational reason to make animals feel bad, much like there's no reason to make iron or timber feel bad. It is an unnecessary and wasteful way to expend energy.

Quite simply, morality is too opinionated.  In order to see anything from an angle of right or wrong, you must discard that which makes it right or that which makes it wrong.

Otherwise, something simply is what it is, with qualities it has. Killing animals is killing animals, which is then used for food, clothes, and various other materials.

Animals feel pain, this is fact. Is that a moral dilemma? To expand on such, animals will always feel pain. Also, most things meet a gruesome end, and is almost always used as a recourse by another animal after death.

This seems fairly logical, still, this goes with the ideology that I have already decided that eating meat is okay.

Reversely, I could say, Animals feel pain, but we don't need to make it worse. Animals are living beings and should be preserved. If they must die, it should only be when absolutely necessary and despite animals killing others being the natural process, humans have gone against that process many times, and we should do so again.

Both of these statements are logical, but are completely contradictory.

For me, it comes to a point where you must simply accept that things suffer, and move on.

You've demonstrated and yet completely missed that things can be logical without being right: you need to have both the correct base assumptions and the correct methodology to arrive at the correct conclusion. For instance: why must living things be preserved? Why should we go out of our way to make sure they don't die or feel pain? These things aren't implicitly true, but they could be true with the right base assumption.

Here's an example: it is beneficial for humans to create interdependencies and help each other because it raises productivity and innovation (assumption 1), which has a clear but not exclusive correlation to quality of life (assumption 2). There is no such correlation for creating interdependencies among humans and animals (assumption 3), therefore expending energy on animals is wasteful (conclusion).

Come to think of it, I'd put good money on neither of you being able to crystallize what your base assumptions are for this particular topic are, much less the ones that underpin those.

[Enigma]

Plants are legitimate living organisms too, yet you seem to have no problem raising them for slaughter. 

[Karaten]

You've demonstrated and yet completely missed that things can be logical without being right: you need to have both the correct base assumptions and the correct methodology to arrive at the correct conclusion. For instance: why must living things be preserved? Why should we go out of our way to make sure they don't die or feel pain? These things aren't implicitly true, but they could be true with the right base assumption.

It's not an argument I'm going to make simply because it's not one I agree with.

The point was, most moral people will sacrifice advantage for some ideology of "good" and the extent in which they will sacrifice differs between person. Some will be okay with numbing the animals, some don't want the animals dead at all.

Here's an example: it is beneficial for humans to create interdependencies and help each other because it raises productivity and innovation (assumption 1), which has a clear but not exclusive correlation to quality of life (assumption 2). There is no such correlation for creating interdependencies among humans and animals (assumption 3), therefore expending energy on animals is wasteful (conclusion).

I don't agree with any of those assumptions personally.

Come to think of it, I'd put good money on neither of you being able to crystallize what your base assumptions are for this particular topic are, much less the ones that underpin those.

I'd put good money you're putting that label on me via the logical irrelevancies I stated above that were in fact examples of something irrelevant to the overall topic of the thread.

[voodoo scientist]

I put that label on you as a concrete way of expressing my prediction that you are unable to clearly express the base assumptions you made in presenting your stance on moral vegetarianism, presumably because you are not conscious of them and are simply reacting to the argument at hand. So far, I'm not wrong.

[Karaten]

I put that label on you as a concrete way of expressing my prediction that you are unable to clearly express the base assumptions you made in presenting your stance on moral vegetarianism, presumably because you are not conscious of them and are simply reacting to the argument at hand. So far, I'm not wrong.

You are because I've made no connection to morality when it comes to vegetarianism, nor anywhere else.

[Ajna]

Plants are legitimate living organisms too, yet you seem to have no problem raising them for slaughter. 

What makes me "seem" that way?
Thats an entirely different conversation.

[voodoo scientist]

Plants are legitimate living organisms too, yet you seem to have no problem raising them for slaughter. 

What makes me "seem" that way?
Thats an entirely different conversation.

You're a vegetarian. The raise and slaughter of plants for sustenance is implied in the word.

[Ajna]

Plants are legitimate living organisms too, yet you seem to have no problem raising them for slaughter. 

What makes me "seem" that way?
Thats an entirely different conversation.

You're a vegetarian. The raise and slaughter of plants for sustenance is implied in the word.

Well, your absolutely right. But that subject is absolutely fascinating to me.
One of my greatest overall goals in life is to be completely self sufficient.. like going to the grocery store for example. I want to grow and make all my own food. This makes it so (as i mentioned a few times above) I am killing whatever  I am eating. The sacrafice of life to sustain my own is made by me. Additionally, im only taking what i need to eat.

Outside of that however, we do have the issue of the mass slaughter of plants for sustenance as you mentioned above (agriculture). I am not generally one to refer to the bible in a philisophical conversation... but did you know that if you are following the bible perfectly word for word that you are only supposed to eat "seed bearing fruit"?
I find that very interesting. What that means is that the only truly compassionate way to eat is to eat things that are already dead and fall off of a plant. So things like broccoli would not be part of this rule... something like a tomato or apple would be.
Ive also heard of a society (which unfortunately I cannot name at this time), that only eats what monsoons drag onto their shore.