11
   

Eating meat; did it give us higher intelligence?

 
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 08:30 pm
@Builder,
Quote:
To say that beasts are killed humanely, is to be completely unaware of the reality of abbattoirs and slaughter rooms. Even breeding processes aren't humane. They don't call it a crush, because it's friendly and humane. It holds the beast so unsavoury tasks like castration, dehorning (have you watched this happen?) and drenching can occur in a business-like fashion.

I've watched such things. It certainly is best described as a callous disregard for life.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 08:39 pm
@Glennn,
I worked briefly in maintenance on the meatworks at Katherine, in the Northern Territory of Australia.

They process beef, camels, donkeys, and buffalo.

It wasn't unusual for several camels to start screaming in terror, seeing their mates being dropped with the bolt guns.

They're tall enough to jump out of the chute, and make a run for it.

The slaughtermen would chase them around the paddock with sledge hammers, to subdue them.

I didn't last long in that job.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 08:44 pm
@Builder,
Yeah, that's the kind of thing that most everyone doesn't see or have to think about.

I worked on a farm, and I saw the artificial breeding, the dehorning, the castrating, the beatings, and other things I don't care to speak of.

The harvest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3OfjD6io_M
Builder
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 08:52 pm
@Glennn,
It's part of the cognitive disonnance, of the assumptive "apex" predator, to state that the food they eat is killed humanely.

I'd posit that 95% of today's western human "apex" predators wouldn't last a week in the wilds, even with weapons, and ammo.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 09:06 pm
@Builder,
Yeah, whatever eating meat did for our intelligence in the past, the video in my last post does not reflect any thing like higher intelligence or decency in the present.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 09:24 pm
@Glennn,

Quote:
This video contains content from eOne UGC, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.


I can imagine, though. I've been put right off dairy, after seeing first-hand how traumatic it is for cows, having their calves continually taken from them.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 09:58 pm
This video has been seen my many people, but what's not shown, is that the man who got picked up by the camel, tried to cut the camel's throat, before being tossed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pnqqJB2n98
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 10:49 pm
@Glennn,
Thanks for responding.
Quote:
I have met many a vegan who considers their diet a badge of their superiority, but I'm not trying to make a case that this is the primary reason why people choose to not eat meat, and certainly not specifically in your case.

Quote:
This appears to be your way of saying that you don't consider my meatless diet to be based on a desire to appear superior. If that was your intended meaning, then I will validate it for you by telling you that you are correct. However, I made that clear in the last paragraph of my post. You must have missed it, or you read something into it that wasn't there.


I'm glad it appeared so, because that's precisely what I intended. I didn't read anything into your last paragraph other than what you wrote. I was trying to assure you that my questions weren't intended to somehow prove you were insincere.
Quote:
Why is it more OK to eat an insect or a mollusk than a pig or a cow?

Quote:
I don't know. You'll have to ask someone who eats insects and mollusks.


Fair enough but do you think, as Builder seems to, that there is a material distinction between eating invertebrates and eating vertebrates. If you have no opinion that's fine by me.

Quote:
Why is it more OK to kill and eat a plant than to kill and eat a chicken?

Quote:
You must have also missed this: If I plant a seed and a green pepper appears, I eat it and I am sustained. If I don't eat it, then I go hungry. Also, if I don't eat it, it will end up rotting on the ground and be absorbed by the earth in short time. This is good. If I eat it and then return the unused portion of the vegetables to the earth, that is good. Either way is correct function. The vegetable or apple will die regardless of whether or not I eat it. What do you think would be a more appropriate way for vegetables to die?


No, I didn't miss that at all. It explains why you will eat a plant. It doesn't explain why you won't eat a chicken. The pepper you eat could be eaten by another animal. If you don't eat it, it won't necessarily end up rotting and dying. Likewise, if you chose not to kill and eat a chicken, it may still be eaten by someone or something else. Obviously it won't be by you, but as with the vegetable or apple, regardless of whether you eat the chicken it will die. I don't know that there is an appropriate way for a plant to die. Whether it is consumed or rots, it's life force will go towards sustaining other life either directly through consumption or by creating soil nutrients that will enable other plants to grow. The same, of course, can be said for the chicken. It's life force, one way or the other, will be used in some fashion to sustain life.


Quote:
Why do you believe humans eating meat represents a callous disregard for life?

Quote:
Why do you believe that I believe that? My mention of a callous disregard for life was in reference to those who believe that killing a green pepper is a callous disregard for life, and therefore no different from killing a pig. Reread my post.


I have and apparently I remain confused by what you mean.

You wrote

Quote:
If I don't eat the flesh of other beings, but I walk on the grass, I could be accused of killing that lifeform because I perceive it to be of less value than a furry animal, and that I also probably killed a number of insects in the process. But I must walk on the grass; I also give it a cutting every so often. However, you have to differentiate between correct function and callous disregard for life. A virus loosed in your bloodstream is attacked and killed by your white blood cells. Again, you have to differentiate between correct function and callous disregard for life.


Your referenced walking on grass (with it's potential for killing one or more life forms) in juxtaposition with eating the flesh of other beings and then stated the importance of differentiating between correct function (walking on grass) and callous disregard for life You may not have meant to imply that the eating of flesh is a callous disregard for life, but I don't think's it unreasonable to have read what you wrote that way. You then went on to explain that you used the term in reference to those who believe that killing a green pepper is a callous disregard for life, and therefore no different from killing a pig.Again there is a juxtaposition that implies killing a pig is a callous disregard for life. If you didn't mean to imply what I inferred and/or you don't think killing and eating a pig is a callous disregard for life than we should move on, however you asked why I believed that you did, and I've explained. I've no desire to belabor a point you didn't intend to make.

Quote:
So, let's assume that we are referring to livestock raised and dispatched in this manner. Does this still represent a callous disregard for life?

Quote:
Not if the destiny of the livestock you are referring to is to be raised and slaughtered for your meal.


Fair enough. Thanks.

Quote:
So, do you believe that the destiny of livestock is to be mass-raised and slaughtered for your meal? There are people who don't believe that? Do you believe that their reasoning is unfair to others?


Clearly it is the destiny of certain livestock to be mass-raised and slaughtered for meals because it happens all of the time, and now it's my turn to urge you to reread what I wrote because I already expressed that I object to the manner in which the majority of commercial livestock intended for human tables is raised and slaughtered. I don't believe my view is unfair to anyone and so how could I think that of people who agree with me?

Quote:
Also, let's stipulate that the entirety of the animal is used for food: Snout to tail. So all the meat, all the offal, the blood; everything that is edible. Would this still represent a callous disregard for life?

Quote:
If killing is necessary to the survival of the human, then there's no arguing that.


Thank you

Quote:
Finally what about animals . . . ?

Quote:
Animals are involved in their own life structures. They all eat what they eat. If a tiger doesn't kill, it doesn't eat. I'm not blind to nature.


I didn't suggest you were.

So there are a series of scenarios in which you would not argue that killing and eating an animal is a callous disregard for life or if your prefer "improper" (if there is terms with less of an implied value judgment that you would prefer me to use, please tell me). Some people eat meat. I fully accept you don't feel superior to them for not eating meat, but earlier in the thread, you indicated that you did not eat meat for both physiological and philosophical reasons. So there is a philosophical reason why you do not do what they do. I am just trying to better understand that reason.


Quote:
Once I was hammered away at by someone who interpreted my admission that I don't eat meat as a slam on him/her, and society in general. I simply reassured them that I don't eat meat because I'm not willing to kill an animal unless I have to, but that I don't mean nothin' by it. That rarely satisfies those who are offended by my abstinence.


I hope you don't think I am hammering you. I really don't care if someone doesn't eat meat as long as they don't try to stop me from eating it. I don't feel threatened by their diet and if they happen to be someone who does feel superior to me because my diet includes meat, it isn't going to occupy a lot of my thoughts.

If you think I am being too persistent, just say so or don't respond further, but you are not willing to kill an animal unless you have to for some reason, and I'm interested in that reason for no other purpose than intellectual curiosity.

I will not eat the meat of mammal predators. I have no well thought out philosophical reason for this practice, just an affinity for mammal predators that makes me feel as if eating one is very wrong. This is not to suggest that your reason for not eating any meat is of the same nature as my reason for not eating the meat of mammal predators, but just an example of a reason that happens to be my own.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 10:51 pm
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

To say that beasts are killed humanely, is to be completely unaware of the reality of abbattoirs and slaughter rooms. Even breeding processes aren't humane. They don't call it a crush, because it's friendly and humane. It holds the beast so unsavoury tasks like castration, dehorning (have you watched this happen?) and drenching can occur in a business-like fashion.


Has someone argued that all livestock used to feed humans are killed humanely?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Jul, 2017 10:56 pm
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

It's part of the cognitive disonnance, of the assumptive "apex" predator, to state that the food they eat is killed humanely.

I'd posit that 95% of today's western human "apex" predators wouldn't last a week in the wilds, even with weapons, and ammo.


Again, who in this thread has argued that all the food we eat is killed humanely?

What you and Glenn have described is horrific and indeed a callous disregard for life, but it is not necessary to the practice of eating meat and so is not inextricably linked to the question of the propriety of eating meat.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2017 12:20 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

Has someone argued that all livestock used to feed humans are killed humanely?


You did. Last page.

Quote:
How about animals that are hunted, killed and eaten? Here again, let's assume that the animals are killed quickly and cleanly with a single shot. No use of traps that could result in long periods of suffering and a requirement that the hunter be skilled and experienced enough to dispatch the animal with a single shot, not a bunch of drunken fools or inexperienced kids who would be likely to simply wound an animal and allow it to suffer for a long period of time before dying. Also, let's stipulate that the entirety of the animal is used for food: Snout to tail. So all the meat, all the offal, the blood; everything that is edible. Would this still represent a callous disregard for life?
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2017 12:31 am
@Builder,
I can't come anywhere close to your interpretation of what you've quoted
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2017 12:54 am
@roger,
You mean, people are supposed to respond to questions, with actual answers here, Roger? I don't see much of that happening.

In fact, when it comes to the crunch, longterm regular members here simply put you on ignore, and walk away, when they're put on the spot.

Still waiting for Setanta to fill us all in on those mystical meat ingredients that can't be found in vegetables.

Ya know? He makes the claim, off the bat, and doesn't respond when questioned about it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2017 10:21 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Quote:

Has someone argued that all livestock used to feed humans are killed humanely?


You did. Last page.

Quote:
How about animals that are hunted, killed and eaten? Here again, let's assume that the animals are killed quickly and cleanly with a single shot. No use of traps that could result in long periods of suffering and a requirement that the hunter be skilled and experienced enough to dispatch the animal with a single shot, not a bunch of drunken fools or inexperienced kids who would be likely to simply wound an animal and allow it to suffer for a long period of time before dying. Also, let's stipulate that the entirety of the animal is used for food: Snout to tail. So all the meat, all the offal, the blood; everything that is edible. Would this still represent a callous disregard for life?



First of all, the comment you've quoted refers to animals that are hunted and killed for meat, not livestock, secondly, this was a hypothetical created for the purpose of my question of Glenn and finally, a single killing shot to an unexpecting animal is about as humane a way of putting one down as there is.

You're simply wrong in your assertion. No one, and least of all me, has argued that all livestock used to feed humans are killed in a humane fashion.

If you're against hunting that's fine. I don't hunt but I don't consider a clean, one shot kill to be inhumane. It's certainly nothing like the methods you and Glenn have described concerning livestock.
0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2017 10:59 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
No, I didn't miss that at all. It explains why you will eat a plant. It doesn't explain why you won't eat a chicken. The pepper you eat could be eaten by another animal. If you don't eat it, it won't necessarily end up rotting and dying. Likewise, if you chose not to kill and eat a chicken, it may still be eaten by someone or something else. Obviously it won't be by you, but as with the vegetable or apple, regardless of whether you eat the chicken it will die. I don't know that there is an appropriate way for a plant to die. Whether it is consumed or rots, it's life force will go towards sustaining other life either directly through consumption or by creating soil nutrients that will enable other plants to grow. The same, of course, can be said for the chicken. It's life force, one way or the other, will be used in some fashion to sustain life.

I eat the fruits and the vegetables because they sustain me. At the end of the growing season, I have a choice between letting them rot and to be consumed by the earth, or consuming them for my own wellbeing, and then returning the leftovers to the earth. Since it is a given that I must eat, I view my consumption of the fruits and vegetables as a proper relationship.

Yes, the chicken will be absorbed in one way or another, but I don't view its destiny as part of my life. I don't require it in that way.
Quote:
Your referenced walking on grass (with it's potential for killing one or more life forms) in juxtaposition with eating the flesh of other beings and then stated the importance of differentiating between correct function (walking on grass) and callous disregard for life You may not have meant to imply that the eating of flesh is a callous disregard for life, but I don't think's it unreasonable to have read what you wrote that way.


I will rewrite the segment of that post which is in question.

Upon learning that I don't eat the flesh of other beings, others have accused me of walking on and killing the grass and the small insects residing there. And they had suggested that such an action on my part proves that I have just as much a callous disregard for life as someone who pays another to kill, skin, and pack the body of a pig for them.

That's why I brought up correct function. Since we must walk on the grass, we have to differentiate between correct function and callous disregard for life. Sometimes, if not always, we all are expressing the nature of our relationship with the earth and her inhabitants. I'm simply expressing my relationship with that which is.
Quote:
Clearly it is the destiny of certain livestock to be mass-raised and slaughtered for meals because it happens all of the time

I do not view the frequency with which an action occurs as justification for the action.
Quote:
earlier in the thread, you indicated that you did not eat meat for both physiological and philosophical reasons. So there is a philosophical reason why you do not do what they do. I am just trying to better understand that reason.

There is not really all that much to understand. I don't require the flesh of others to sustain myself. Therefore, I don't hold the view that it is the destiny of others on the planet to be mass produced for my consumption.
Quote:
but you are not willing to kill an animal unless you have to for some reason, and I'm interested in that reason for no other purpose than intellectual curiosity.

I would kill an animal in self defense. Also, if I were in a situation in which I would starve to death if I didn't kill something to eat, I might just do that. But until such a situation arises, I am only speculating here.
Quote:
I will not eat the meat of mammal predators. I have no well thought out philosophical reason for this practice, just an affinity for mammal predators that makes me feel as if eating one is very wrong.

I know people who feel that way. I also know people who have been to places where the dinner consisted of lion, alligator, bear, and other predators. Perhaps the motivation for feasting on predator flesh has to do with some subconscious drive to prove dominance. And perhaps the motivation for not eating predator flesh has to do with an over identification with a being that takes what it wants in the way that it wants. Or perhaps not.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2017 11:08 am
this is why these types of discussions go nowhere.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2017 02:44 pm
@farmerman,
everyone knows that really smart people eat meat with a runcible spoon and no other utensil.

quite clever these carnivores
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Jul, 2017 04:42 pm
@farmerman,
I had to look it up and it was worth it..
Builder
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Jul, 2017 12:21 am
@ossobucotemp,
Marketed as a "splade" here in the late seventies.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/22/2019 at 07:42:08