21-05-2004 18:30									#121
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I think Ludd ignores the fact that human beings ARE superior. We can do this thing call reasoning. I haven't really seen dolphins build 50 story skyscrapers, melting down iron ore and turning it into steel. I'd say that makes us superior. Besides, bears eat other animals. Lions eat other animals. Why can't we?

While there are predators that subsist on eating other animals, I don't think it necessarily follows that it's completely okay for us to kill and eat animals, especially if we have got other options. In my opinion, killing animals is most acceptable when it is in self-defense or when we have no other option than to subsist on meat.

	21-05-2004 18:30									#122
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Like Europeans ARE superior to africans, native americans, ect... Where your argument fails is that you CAN'T DEMONSTRATE that Europeans are superior, because every human being can reason and has used his/her reason. Animals have not shown themselves to be capable. quote: That's the natural role of bears and lions. But humans aren't carnivores. Yes, we are omnivores. Our teeth are made for either flesh and plantlife. So our natural role is also to eat meat, but not solely meat. If we were not meant to eat meat, we would not be able to. quote: It seems that you have done a 360 in your view, though, when you are justifying your actions through that of a supposedly lesser or savage species. If we are animals, then why be held to a higher standard in terms of food? Or the contrary is that we aren't the same as other animals and thus can eat lower species. It's called covering both sides of argument and getting you in a trap that you cannot hope to get out of.

I think that this is the official 'Ludd is pwned' post.

	21-05-2004 18:33									#123
	Remove this text

quote: I don't think it necessarily follows that it's completely okay for us to kill and eat animals, especially if we have got other options.

Why not? Our teeth are built for eating plants and animals. Why should 'other options' matter? Because animals are cuter than plants? Plants feel pain as well.

	21-05-2004 18:34									#124
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov First, define "natural" and explain why that (as you seem to be saying) is an absolute concept.

You know what natural means. The reason it is an absolute concept is because... well, it's what makes life possible.

quote: Second, humans aren't "naturally" carnivores any more so than they are "naturally" vegetarians. They are "naturally" omnivores, as anthropology tells us. So this point is moot.

Actually, humans are naturally vegetarians. We evolved on plants. We have no talons, no claws, no fangs, we have a terrible sense of smell and poor eyesight (in terms of animals that rely on it for hunting, anyways). We cannot hunt without tools.

Meat that was eaten, if any was eaten at all, would be strictly scavenged and would be a very minor part of the overall diet.

	21-05-2004 18:37									#125
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: humans are naturally vegetarians.

Explain our teeth that can eat meat as well as plants then.

quote: We have no talons, no claws, no fangs, we have a terrible sense of smell and poor eyesight (in terms of animals that rely on it for hunting, anyways). We cannot hunt without tools.

Our WEAPON is our reason, which allowed us to create these tools in order to hunt. Early man was hunter-gather. We picked some berries, but mostly killed animals to eat. Farming and a greater reliance on plantlife for food came later.

	21-05-2004 18:39									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I don't think it necessarily follows that it's completely okay for us to kill and eat animals, especially if we have got other options. Why not? Our teeth are built for eating plants and animals. Why should 'other options' matter? Because animals are cuter than plants? Plants feel pain as well.

Would killing other humans for food be ethical in your opinion? Feeling pain, at least the way we do, requires a network of neural cells that I don't think plants have.

	21-05-2004 18:42									#127
	Remove this text

quote: Would killing other humans for food be ethical in your opinion? Feeling pain, at least the way we do, requires a network of neural cells that I don't think plants have.

No, it's been shown plant do indeed feel it. They just can't fight back.

And, personally, killing other humans for food wouldn't do it for me. If you want you can call me a speciesist (or something). Humanity is special as a result of our ability to reason. However, if it is necessary (think the movie "Alive"), then I'd have no objection to killing humans for food.

	21-05-2004 18:43									#128
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

You can always rule humans out of the equation since we are of the same species - that alone distinguishes them from other animals.

	21-05-2004 18:45									#129
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui No, it's been shown plant do indeed feel it.

Reference, please

	21-05-2004 18:45									#130
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd You know what natural means. The reason it is an absolute concept is because... well, it's what makes life possible.

No, I don't know how you're using "natural." Define it. It is certainly not an absolute concept.

For someone whom I know believes in evolution over creationism, this is an astoundingly silly argument coming from you. There is no "absolute" design to natural entities. We have evolved to be omnivores, so it is as natural to us as being a carnivore is natural to a tiger.

quote: Actually, humans are naturally vegetarians. We evolved on plants. We have no talons, no claws, no fangs, we have a terrible sense of smell and poor eyesight (in terms of animals that rely on it for hunting, anyways). We cannot hunt without tools. Meat that was eaten, if any was eaten at all, would be strictly scavenged and would be a very minor part of the overall diet.

Now you're shifting terms. I never said carnivore, I said omnivore. They aren't the same thing. We aren't carnivore, but our physiology is decidedly omnivorous. Our teeth are proof of this, as is the fact that other primates are omnivorous as well. Whether or not meat was a minor part of a diet or not isn't the point--it was a part of the diet.

The fact that we can ingest and digest meat with little physiological trouble is itself proof we are ominvores by nature. Cows can't eat meat because it will kill them. We can it meat without any such fear.

	21-05-2004 18:55									#131
	Put an end to popups!

I think our liver, capable of handling a wide range of foods also points to an omnivorous diet. Besides, if we were meant to be vegeterians, why the inability to break down cellulose?

No, human beings are most certainly omnivorous- for god's sake, look at the diet of all Stone Age peoples-look at the anthropological evidence-look at damned cave paintings.

	21-05-2004 18:56									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Where your argument fails is that you CAN'T DEMONSTRATE that Europeans are superior, because every human being can reason and has used his/her reason. Animals have not shown themselves to be capable.

It wasn't long ago that africans where thought to possess no worthwhile intelligence.

But, again, this is saying that humans are superior because they posses the means to impose dominance ( I have already brought this up in the debate) and is still the same logic used by all oppresors and tyrants - that might makes right.

quote: quote: humans are naturally vegetarians. Explain our teeth that can eat meat as well as plants then.

Our teeth aren't very well suited for eating animals, really. We can not easily tear flesh apart and we can't bite through bones and get at the marrow, ect..

But, as I said, it's possible that we also scavenged meat. That does not involve killing anything, however.

quote: Our WEAPON is our reason, which allowed us to create these tools in order to hunt.

Isn't that what I just said? Our weapons are tools . ie. we are not naturally hunters.

quote: No, it's been shown plant do indeed feel it. They just can't fight back.

It has been shown that plants when cut our eaten can send 'signals' to their roots that prompt growth. That is a pretty far cry from a nervous system.

	21-05-2004 18:57									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The fact that we can ingest and digest meat with little physiological trouble is itself proof we are ominvores by nature. Cows can't eat meat because it will kill them. We can it meat without any such fear.

Will eating meat actually kill them? I highly doubt it, unless they eat it in vast quantities-it should just pass trought the system relatively undigested. I am sure it would not be comfortable, but not deadly. After all, you can eat a bunch of grass and it won't kill you- you just won't digest any of it.

	21-05-2004 18:59									#134
	Remove this text

Plants do respond to physical stress but you don't really feel pain like we humans do without a nervous system. In any case plants do seem to be less aware than most animals, which makes it our best bet to prefer them if we're trying to eat ethically.

	21-05-2004 19:02									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Many animals make use of tools, or build structures. Just becuase a birds nest is artificially created does not mean they are not a natural behavior. Archiological and anthropological data shows that tools being used by the Genus Homo predate modern Homo sapiens. How then can anyone justify a stance that hunting with weapons is "not natural" if it is behavior that predates the very species?

	21-05-2004 19:02									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Reference, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

Nociception, one of the physiological senses, is the term commonly used to refer to the perception of physiological pain. Pain in this context can be defined as a harmful stimulus which signals current (or impending) tissue damage. As a result and despite its unpleasantness, pain is nonetheless a critical component of the body's defence system...

...even plants can demonstrate the ability to retract from a noxious stimulus.

	21-05-2004 19:03									#137
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap Will eating meat actually kill them? I highly doubt it, unless they eat it in vast quantities-it should just pass trought the system relatively undigested. I am sure it would not be comfortable, but not deadly. After all, you can eat a bunch of grass and it won't kill you- you just won't digest any of it.

Nope, the enzymes present in meat are indigestible to cows and will kill them. Unless other measures are taken to avoid it, such as pumping them full of antibiotics. This is why the mass-produced cows are full of such antibiotics, as their feed contains enymes they cannot ordinarliy digest (albeit grain, not meat, but it's still something they can't handle, as they should only be eating grass).

If you were to feed meat to a cow, the effects would be quite unpleasant for it and lead to death if untreated. There was an article in the NYT Magazine last year about mass-produced cattle that rather graphically described what occurs sans antibiotics.

The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But on a non-grass diet, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal's lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal's esophagus), the cow suffocates.

	21-05-2004 19:05									#138
	Support Apolyton

Okie dokie.

	21-05-2004 19:08									#139
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: It wasn't long ago that africans where thought to possess no worthwhile intelligence.

Yes, that's nice, but brain-wave data and evidence of the ability to reason shows that believe to be false.

quote: But, again, this is saying that humans are superior because they posses the means to impose dominance ( I have already brought this up in the debate) and is still the same logic used by all oppresors and tyrants - that might makes right.

Might does make right. It isn't some 'logic' which is used, but what actually occurs. It's the "jungle". In the wild might makes right. The lion kills the antelope because it is mightier. Why can't we do the same?

quote: Our teeth aren't very well suited for eating animals, really. We can not easily tear flesh apart and we can't bite through bones and get at the marrow, ect..

We can tear flesh apart easily enough. We don't need to get at the marrow. Our cuspids can rip flesh from body.

quote: Our weapons are tools . ie. we are not naturally hunters.

As GePap said...

	21-05-2004 19:08									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Imran, I mean a reference that supports your statement
But sure, if you want to define pain very loosely, you could of course claim that also bacteria experience pain, as they withdraw from harmful chemicals

Even machines can be trained to avoid heat sources, does that mean they feel pain?

	21-05-2004 19:08									#141
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov No, I don't know how you're using "natural." Define it. It is certainly not an absolute concept.

As you go on to say, I believe in evolution. I believe that it is absolute. And that's what natural means to me - the difference between the 'natural world' and that which we have created, outside of evolution.



We may be 'omnivores' (while leaning so far to vegetarianism our ancestors would probably be considered such by todays standards) but it is not our role in nature to hunt and kill. As I said, the most we would ever naturally be is scavengers and opportunists.

quote: Cows can't eat meat because it will kill them. We can it meat without any such fear.

Just a technicality, but cows are often fed meat and such. Not that I'm saying it's healthy for them.

	21-05-2004 19:17									#142
	Tired of ads?

quote: It isn't some 'logic' which is used, but what actually occurs. It's the "jungle". In the wild might makes right. The lion kills the antelope because it is mightier. Why can't we do the same?

You are, again, justifying your superiority by comparing your actions to what you consider lesser.

But a lion does not kill an antelope because it can, it kills the antelope because it has to.

quote: As GePap said...

yes, he agreed with me aswell. We need tools to hunt.

Would anyone else like to say the same thing?

quote: Might does make right.

As I said from the start, fascists are excluded and my argument here really only applies to people with somewhat liberals views. So, bye. *wave*

	21-05-2004 19:19									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd yes, he agreed with me aswell. We need tools to hunt. Would anyone else like to say the same thing?

Yes, we need tools to hunt large game or fish..

But tool use is a natural human behavior-the genus Homo has been using tools for at least 1 million years, our species is onjly about 100,000 years old-we came into existance using tools.

Again, birds nests are made by birds-are you saying they are not natural?

	21-05-2004 19:20									#144
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd As you go on to say, I believe in evolution. I believe that it is absolute. And that's what natural means to me - the difference between the 'natural world' and that which we have created, outside of evolution.

Nothing is outside evolution, it is the mechanism by which we live. And nothing is absolute either. Please explain what sort of metaphysical, magical "absolute" exists that means humans shouldn't eat meat. Dear lord, you're talking like a Creationist...listen to yourself!

Our use of tools is just as much an evolutionary product as birds nest or beaver dams, as GePap points out. The very concept of "unnatural" is flawed. It's certainly a piss-poor rationale for condemning omnivorous activity, just as it is a piss-poor rationale for condemning homosexuality or whatever. "Natural" is not an ethical or moral concept, and you're misusing the word to apply it as such.

quote: We may be 'omnivores' (while leaning so far to vegetarianism our ancestors would probably be considered such by todays standards) but it is not our role in nature to hunt and kill. As I said, the most we would ever naturally be is scavengers and opportunists.

Irrelevant. Our role in nature is based on the present, not the past. You're misusing the word nature to be something it isn't, some past "edenic" ideal that is absolute. This isn't true, as the role of species in the world is in constant flux. Evolution should have proven that to you.

We have evolved so that our natural role is as omnivores who eat a great deal of meat. So it's as natural as it gets for us.

quote: Just a technicality, but cows are often fed meat and such. Not that I'm saying it's healthy for them.

No, it is very unhealthy for them. There is a reason the FDA banned having animal parts in livestock feed--madcow disease. There are plenty of other health concerns as well.

This is why, by the way, human cannibalism is a bad idea. It was probably an evolutionary mechanism that rendered eating one's own in some species a health hazard.

	21-05-2004 19:22									#145
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: As you go on to say, I believe in evolution. I believe that it is absolute. And that's what natural means to me - the difference between the 'natural world' and that which we have created, outside of evolution.

The developement of tools by humans is a part of evolution.

quote: We may be 'omnivores' (while leaning so far to vegetarianism our ancestors would probably be considered such by todays standards) but it is not our role in nature to hunt and kill. As I said, the most we would ever naturally be is scavengers and opportunists.

Chimps do it. Why don't you think that humans couldn't do it back in the day, when actually better equipped?

I'd actually like to point out that the "superior" argument is false. If an alien uber race would land, and start enslaving us for food, would it be "right"? nope. If we'd manage to kill them all and eat them, would THAT be right? yes.

	21-05-2004 19:29									#146
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Bears obviously can kill large game and eat flesh-they also eat berries and nuts and scavange whatever-they are, like man, omnivores. eating other animals is not the same as being a carnivore- a carnivore subsist on hunting and can't live really on other sources.

Of course, creatures that eat oinly insects are not classified as ocarnivores, but an omnivore can eat insects. Do you think it immoral to eat insects?

	21-05-2004 19:33									#147
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Even machines can be trained to avoid heat sources, does that mean they feel pain?

It's not a natural reaction to the stimus. But yes, I'd say bacteria can feel pain.

	21-05-2004 19:37									#148
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: But a lion does not kill an antelope because it can, it kills the antelope because it has to.

For food right? Humans kill animals for food as well. I guess that means you think bears should stop eating meat because it can also eat berries.

quote: As I said from the start, fascists are excluded and my argument here really only applies to people with somewhat liberals views. So, bye. *wave*

You can start excluding people from debates when you get your head out of your ass and learn what fascism really is (ie, never)! Of course the main reason you want me out of the debate is because, in the words of Azazel... I PWNED you something rotten.

	21-05-2004 19:45									#149
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I PWNED you something rotten.

Hey, share the credit. We're all pwning him here.

	21-05-2004 19:49									#150
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Some points:

All biological taxa are in the final instance arbitrary, but high level ones (like "animal") are more arbitrary than low-level ones (like "human"). There are operational tests for judging whether two individuals belong to the same species, but nothing like it for judging kingdom affiliation.

Chimps can and will break bones to get at the marrow. It should be perfectly possible for humans too, even sans tools, since we're bigger and at least as strong.

No-one's ever given me a consistent explanation of "natural" that has not amounted to "whatever happens".

Someone said all animals have central nervous systems. My biology textbook disagrees.

The ideas that humans are "outside of evolution" or engage in activities that are "unnatural" are pretty much mutually incompatible with the view that we're not apart from other animal species.


For Mr Ludd's benefit, I did not suggest equating humans and potatoes. I wondered why he found it more logical to equate humans and cows than humans and potatoes.