Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

failures art wrote:
Something I keep in my mind I assure you. On my regular doctor visits, I get blood work done to see how my nutrient levels are. I've not ever had a hard time meeting all levels. All nutrients in tolerance.

I'm sure they are. Your vitamin B12 deposits were filled up when you switched diets a year ago, and they take over five years to deplete. You should be fine as long as you still have this point in mind five years from now---or whenever you and your vegan girlfriend decide to have a baby. Your baby will be born with empty B12 deposits, and will definitely need supplements to develop normally.

It's more on the order of months to a year, not five years. This is what my physician has told me. I inquired about this exact topic outside of the "vegan echo chamber." I've monitored, and he agrees I'm fine.

On the matter of babies, I'm not familiar. It is outside of my current consideration. I'd wager that most babies initially get their B12 from their mother's milk. I've read some very amazing things about the body's metabolism during breastfeeding, and so given that situation it's not unreasonable to conclude that supplements may be in order, although I intuit that the mother would need them, and the baby would get them from the mother. Just guessing though. I've not read up on breast feeding.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@wayne,

Essentially you are saying that economic concerns trump all. I am unimpressed historically with moral stances built on economic concerns. Certainly, prohibiting child labor, modifying a workplace to make it safer, or providing a minimum wage are economically challenging, but we take ethical stances that say the right thing to do is provide them and accept the cost.

"We can't do it" is not an argument I really give much credence. "We don't want to" is probably closer to the truth. So be it, but can we move past the false premise?

A
R
T

3 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Essentially you are saying that economic concerns trump all. I am unimpressed historically with moral stances built on economic concerns.

What about phony as a three dollar bill moral stances built on economic concerns, Art?

0 Replies

@failures art,

I don't think I said anything of the sort.
I said the cruelty involved in factory farming is related to economic concerns.
And you know that's what I said.

I would be willing to bet you've been complaining about the current economic state as much as the next guy. Just what do you think would happen if we all quit eating meat tomorrow?

I'd also be willing to bet that you consume/use far more of those animal by products than you are willing to admit, or even know about.
I agree, drop the false premise.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

I don't think I said anything of the sort.

I summarized your post as economic concerns taking the greatest priority.

wayne wrote:

I said the cruelty involved in factory farming is related to economic concerns.
And you know that's what I said.

You are saying here that the cruelty is a product of economic concerns. What is the difference? Are you saying that cruelty is a means to save money? If so, then what prevents you from other acts of cruelty that could have economic benefits?

wayne wrote:

I would be willing to bet you've been complaining about the current economic state as much as the next guy.

Had you asked me at a different point in my life, yes I would have been. I feel the perspective I've gained in the last few years has made me much more reserved about what I'm willing to complain about. Especially, given the fact that I live in the USA and enjoy a very high standard of life directly because of that alone.

wayne wrote:

Just what do you think would happen if we all quit eating meat tomorrow?

Markets would shift. What is your argument?

What would happen if everyone quit smoking tomorrow? That would have an economic impact too.

All of that said, I've not advocated to outlaw anything or remove self-agency. I think people should know about the impacts of their decisions, not be insulated from them. That information, they are free to do anything or nothing with.

wayne wrote:

I'd also be willing to bet that you consume/use far more of those animal by products than you are willing to admit, or even know about.

I't s nice touch throwing in the "or even know about" at the end just as a catch all to hedge your bets. I've not purchased any animal products in terms of clothes since making my choice. I still own products from prior to, but using them until they expire is better than buying brand new vegan items now given my concerns for the environment. The issue of second hand is a topic I've heard debated in some circles. I'm not sure where I stand on it yet.

wayne wrote:

I agree, drop the false premise.

You haven't. You're being defensive.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I don't have to point out your nonsense any longer. I think it is readily apparent to most. The fact that you dispute the wiki entry as proving a general scientific consensus just goes to show your basic lack of logical comprehension. Time to just ignore your silly dribble.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

"We can't do it" is not an argument I really give much credence. "We don't want to" is probably closer to the truth. So be it, but can we move past the false premise?

Some of us have. I eat meat because I like meat and because it's natural and totally moral for one animal to eat another.

And if I were to be caught by a predator, I would expect him to eat me. Or scavenged by a scavenger if I was dead, and I understand why viruses and bacteria and fungus try to eat me: because life, all life, is consumption of other forms of life.

It's all the same. The best you can do is make sure that your meat and veggies have a happy life before the end.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@bigstew,

Once again, the word you want is drivel, not dribble--you do your own credibility no favors with such basic, stupid errors. I didn't dispute the Wikipedia article, i simply pointed out that it is a single response that doesn't establish your multiple premises. Furthermore, it points out something you seem unwilling to address, which is that there are animals (members of the order insecta) who are similarly unable to feel pain--so it calls your thesis of animal superiority into question, too. I can understand why you don't wish to comment on that.

As for logical comprehension, that's hilarious. If you were endowed with logical comprehension, you would have realized long ago that my remarks did not refer to any of the idiocy you've been pusing in this thread, and you'd be willing to admit that you've been attempting to force me to argue what i hadn't been addressing in the first place.

Of course, if this means that i won't be the object of your brainless fulminating, that's a good thing.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Natural if you consider it natural that a deer could cook you and eat you. Your ability to handle animal protein is largely due to our ability to cook it. Our digestive track is too long for eating meat in the "natural" state. You can handle some meat in a raw form, but you'll face digestive issues as more aggressive bacteria breeds along the way. Certainly we agree all life requires eating other life to live, but assuming that a carte blanche view of all life (like a menu) is natural is not supported when you look at our biology.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

you try to utilize an evolutionary argument but dont realize that this also works for the NON RUMINANT design for most hominids . Notice how mountain gorillas, long adapted to principally grasses and plant material, have these hugely distended abdomens enablking more efficient processing of their foodstuffs.Baboons and Chimps, on the other hand and several other species of apes, have continued supplementary meat eating and have trimmer physiques enabling them to travel greater distances during their days

You still havent provided any evidence we may read that states that Vit B complexes are totally the result of bacterial action in animal carcasses.(That is what you inferred)

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Once again, the word you want is drivel, not dribble--you do your own credibility no favors with such basic, stupid errors.

Speaking of the height of stupidity; Setanta assuming he knows what the writer wants. I've read many of your postings, too many actually but someone has to keep track of your dribble.

Let me assure you, there has been a great deal of dribble, and, of course, drivel, in many of your postings.

This post stands as one fine example.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Actually, I can't really disagree with you much. You've done a good job at what I recommended to stew, which is drop the morality idea and work from a perspective of decency and practicality.
I am in total agreement that our harvest of animal products should be done as humanely as possible. Human beings are not going to stop eating meat anytime soon. It is far more productive to discuss human decency than it is to cry morality.
Human beings treat the planet poorly, across the board. There are many areas of my life that I have worked to improve, just as you are doing with your consumption of animal products. Each of us attaches importance to a different area of our lives, as it should be.
My whole argument has been about waving the moral flag, is no different than proselytising, and is counter productive.
I haven't seen you do that, and that's commendable.

I can't resist though, what's an old guy eat if he can't have jello Smile

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

Natural if you consider it natural that a deer could cook you and eat you. Your ability to handle animal protein is largely due to our ability to cook it. Our digestive track is too long for eating meat in the "natural" state.

But that's also a natural behavior as well. Animals 'prepare' their food all the time using different methods - cracking food open using tools is no different than using fire to prepare meat.

Nothing that humans do - nothing - is 'unnatural.' All of our abilities and decisions are expressions of who we are as animals. If other animals knew how to use fire to cook food, they'd do it too. I think what you are pointing out here is a false distinction.

Quote:

You can handle some meat in a raw form, but you'll face digestive issues as more aggressive bacteria breeds along the way. Certainly we agree all life requires eating other life to live, but assuming that a carte blanche view of all life (like a menu) is natural is not supported when you look at our biology.

A
R
T

Only if you somehow attempt to divorce animal behaviors from the animals who engage in them.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

This should stop here and now. You're going to have Art rejecting vegetarianism and going back to being an omnivore.

0 Replies

@bigstew,

bigstew wrote:

It is obvious you are here just to rant and whine, rather than offer anything substantive.

I have tried to discuss food ethics with farmerman many times and came to the same conclusion each time. I have no idea why he participates in the arguments only to emote about how they bother him and ramble disjointedly.

1 Reply

@bigstew,

bigstew wrote:

If animals are mis treated, I think it is because they make a moral claim on us. Their suffering requires us to recognize that animals have direct moral standing.

What is it about their capacity to suffer that is morally significant?

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But that's also a natural behavior as well. Animals 'prepare' their food all the time using different methods - cracking food open using tools is no different than using fire to prepare meat.

If you're going to discuss behavior factors in animals, then choose an example that demonstrates an animal augmenting its digestive ability. The only example that comes to mind is that rabbits eat, then ****, then eat their ****. They get their nutrients the second time around. If rabbits where to be able to manage tools that allowed for them to digest their food on the first pass, that would be a decent example. It would however be a demonstration of augmentation and would be a hard sell in terms of natural behavior.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nothing that humans do - nothing - is 'unnatural.' All of our abilities and decisions are expressions of who we are as animals. If other animals knew how to use fire to cook food, they'd do it too. I think what you are pointing out here is a false distinction.

If nothing can be unnatural, then the word natural loses all meaning. Why say that eating meat is natural? The term is meaningless. Eating cardboard is then natural.

If other animals knew how to use fire they would. This is essentially what I said RE: a deer eating you or I. I think you downplay the role tech augmentation plays in our ability to digest meat. I'm not really on board to call that natural. That said, I don't think that something by virtue of being unnatural excludes us from use. Certainly the internet augments our communication abilities far beyond our ability to speak and hear. That said, it would be absurd to say that we are designed for the internet.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Only if you somehow attempt to divorce animal behaviors from the animals who engage in them.

Can you reiterate? I couldn't quite follow how this fit in regards to what I wrote. Thanks.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

If nothing can be unnatural, then the word natural loses all meaning. Why say that eating meat is natural? The term is meaningless.

In most arguments I have seen it used it usually is meaningless. Firstly the distinction is vague but beyond that it usually implies, but does nothing to substantiate, the underlying notion that natural is good.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

you try to utilize an evolutionary argument but dont realize that this also works for the NON RUMINANT design for most hominids . Notice how mountain gorillas, long adapted to principally grasses and plant material, have these hugely distended abdomens enablking more efficient processing of their foodstuffs.Baboons and Chimps, on the other hand and several other species of apes, have continued supplementary meat eating and have trimmer physiques enabling them to travel greater distances during their days

There is not a question in here, but I think you're trying to get at gorillas stomach. Simply put, the length of the human digestive track is adequate right now to handle plant material in raw form. Recalling the last time you brought this up, you asked if we wanted large distended bellies. Such an adaptation is unnecessary. One the other had, the longer humans continue to eat meat, there is a possibility that we'd have to shorten our digestive track.

farmerman wrote:

You still havent provided any evidence we may read that states that Vit B complexes are totally the result of bacterial action in animal carcasses.(That is what you inferred)

Not just animal carcasses, fm. I noted fresh produce as well. I can't help but feel like you're calling me a liar.

wikipedia wrote:

Vitamin B12 consists of a class of chemically-related compounds (vitamers), all of which have vitamin activity. It contains the biochemically rare element cobalt. Biosynthesis of the basic structure of the vitamin in nature is only accomplished by simple organisms such as some bacteria and algae, but conversion between different forms of the vitamin can be accomplished in the human body.

Wiki: Vitamin B12

Did you really think that the meat itself provided B12?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

you asked if we wanted large distended bellies.

From what I've seen, that's already the case.

1 Reply

Animals, Eating Meat and Moral Standing

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know