It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eating Meat is Unethical

page: 26
25
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Son of Will



The exact path humans took in evolution, and the exact evolutionary pressures which caused every change over the generations, is still mostly theoretical. You are failing to understand that about 50% of what you quoted is entirely speculative.


Wow. Okay let me dumb this down a bit for you. I can easily return this argumentation against you as being theorical. But mine is based on evidences.

You are an excellent example of pathological belief:

Delusion: "Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression."




So, everyone is delusional who disagrees with, or presents evidence that directly refutes, something you believe in.

Got it. Back here in reality, this is a great example of something called "Irony". Keep talking. Everything you say makes you appear dumber, and I get pleasure in the fact that you don't like me. Making stupid people angry is one of my guilty pleasures.




posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Son of Will

The monetary system is unethical...will you be throwing your money in the trash soon?


No. I need money for survival. So does everybody.

You don't need meat for survival. Nobody does.

There is zero comparison.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
Surely lots of things are unethical, but eating meat helped humans evolve into what we are today. Cooked meat especially, be thankful to your ancestors that they discovered cooked meats, or we would still be living in trees taking all day to much and digest vegetation.


That is a belief which is based on highly questionable data.

This article goes into the specifics, it's good reading. Why "Meat Made Us Smart" is a Dumb Idea


“Energetics and the evolution of human brain size,” published in the November 2011 edition of Nature, tests and refutes the expensive tissue hypothesis. It’s impressive work, and pretty devastating to the hypothesis that has provided a rhetorical foundation to the paleo diet mythology for over a decade now.

Navarrete’s, et. al.’s, main findings (further details below) are:

— There is no negative correlation between brain size and gut size in any mammalian taxa, refuting the ETH’s prediction to the contrary.

— There is, however, a strong negative correlation between brain size and adipose tissue deposits; that is, fatter animals have smaller brains than lean ones; and,

— Humans are seeming exceptions to this rule because our fat deposits don’t interfere adversely with our means of locomotion, thus freeing up energy for encephalization that other primates have to use for carrying around all that fat.

And the stunning thing about this paper is that the authors didn’t simply test the ETH using new data, but also re-tested the data from the original paper using newer statistical methods and controlling for confounding factors that that Aiello & Wheeler missed, for whatever reason.

Their conclusion: when adiposity, phylogenetic relationships, sample bias and sex differences are controlled for, Aiello’s & Wheeler’s original data don’t support their hypothesis any better than the newer data does! In short, the ETH is wrong at the foundation, not just at the margins.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Son of Will


Got it. Back here in reality, this is a great example of something called "Irony". Keep talking. Everything you say makes you appear dumber,


It has taken this long for you to come up with such obtuse answer, I am very disappointed in you...



... and I get pleasure in the fact that you don't like me.


I don't remember saying such thing. Is that another product of your fertile imagination?



Making stupid people angry is one of my guilty pleasures.


So to make it simple, you like to abuse verbally peoples not on the same line of thinking with you and it give you great pleasure... Hum like I said:



Delusion: "Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression."



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Really, there's nothing ethically or morally wrong in eating meat at all.

You formulated a personal code of ethics and used it to label others who don't follow your code as somehow less moral.

The whole thing is a fallacy.

Live your life in the way that makes you happy, but try to remember that you aren't better than anyone else.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat and killing for the table. It's entirely natural.


There's nothing personal, and everything universal, about a code of ethics that forbids unnecessary aggression/violence. I'm just taking a principle that we all naturally understand (it's referred to as the Golden Rule exactly because of its universality) and extending it to its logical conclusion.

Obviously there are limits to what we can do, and that is why it is important to minimize the harm we cause in every possible way. Because we're always going to be causing "some" harm. Our society is sick like that, and in many ways it is founded upon cruelty. Like the US dollar is the global reserve currency, the gold standard for OPEC - and our world is in chaos, tens of millions dead, because of what we do to control the flow of oil.

But we all still need to drive cars to work, fly airplanes, use plastic (comes from oil), etc. etc. etc. We can't escape it. All we can do is minimize it. And eating meat is EASY to stop. It's one of the easiest, obviously-beneficial choices we can all make. If we stop spending money on it, the cycle will slow down, and that's less violence/cruelty on the hands of humans.

There's nothing crazy about this at all - it's actually SO rational, and SO simple, that most people expect it to be more complicated, or nuanced.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Son of Will
And eating meat is EASY to stop.


Killing and eating vegetables is much easier to stop!


It's one of the easiest, obviously-beneficial choices we can all make. If we stop spending money on it, the cycle will slow down, and that's less violence/cruelty on the hands of humans.


Very true, just look at the angry vegetarians, trying to control what other people do, and getting upset when they are ignored!


There's nothing crazy about this at all - it's actually SO rational, and SO simple, that most people expect it to be more complicated, or nuanced.


True, stopping eating vegetables is easy, rational and simple to do!
edit on 31-12-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I've actually come to the conclusion this thread must be put in the jokes section.

Son of Will. You have said you are not trying to "convert" anyone. In reality you are just like a televangelist. "Oh you sinful meat eaters. Stop now and eat veggies and you shall be saved."

You've attacked everyone on a personal level who eats meat and shows you data that is conflict to your ethics.

As I've said before (which you obviously ignored), a lot of ethics are a personal choice. Eating meat or not eating meat is one of those.

Now, stop being so righteous and let people have there own ethics.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Son of Will
Humans traditionally got their B12 from soil and water.


I would ask you to source this but considering you made it up you are going to have a hard time finding a legitimate source.


It's common sense. Bacteria which produce B12 thrive in the intestines of animals, and so in the process of excreting, and thus enriching the soil, the cycle of life ensures that this bacteria, and its byproducts including B12, is found all over the wild. Water supplies naturally accumulate this along with every other substance that gets circulated in the wild.

Chimpanzees, for example, get enough B12 from a almost exclusively herbivorous diet, along with small amounts of bugs, feces, and dirt.

These are all known facts. The suggestion that humans got their needs from the exact same sources, traditionally, is entirely reasonable. So if you really want to live traditionally, and get all your vitamins and minerals the "natural" way... go for it. The toilet is the first room on the right, if you ever come to my house.

You're 0 for 2 here. Keep trying.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Son of Will
Bacteria produce B12. Not animals. And that bacteria used to be omni-present in our environment before modern water-sterilizing procedures came about. I thought Freemasons were supposed to at least occasionally dabble in intellectualism...


See above.

Using your dopey logic the isolated portions of our planet should be able to sustain magical beings that can survive by getting their B12 from dirt and water. Maybe you should go to one of these places and try seeing how long you live.

How is that for intellectualism?




Pretty far from it. In fact that is incredibly stupid - I'm in awe of your inability to make a rational argument. You're making Freemasonry look like the GOP here.

Let's see - there ARE places on Earth that contain non-sterilized water systems. These are known as 3rd-world countries. People are living near the poverty line in these places. What kind of magical community do you expect to find in the poorest parts of the world?

Or let's try another angle. Let's say there is a community of vegans, living somewhere out in the wild. Could they theoretically get enough B12? Who knows? Where's the studies that go either way? Of course nobody's done such studies. It's a useless argument, because there's no data either way. And it's a stupid argument because the premise is entirely implausible. Most vegans take supplements anyways.

(The only reason I'm responding to such a terrible argument is because, judging by the amount of stars your comment got, people expect your comments to be intelligent. So I feel obliged to show just how unintelligent they are.)

Next time you're enjoying a "natural", or "traditional" lifestyle, and insulting others for not being "natural", try to remember the receipt from the grocery store.
edit on 12 31 2015 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Son of Will

Ethics has nothing to do with our carnivorous nature hence the teeth we are equipped with for ripping and tearing flesh.


This is a common argument. But it's false. Here's why:

9 Reasons Your Canine Teeth Don’t Make You a Meat-Eater


But there are several serious problems with the “canine teeth” argument, the most glaring one being the premise that “the presence of canine teeth = meant to eat meat.” In truth, with the exception of rodents, rabbits, and pikas, nearly all mammals have canine teeth. In fact, several herbivores have ferocious canine teeth, and, as you’ll see in the gallery below, the largest canine teeth of any land animal belong to a true herbivore.




In her new book, Mind If I Order The Cheeseburger?, Sherry F. Colb discusses the comparative anatomy of carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores. “[M]ammalian carnivores and omnivores share a number of physical attributes that make them well suited for killing and tearing apart their prey. They have a wide mouth opening, relative to head size; a simple jaw joint that operates as a stable hinge for effective slicing but which is ill-suited to side-to-side motion; and dagger-like teeth spaced apart to avoid trapping stringy debris. They also have sharp claws. (2) The mammalian carnivores and omnivores additionally have huge stomachs that enable gorging, an important capacity in animals who tend to average only about one kill per week. (3) These animals also have a very low gastric pH (which means their stomachs are very acidic), enabling the breakdown of highly concentrated protein as well as the killing of dangerous bacteria that typically colonize decaying flesh. (4) - See more at: freefromharm.org...


Humans are, physiologically speaking, best adapted to digest plant-based foods.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: UniFinity

"Our teeth AND digestive system is designed for ripping raw fruits or veggies apart not meat."

Yeh right, and those opposable thumbs we have that allow us to fashion weapons and tools to kill other animals and subdue our environment are probably just there for fun?

We are an apex predator, and will eat just about anything, animal vegetable or mineral. I think you need to deal with that fact buddy. Nature and ethics seldom mix im afraid.

And its not the meat that's bad for us per-say, its what we put in it, end of the day everything in moderation.

Merry Christmas everyone.



It's widely accepted that the opposable thumb evolved for tree-dwelling species, like the primates. Tools came later.

www.amnh.org... r-past/living-primates/the-grasping-hand



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Son of Will




Humans are, physiologically speaking, best adapted to digest plant-based foods.

Actually not. Animals which have evolved to be strictly vegetarian tend to have very different digestive systems than those of omnivores, like humans. Multiple and segment stomachs, very, very long intestinal tracts. Quite different.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Son of Will




Humans are, physiologically speaking, best adapted to digest plant-based foods.

Actually not. Animals which have evolved to be strictly vegetarian tend to have very different digestive systems than those of omnivores, like humans. Multiple and segment stomachs, very, very long intestinal tracts. Quite different.



I said best-adapted, not exclusively adapted. Of course humans have omnivorous physiology, but there are very few adaptations which exclusively handle meat, while there are many adaptations which exclusively handle plants.
edit on 12 31 2015 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Son of Will




I said best-adapted, not exclusively adapted.

Adapted is adapted. Humans evolved as and are adapted as omnivores. That is what they are best at being.

Your moral judgements are that. Don't try to justify them with biology because you can't.



edit on 12/31/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: UniFinity

You do relies if we do not eat meat without consuming other supplements in its place we get sick and weak, then eventually die?

Tell me this if indeed we are not supposed to eat meat then why does my mouth and teeth go all tingly and salivate all over the shop before biting in to a nice big juicy steak? Seems primal to me, certainly very natural.


That is patently false.

Who would give a star to such a ridiculous statement? There are MILLIONS of successful, long-term vegans. How on Earth do such easily-refutable arguments get perpetuated?



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

OK let close topic in conclusion:

We have people that are driven by they desires, they like the taste for meat. Because if anyone is eating meat for health I suggest to check first with psychiatric because most probably he have some other problems as well.

So desire drives people to consume meat. Now only few people, I call them evolved ones or those that are evolving fight against desire.

My life is not driven by any desire, I only eat healthy food, or let say less unhealthy food since it is sometimes hard to grow my own, like in winter.

When you are no longer driven by desire your brain starts to work differently. You start to see how dumb people are you really are. On so many levels, you can't help them, I tryed and all I got was aggression from them. I m talking about real life people, not about posters in this topic, since I don't know you.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: saadad



You start to see how dumb people are you really are.

That sounds dumb.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeceptioVisus
originally posted by: Son of Will

originally posted by: Son of Will
"that Golden Rule should, logically, extend to all life. Does that make a bit more sense now?"


Um, does that mean your against killing worms, bacteria, fungus, and countless other soil dwelling sentient creatures that communicate with each other and also feel pain. Put an Earthworm on a fishing hook and tell me it's not writhing in pain. Please tell me where you draw the line. I guess you put brown recluses out the window and let mice run the house. I guess a mosquito biting you is okay.

What about the millions of acres that are mono-cropped and loaded with chemicals that makes millions of acres sterile so vegans can have tofu burgers.
"In one acre of land, there can be more than a million earthworms." So in a million sterile acres of chemical farmland, there have been 1,000,000,000,000 worms killed. Is that okay? Of course that's just an analogy, there are approximately, "cropland, 442 million acres".
extension.illinois.edu...
www.ers.usda.gov...

Then there are the Nematode round worms. They make up more biomass than any other species on Earth. "nematodes are the most numerically abundant animals on Earth. They're not just a slim majority. Four out of every five animals on Earth is a nematode." "We unintentionally eat and drink enormous numbers of roundworms in our lifetimes," ooh, that's not vegan.
blogs.scientificamerican.com...

Anyway, where is the line drawn? By your statement above all life should be left alone, unless it affects your chemical vegan produce right? So much hypocrisy in this thread.

There's no hypocrisy whatsoever about it. Just common sense.

This is what I wrote to SprocketUK a bit ago:

Obviously there are limits to what we can do, and that is why it is important to minimize the harm we cause in every possible way. Because we're always going to be causing "some" harm. Our society is sick like that, and in many ways it is founded upon cruelty. Like the US dollar is the global reserve currency, the gold standard for OPEC - and our world is in chaos, tens of millions dead, because of what we do to control the flow of oil.

But we all still need to drive cars to work, fly airplanes, use plastic (comes from oil), etc. etc. etc. We can't escape it. All we can do is minimize it. And eating meat is EASY to stop. It's one of the easiest, obviously-beneficial choices we can all make. If we stop spending money on it, the cycle will slow down, and that's less violence/cruelty on the hands of humans.


Keep in mind the caveats in the OP.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: rukia
a reply to: Son of Will

I used to be vegan. I don't love meat, but it isn't unethical. Ethics are subjective. We are the stewards of this planet--animals eat animals. And so do we. If you were dying of hunger, you'd even eat human meat. So quit it with the platitudes. You ate meat for 24 years. Just because you convinced yourself into a lifestyle change doesn't mean that everyone else should, too.


Wrong. And just because you were vegan, that doesn't mean that you ever understood the ethics associated with it.

As I said in my OP, it is universally acknowledged that unnecessary violence is wrong. Since we don't need meat anymore, that makes the entire practice of keeping other sentient creatures for food, unethical. And eating meat directly endorses - requires - this unethical behavior. Since it is so easy to stop eating meat, that makes it entirely a choice to do so. It is a choice to be unethical.

Can you contend that? Because THAT is my argument. What you responded to is something else entirely.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Son of Will

Is it ethical to stop eating meat when doing so will push some animals into extinction? .
Look you have your ethics others have their own.
stop pushing yours on others when the majority here disagrees with you.
oh and go and eat a lamb chop...



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join