22-05-2004 01:48									#181
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

How about eating only meat that has been raised using humane procedures? Would you torture a dog for the fun of it? Then why raise animals in painful conditions so meat can be cheaper?


I havent gotten to this point, but it would seem to be the ethical approach. And it doesnt require that animal life be considered sacred.

	22-05-2004 01:56									#182
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd 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.)

Anthropological evidence seems very clear that man was more than just a scavanger of meat back 100,000 years ago-but that we did hunt extensively. We not only had a hand in wipping out many large mammal species, but perhaps as well other members of the Genus Homo.

quote: 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.

We eat animals not out of dominance, but becuase we can digest them.

	22-05-2004 01:58									#183
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark How about eating only meat that has been raised using humane procedures? Would you torture a dog for the fun of it? Then why raise animals in painful conditions so meat can be cheaper?

Well, you just answered your question: rainsing the animals in cramped horrific conditions increases profits, and food production in large sections of the modern world is simply a business, they will do whatever leads to highest profits.

	22-05-2004 01:59									#184
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Anthropological evidence seems very clear that man was more than just a scavanger of meat back 100,000 years ago-but that we did hunt extensively. We not only had a hand in wipping out many large mammal species, but perhaps as well other members of the Genus Homo. We eat animals not out of dominance, but becuase we can digest them.

1. IIUC there considerable controversy about the notion of a Clovis extinction in the New World. Which gets to precisely the issue of the notion of "man the hunter" its not by any means a settled issue.

2. We can digest lion. Lion isnt eaten very often. If you cant dominate your prey, being able to digest it isnt very meaningful.

	22-05-2004 02:03									#185
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Well, you just answered your question: rainsing the animals in cramped horrific conditions increases profits, and food production in large sections of the modern world is simply a business, they will do whatever leads to highest profits.

Im not asking the motivations of the producers. Raising termites for sale as food would be profitable, if there was a market for it. There isnt. Why cant we as CONSUMERS say we wont eat meat raised inhumanely?

	22-05-2004 02:04									#186
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 1. IIUC there considerable controversy about the notion of a Clovis extinction in the New World. Which gets to precisely the issue of the notion of "man the hunter" its not by any means a settled issue. 2. We can digest lion. Lion isnt eaten very often. If you cant dominate your prey, being able to digest it isnt very meaningful.

and of course we can also digest other humans. As is shown in numerous cultures where its a not uncommon practice, and in survival situtations as well.

	22-05-2004 02:06									#187
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 1. IIUC there considerable controversy about the notion of a Clovis extinction in the New World. Which gets to precisely the issue of the notion of "man the hunter" its not by any means a settled issue.

TMany species were wiped out on all mayor continents besides Africa at the end of the last ice age at the same time man spread out-this occured in Asia, Europe, Australia and so forth. So there is more than just the America's, thought the assault in the America's was even more dramatic.

quote: 2. We can digest lion. Lion isnt eaten very often. If you cant dominate your prey, being able to digest it isnt very meaningful.

Man dominates Lions- that we don;t eat them is based on going after them for food is not worth the time.

	22-05-2004 02:10									#188
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark How about eating only meat that has been raised using humane procedures?

Would you your raise a child only so that you can kill him... however well you treat him in life, or however painless his death is ? I don't think the practice of raising animals for slaughter can ever be considered truely 'humane'.

I suppose that a human equivelant (to establish what would be 'humane') would be sacrificial virgins that are raised for sacrifice in some cultures. They are treated well in life - better then most usually - but does that justify killing them?

But I suppose there's no denying that regardless of wether you want to believe it is unethical or not, it would certainly go some ways of easing people's conscious (which is no doubt why sacrificial virgins are often treated with such luxury in life) and if the animals we raised where all treated like kings, it is unlikely vegetarianism would be as big an issue.

quote: We eat animals not out of dominance, but becuase we can digest them.

And we rape not out of dominance, but because we can impregnate them.

	22-05-2004 02:12									#189
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap TMany species were wiped out on all mayor continents besides Africa at the end of the last ice age at the same time man spread out-this occured in Asia, Europe, Australia and so forth. So there is more than just the America's, thought the assault in the America's was even more dramatic. Man dominates Lions- that we don;t eat them is based on going after them for food is not worth the time.

Hunting in general is not the worth the time today. In that period when hunting gathering dominated the human diet, human dominance of lions was incomplete, I would say.

	22-05-2004 02:12									#190
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd And we rape not out of dominance, but because we can impregnate them.

No, rapists aren't looking for kids.

Care to invoke Goodwin at some point? I am sure you will at some point.

	22-05-2004 02:13									#191
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Hunting in general is not the worth the time today. In that period when hunting gathering dominated the human diet, human dominance of lions was incomplete, I would say.

A determined group of human hunters will beat a group of lions-might not be easy, but we have a huge leg up on them. Hunters would rather exterminate lions to then forster other animals.

	22-05-2004 02:16									#192
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Would you your raise a child only so that you can kill him... however well you treat him in life, or however painless his death is ? I don't think the practice of raising animals for slaughter can ever be considered truely 'humane'. I suppose that a human equivelant (to establish what would be 'humane') would be sacrificial virgins that are raised for sacrifice in some cultures. They are treated well in life - better then most usually - but does that justify killing them?

Humans can visualize a future, and therefore depriving them of that future is, arguably, doing them harm. An animal can feel pain, but cant visualize a future. Ergo its unethical to inflict unnecessary pain on them, but not to kill them.

I realize this would allow the raising of humans for meat in certain circumstances. I of course would not do that for religous reasons relating to the sacredness of life - I also base my goal of vegetarianism on that, to some extent - however I dont expect to convince the atheists here on these grounds. Im trying to establish a basis for dietary change thats NOT based on an appeal to the sacredness of life.

	22-05-2004 02:19									#193
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Raising humans for meat by humans is crossing the cannibalism tabboo, which while some societies will do they generally do by hunting in some way, since I guess humand would catch on pretty quickly to the whole being cattle fact.

Now, raising of humans to be eaten by aliens, well, as we know, To Serve Man....

	22-05-2004 02:20									#194
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap A determined group of human hunters will beat a group of lions-might not be easy, but we have a huge leg up on them. Hunters would rather exterminate lions to then forster other animals.

at some point if Dominance requires resources that you as a general rule arent willing to exert, its not dominance.

All the slaves of Rome acting together could have won their freedom - but they decided it wasnt worth it. Ergo, they were NOT dominant,

Whats the quote ?
"the master is a master because hes willing to die to preserve the privilege of being a master, while the slave remains a slave because he is NOT willing to die to stop being a slave" ?

	22-05-2004 02:22									#195
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap Raising humans for meat by humans is crossing the cannibalism tabboo, which while some societies will do they generally do by hunting in some way, since I guess humand would catch on pretty quickly to the whole being cattle fact. Now, raising of humans to be eaten by aliens, well, as we know, To Serve Man....

and your point is .....?

	22-05-2004 02:24									#196
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark All the slaves of Rome acting together could have won their freedom - but they decided it wasnt worth it. Ergo, they were NOT dominant,

Slaves tried, and failed. The lesson got through.

The dominance of man is clear-most large hunting cats in Europe, West Asia and South Asia who lived in fertile areas got killed of pretty quick-do you think lions and tigers and such animals were unique to a few isolated areas? Men got rid of them. That to me implied dominance.

	22-05-2004 02:25									#197
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark and your point is .....?

Commenting on your "men as food" quote.

	22-05-2004 02:27									#198
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap No, rapists aren't looking for kids.

Yes, they are looking for dominance through sexual (ie. reproductive) means.

Just as humans who kill an animal - despite having no need to - are looking for dominance over that animal.


I was trying to demonstrate that killing something "because you can digest it" follows the same carnal desires that rape does.

quote: Care to invoke Goodwin at some point? I am sure you will at some point

Aren't you invoking it yourself by saying that?

	22-05-2004 02:31									#199
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Yes, they are looking for dominance through sexual (ie. reproductive) means.

You can have sex without looking for reproduction, just like you can eat without wanting nutrition.

quote: Just as humans who kill an animal - despite having no need to - are looking for dominance over that animal.

Of course humans had needs to kill animals-in some environments, they are the only food sources- in others, the best food sources, and in most, very valuable food sources.

quote: I was trying to demonstrate that killing something "because you can digest it" follows the same carnal desires that rape does.

NO, the ability to digest is not a desire, but a simple biological fact-that we can digest them points to the fact we are designed biologically to consume them .

quote: Aren't you invoking it yourself by saying that?

I have yet to use the N word.

	22-05-2004 02:52									#200
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap You can have sex without looking for reproduction, just like you can eat without wanting nutrition.

Are you not now making the same equation I just did, by equating "sex without reproduction" (as the desire behind rape) and "eating without wanting nutrition" (as the preferance for flesh)?

quote: Of course humans had needs to kill animals-in some environments, they are the only food sources- in others, the best food sources, and in most, very valuable food sources.

Had? But what about have?

Of course, one could argue that perhaps humans where never ment to inhabit artic environments (for instance) in the first place.

quote: NO, the ability to digest is not a desire, but a simple biological fact-that we can digest them points to the fact we are designed biologically to consume them .

That was not what I intended to mean - the desire is in killing because you can digest. Like raping because you posses the biological functions to.

quote: I have yet to use the N word.

You did by proxy.

	22-05-2004 02:59									#201
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd Are you not now making the same equation I just did, by equating "sex without reproduction" (as the desire behind rape) and "eating without wanting nutrition" (as the preferance for flesh)?

Eating meat is nutriotious- you get complete proteins, amino acids, and fatty acids at least. Eating without nutrion would be to consume some modern processed monstrosity, muck like a twinkie, simply for the taste.

quote: Had? But what about have? Of course, one could argue that perhaps humans where never ment to inhabit artic environments (for instance) in the first place.

In many parts of the world, YES. Animal proteins are an important nutrient.

quote: That was not what I intended to mean - the desire is in killing because you can digest. Like raping because you posses the biological functions to.

What desire? our desire is to eat meat-to do so we must kill the animals-the butchering is a necessary step. Raping is pleasure in the step. Its annalogy is animal cruelty.

	22-05-2004 03:02									#202
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm a vegetarian, but I don't know what I should vote for in this poll
I eat everything except meat, fish, birds, crabs, insects etc
I'm not dead yet, so it's not that unhealthy!!

	22-05-2004 03:06									#203
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap Eating meat is nutriotious

But is not neccisary - it's a preferance, not a requirement. A desire for meat is not a desire for nutrition, but a desire for the meat itself. A desire to dominate and consume the animal.


EDIT: To clarify, that may not be neccisarily what is running through people's mind as they chew on their cow but it is inherit in the subconscious meaning of the action and choice.

	22-05-2004 03:11									#204
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

And what was your stance towards cannibalism, by the way? You never went so far to say if it was either acceptable or not.

	22-05-2004 03:25									#205
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd But is not neccisary - it's a preferance, not a requirement. A desire for meat is not a desire for nutrition, but a desire for the meat itself. A desire to dominate and consume the animal. EDIT: To clarify, that may not be neccisarily what is running through people's mind as they chew on their cow but it is inherit in the subconscious meaning of the action and choice.

Eating plants is not a requirement- but I guess then your explination is that plants are an inferior form of life cause they don't meet your chriterion, and hence, whatever....

In fact, there is no requirement to eat anything anymore. I am sure we can synthetically manufacture all the requsite nutrients at this point, or come close to it, so really, besides the few plants we might need to start the whole process, there relly is no excuse for you to eat anything that has not been fully synthetically manufactured at this point.

	22-05-2004 03:26									#206
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd And what was your stance towards cannibalism, by the way? You never went so far to say if it was either acceptable or not.

It's a health hazzard for humans overall-so only if protein is in real short demand is it a viable nutrition technique.

	22-05-2004 03:40									#207
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Not if cooked properly...

	22-05-2004 03:40									#208
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GePap Eating plants is not a requirement

I think it is.

People can live without meat... but I have never heard of anyone living without plants. And with the fervour some meat-eaters hate vegetarians, I am sure there would be some movement to do this if it was possible.

quote: In fact, there is no requirement to eat anything anymore. I am sure we can synthetically manufacture all the requsite nutrients at this point, or come close to it, so really, besides the few plants we might need to start the whole process, there relly is no excuse for you to eat anything that has not been fully synthetically manufactured at this point.

I'm extremely doubtful of this. But I would be interested in knowing more about it, and especially the process of making the 'synthetic nutrients', if it really is possible.

quote: It's a health hazzard for humans overall-so only if protein is in real short demand is it a viable nutrition technique.

Well, atleast you are fairly consistent. I don't see many meat-eaters accept cannibalism, ever. But, I hope you realize that any meat (especially when 'factory farmed') is a health hazzard for humans when compared to plants. There is always a greater risk of contracting a sickness from meat then there is from plants.

	22-05-2004 03:40									#209
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov "To each his own" is indeed the best rationale for any diet.

I also would like to add that I'm so damn fed up with having to listen to lectures about how the lions eat meat every single time I go to a dinner and someone notice I chose the vegetarian dish. I never tell anyone else what to eat so why can't people just leave me alone?

	22-05-2004 03:42									#210
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap Slaves tried, and failed. The lesson got through.

Wrong, they did not learn a lesson. No other major revolts occurred because the status of the slaves increased in general. After the revolt the Romans automatically started treating their house slaves (not the ones working for the state in the mines etc) better and better in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. In fact many slaves became the right hand and close advisors of the emperor, and many slaves were set free by their masters to rise in the administration, jurisdiction etc... It was not in their interest to revolt, see? Actually that caused a big problem as the Romans were running out of new slaves in the 3rd century AD. It's one of the factors that caused Roman decline.

quote: Anthropological evidence seems very clear that man was more than just a scavanger of meat back 100,000 years ago-but that we did hunt extensively. We not only had a hand in wipping out many large mammal species, but perhaps as well other members of the Genus Homo.

Actually our predecessors were scavengers, and even before that we descend from vegetarian animals. A parallel evolution of homo is the parahtropus; and like all of these animals, paranthropus robustus for example was a vegetarian. Our direct line of predecessors in evolution were scavengers first before they became hunters. In fact in various archaeological contexts bones of human predecessors with biting marks of predators were found together with gazelle bones etc. WE were the prey of lions and other predators at a given time.

I've seen a lot of BS here, like this

quote: 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.

We can swim, but do we need to do it to survive? There are many things we can do in certain situations, but we don't have to. I don't see your argument here...