 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
General Ludd
|
 |
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
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 only about 100,000 years old-we came into existance using tools. |
First of all, sorry. I missed that post of yours and thought Imran was talking about another.
But you need to be more specific of what sorts of 'tools' we are talking here. I have never heard of homo-sapiens being born with spears and knives before.
Where we banging stones together and stuff? sure.. but I don't know if you can really compare that to spears and knives... otherwise many animals, such as chimps (as Azazel points out) are just as 'advanced' (and possesing of the almighty 'REASON') as we are.
Which isn't neccisarily something that I wouldn't consider.
quote:
The developement of tools by humans is a part of evolution. |
That is one way of viewing it, yes. But it is no longer what I would call natural evolution, it is a sort of 'self-made' evolution that takes place independant of it's surroundings, and does not maintain the 'natural balance' (which is what this tangent stems from). You can argue that spears are natural, and farms, and factories too, but it's contradictory to the purpose of the word which is to distinguish between a technological world and a world without.
 But we seem to have drifted from vegetarianism again, and back to a more environmentalist argument.
And we're starting to lose alot of context, too. Picking at a termite mound or eating the scraps of an antelope carcass is a world away from the practices of modern day meat eating.
If we lived the omnivorous diet of 100,000 years ago, vegetarianism probably would not be an issue. But we don't. Not even remotely close.
I see that this argument has progressed as expected, however. Despite me saying that I would not respond to absurdities intended to trivialise my belifes it has, infact, happened. With argument after argument being thrown at me, while each one that I disprove is ignored, and another even more trivial one is given in it's place.
Remind me again how the eating habits of chimps and lions, or the progress of evolution (oh.... damn, that stems from me answering that obvious troll bait lorizael gave, doesn't it? I even predicted it at the time.  ) has to do with an ethical argument for vegetarianism?
And yet there's still people going on about "carrots have feelings too!" Despite me pointing out, how many times, that a vegetarian diet kills less plants then a meat eating diet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
First of all, sorry. I missed that post of yours and thought Imran was talking about another.
But you need to be more specific of what sorts of 'tools' we are talking here. I have never heard of homo-sapiens being born with spears and knives before. |
And beavers are not born with logs, and birds with sticks-yet in order to give birth, birds use sticks and other materials to build homes...behavior is part of our nature-it is created evolutionary-bad behaviors are as likely to get you killed as being weak or sickly. A strong animal that is stupid enough to carry on a fight too long, get weakend and then get culled dies not becuase of innate physical weakenesses but for bad behavior.
Man is born with the ability to create tools-the intelligence to do it, and the physiology that allows us to take advantage of it- man can digest meat-such a biological fact, which requires a lot enzymes and other proteins to be created (hence is right in the genome) does not develop out of the blue-if men could not eat meat, they would not hunt-if men were "naturally vegeterian" then why would "nature" waste the time in giving man the enzymes to digest meat? (while not giving him the enzymes to digest grass?)
quote:
Where we banging stones together and stuff? sure.. but I don't know if you can really compare that to spears and knives... otherwise many animals, such as chimps (as Azazel points out) are just as 'advanced' (and possesing of the almighty 'REASON') as we are.
Which isn't neccisarily something that I wouldn't consider.
|
We were banging rocks, yes, to make cutting surfaces! You don't really need very sharp cutting tools unless you are going to go after very hard nuts, or other animals. The fact we can digest BOTH is pretty good evidence we were using it for both, long before th genus Homo became Man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
Hmm... I guess I'm a low intake omnivore. I'll eat meat, and I'll eat veggie food... it just depends what I feel like at the time.
By the way, I don't classify junk food as food. To me it's just junk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
That is one way of viewing it, yes. But it is no longer what I would call natural evolution, it is a sort of 'self-made' evolution that takes place independant of it's surroundings, and does not maintain the 'natural balance' (which is what this tangent stems from). You can argue that spears are natural, and farms, and factories too, but it's contradictory to the purpose of the word which is to distinguish between a technological world and a world without.
|
This is patent nonsense in the context of this debate, however, as you've yet to establish a definition of natural that requires humanity to be vegetarians. There is NOTHING in biology that dictates what animals should or shouldn't be eating beyond their physical ability to do so without dying. To say there is such a thing is, in essence, relying on rank mysticism that is no different than religious belief. It certainly has nothing to do with logic or science.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
but a plant-centric omnivore diet which is completely out of context for comparisons to modern meat-eating practicies) |
Modern meat eating? When does the "modern age" begin for you? 25,000 bc? Your idea of "modern meat eating" seems to be big game hunting-which is not at all modern, and various rather NON-modern societies subsist on eating big game, like whaling at seals in the artic. Now, if you mean the modern American diet driven by mass commercial farming, that is something else.
quote:
Nobody seems to be actually interested in my argument, but instead are only interested in justifying their own meat-eating to me or in trivialising my stance. |
Your arguments have been a lot of moral assertions, the same things you ridicule from the religious folks here.
quote:
Not that I really care, this is par for the course in discousing vegetarianism with meat-eaters. There's rarely any serious argument - just posturing and taunting. A typicaly dominant-aggressive reaction that suits their choice in diets perfectly. |
You problem is you ocnflate omnivores with carnivores - interestingly, I asked, would you consider eating insects?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Modern meat eating? When does the "modern age" begin for you? 25,000 bc? Your idea of "modern meat eating" seems to be big game hunting-which is not at all modern, and various rather NON-modern societies subsist on eating big game, like whaling at seals in the artic. |
last year saw this movie called "the fast runner" about Inuit (it was made by inuit, IIUC) It alternated scenes of jealousy, hatred, and murder within the neolithic band, with scene of hunting, preparing and eating food, exclusively meat and fish. My reaction - "See what happens to people who never eat vegetables!"
BTW - MOST neolithic huntergatherers were more gatherers than hunters, IIUC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
General Ludd
|
|
Minion of the Dominion
Aug 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Modern meat eating? When does the "modern age" begin for you? 25,000 bc? Your idea of "modern meat eating" seems to be big game hunting-which is not at all modern, and various rather NON-modern societies subsist on eating big game, like whaling at seals in the artic. Now, if you mean the modern American diet driven by mass commercial farming, that is something else.
|
I do mean the 'modern american diet', but obviously it becomes progressively out of context the further along the timescale you move.
Saying that you should hunt, farm, and even industrialise the process of meat eating because 100,000 year ago our ancestors scavanged some meat is pretty nonsensical. (And nevermind that if we use those same ancestors as a model we can justify all sorts of things.)
quote:
Your arguments have been a lot of moral assertions, the same things you ridicule from the religious folks here. |
I don't think so. Morality is usually the crux of all my arguments. I'm not someone that's going to play semantics to justify things like rape, murder and war, or the motivations behind them. I feel that the notions of dominance, superiority and "might makes right" are unethical. I don't think this is an uncommon position, yet few people apply it to it's full extent. I try to, which is why I am vegetarian.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2004 19:54
(ie, the irony is RICH)
|