|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 8:12:03 AM |
My post was only borderline Godwin's law; I didn't compare anyone to Hitler ( which is the main thrust of the Law) I pointed out a fact ( he was a vegetarian) and suggested that anti smokers could be called out ( jokingly) for trying to make others more like Hitler.
There is no such thing as a "borderline" analogy, sorry.
In any event, the fact he was a vegetarian would seem to me to prove that being a vegetarian doesn't mean you are more moral or ethical.
Hitler's vegetarianism, is not proven by any means. Biographers who wrote about Hitler (and who knew him quite well on a personal basis) openly describe his love for Bavarian sausages and game pie ("game" meaning wild meat from birds and other creatures). Hitler's own chef openly talked about Hitler's love for stuffed pigeon. In none of Hitler's speeches or writing did Hitler state he was a vegetarian or speak in favour of vegetarianism. Additionally, he makes no mention of vegetarianism in "Mein Kampf," which I have read. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 8:12:20 AM | Post 249 by Cheshire
Not absurd at all. Clearly there is a difference between the inanimate objects you've mentioned here and animals which have central nervous systems, feel pain and fear, and suffer confinement in many cases.
I was not comparing inanimate objects to animals. I was disputing the assumption that artificial or unnatural equals bad, and that things that exists for convenience are somehow less legitimate than those that exist for 'necessity'. Factory farms were being condemned because they were unnatural and because they exist for convenience. While there are many valid criticisms of factory farms, these two particular criticisms are absurd when viewed in terms of how our species functions, or in relation to other systems or inventions that can also be similarly categorized as being unnatural or only exist for convenience.
If you want to discuss how factory farms treat animals, whether factory farmed animals are more or less healthy to consume, or whether factory farms are damaging the environment.....feel free. However, dismissing them as amoral or bad because they are 'unnatural' or 'only exist for convenience' is hypocritical. I don't think that Wayward actually believes that unnatural = necessarily bad, but oftentimes people (including myself) make statements that have certain implications that we don't fully intend. I simply don't feel that it is helpful to bring up the 'naturalness' of how we produce our food, since it doesn't seem to matter anywhere else.
RE: Post 247 by Wayward Willow
Sorry Susan, but humans are far more adapted to a vegetarian diet.
I wholeheartedly agree. However the information that you posted is far too simplistic and doesn't recognize that there is a spectrum of eating behaviors. Not only that, but even in terms of the 'big three' categories of carnivore, herbivore, and omnivore....it completely ignored the third.
Also, not only is there a range of eating behaviors, but there are also ranges for many of the comparisons that you listed. There are also MANY exceptions to your rules in not only omnivores, but for animals that are 'herbivores' or 'carnivores'. None of your points are as cut and dry as they are presented to be. Herbivorous birds have talons (claws). NO birds have sweat glands, and herbivorous ones 'perspire' through their air sacs just like their carnivorous cousins.
Then there is the nonsense about saliva. Of course we are going to have well developed salivary glands and ptylin AND anything else that would be required or helpful in digesting grains. Carnivores don't eat grains, we eat grains. That we have apparatus or adaptations for eating grains, nuts, fruits, etc has no bearing on whether we eat meat as well.
And of course, everyone's favorite....dentition. The 'rules' of herbivores have grinding teeth and carnivores have piercing or cutting teeth are meant as a general guide. The words that everyone always seems to ignore when talking about herbivore vs carnivore, are 'usually' and 'mostly'. 'Usually' carnivores have 'mostly' piercing and cutting teeth. 'Usually' herbivores have 'mostly' grinding teeth. If we are basing our categorization on simplistic examples of dentition: Most herbivores have hypsodont teeth. Humans don't have hypsidont teeth. Carnivores don't have hypsodont teeth. We must be carnivores.
So, you may be asking why I said that I agree. I agree because we are, in fact, 'more' adapted to a vegetarian diet. However, we are still somewhat suited to eating meat. Which, as already pointed out by Frogo (among many others), makes us and organisms similar to us 'omnivores'. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 8:14:24 AM |
You left out omnivores, which are quite variable. You ignored non-human primates, which are most definitely omnivorous, including predation on other primates. Your comparative list turns out to be fairly meaningless because most, if not all, of the "herbivore" characteristics are present in omnivorous primates other than humans. Additionally, the carnivore traits are widespread in species which ALSO happen to eat...vegetation. Surprise, surprise. Nice try at flogging the agenda though.
Ok, so lets compare omnivore to omnivore.
Humans according to you are omnivores, even though we generally do not eat raw meat, which is the trait of an omnivore. So lets say that as an omnivore we eat a diet of roughly 50% meat.
Compare humans then to the bear who eats a diet of only 20 – 30% meat. This should be a fair comparison of omnivore to omnivore.
In general, bears exhibit anatomical features consistent with a carnivorous diet. The small intestine is short ( less than five times body length) like that of the pure carnivores, and the colon is simple, smooth and short.
human beings on the other hand have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a "committed" herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
OMNIVORE: Reduced
HUMAN: Well-developed
Jaw Type
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HUMAN: Expanded angle
Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars
Jaw Motion
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Major Jaw Muscles
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Large
HERBIVORE: Small
OMNIVORE: Large
HUMAN: Small
Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HUMAN: Short and blunted
Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps
Chewing
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary
Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Stomach Type
CARNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
OMNIVORE: Simple
HUMAN: Simple
Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length
Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HUMAN: Long, sacculated
Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine
Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HUMAN: Flattened nails | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 4:54:26 PM | Oh dear Willow, you have done it again. I was so looking forwards to getting through a vegan thread without having to correct comon vegitarian lies. especially after I did this on the last thread, but I guess you just ignored the zoologist with facts behind him.
Ok, so lets compare omnivore to omnivore.
Yes, lets do.
Humans according to you are omnivores, even though we generally do not eat raw meat, which is the trait of an omnivore.
Oh, so dose that make house cats vegitarian then, because few housecats ever eat raw meet?
No in fact it dose not. Your first lie. Omnivores gain nutrition from both meet and vegitation, cooked or raw dose not mater, nor dose the quantities.
So lets say that as an omnivore we eat a diet of roughly 50% meat.
Lets not, because there are strictly meet eaters and strictly vegtable eaters world wide who do not fall into your neat 50/50 off the top off the head, out of your hat number.
The average, when presented with a variety of foods and alowed to pick from any food group, shows that humans eat aproximately 33% meet in thier diet, by preferance. This number dose not mater though, as an ominover can eat 995% meat or 5% meat and still be an omnivore, so long as it still gets its nutrion from both meat and vegetables.
Compare humans then to the bear who eats a diet of only 20 – 30% meat. This should be a fair comparison of omnivore to omnivore.
So in your world, comparing 50%meat eating to 30%meat eating is fair is it? I would love to play games of chance against you if you think that a difrence of twenty percent dosent matter!
Thats besides the point though, as your made up number is no where near the mark. Firstly, you need to state what type of bear you are talking about. Comparing bears with humans is wrong, you shopuld in fact be compairing bears with apes, or a specific species of bear with human.
For example, the giant panda, eats a diet of aproximatelly 5% meat, where as the polar bear eats a diet of approximatelly 100% meat. So where do you get your 20 to 30% from, other than where the sun don't shine?
In general, bears exhibit anatomical features consistent with a carnivorous diet. The small intestine is short ( less than five times body length) like that of the pure carnivores, and the colon is simple, smooth and short.
This is because most bears have a mainly carnivorus diet,, suplimenting thier food with vegitables. Only the giant panda dose not share this eating habit, but it still has the same gastrointestinal features of other bears because it has not yet been genetically distinct from other bear populations to addapt to its biologicaly recent diet.
human beings on the other hand have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a "committed" herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons.
What biology books have you been reading? Have you ever looked at ahuman colon next to a bear colon? You would be hard pressed to find a diffrence, humans and bears have remarkably similar intestinal tracts, as do most species of roughly our size.
Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet.
NO, we must conclude ythat you are talking out of your colon and have no idea about human or animal physiology. If you did, you would know that your entire speil was absolute rot and not even close to actuallity.
Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
OMNIVORE: Reduced
HUMAN: Well-developed
Wrong. Humans have small facial muscles, compare the human jaw muscles wich only extend half way up the skull, to our closest vegan ancestor, the gorila, who has a one inch ridge on the top of his skull to acomodate the extra jaw muscle required to eat plants. Humans have a bite strength like that of a medium sized dog, not even as strong as our smaller cousin, the chimp.
Jaw Type
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HUMAN: Expanded angle
Jaw type is related to the variety of food you are eating, not the specific type. Chimps have far more angular jaws that are wider for thier faces, than we do and they eat far more meat.
Jaw Joint Location
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars
Again, compare us to our closest ancestor, the chimp, and you will se that the angle of the jawline is dependent an the shape of the head, not the diet. O are you going to tell me now that cats are vegitarian because they have angled jawlines?
Jaw Motion
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
Firstly, ominovers have good lateral motion in thier jaws, and bears can move thier jaws up to an inch off centre, thats better than cows can manage.
Secondly, some herbivores have ecelent sheer in thier front teeth. If you knew anything about animals then you would know that plants are tougher than meat and so herbivores need strong sheering incisors. Meat eaters remove flesh with thier premolars, not thier front teeth.
Thirdly, humans have relativly strong sheering teeth, our incisors are probably the best working teeth in our heads, the rest do multiple jobs and so are not particularly specialised.
Major Jaw Muscles
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids
Are you seriously claiming that the muscle that pulls the jaw up, the largest muscle in the head, is not the one we use for eating with?
quote]
Mouth Opening vs. Head Size
CARNIVORE: Large
HERBIVORE: Small
OMNIVORE: Large
HUMAN: Small
Herbiove small? Seriously, have you seen the range of motion in a hippos jaw? It can open its jaws 120 degrees or more! And where dose the rat fit on your little ominore scale? Rats have a range of motion of only 60 degrees, but they still eat veg.
quote]Teeth: Incisors
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
You will find that most carnivores do not have incisors. However we shall only focus on mamals here so as to avoide confusing you.
most omivores however, have broad flay incisors just like we humans do. The incisors serve little function in carniovres and so are the first teeth to show signs of evolutionary change when diets are altered.
quote]Teeth: Canines
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HUMAN: Short and blunted
Gorilas. Long sharp and curved.
And I won't even start on the canine teeth of the hippo.
But what about a close relative of the hippo, who also happens to be an omniove, the pig? Well pigs teeth are so similar to humans that they are often mistaken for human when dug up on archaeological sites.
quote]Teeth: Molars
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps
Should I point out the pigs teeth again? Nah, I think I shall point to the teeth of the black bear which look almost identical in shape (but not size) to humans, yet black bears eat a lot of meat!
quote]Chewing
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary
Actually chewwing has nothing to do with the food type, but with the amount of fibrus material in the food. Carnivores that feast on hard foods like bone and cartilage, do a lot of chewing, herbiovrs that eat fruit do vertually none. All of the statements you just made are wrong. If you do not belive me, go to a fast food place and watch someone eat, if they chew thier food for an average of an hour per pound of food, then you are correct, of course if they gulp down thier entire meal in just ten minutes, then your asumption is clearly wrong.
quote]Saliva
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
Now where did you get this complete pile of shit from? Carniovres have no digestive enzymes in thier saliva!? You really have never studied even simple biology have you?
EVERY LIVING THING THAT HAS SALIVA HAS DIGESTIVE ENZYMES IN IT!
Most omniovers (including bears) have salivary amylase but most carniovers do not
Stomach Acidity
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
Again, this is complete bolox. carniovres, herbivores and omniovores have mixed acidity depending on what exactly they eat.
Also human stomache acidity is around pH 1.5!
Stomach Capacity
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract
Yet another piece of absolute drivel. Stomach size is related to eating habits, not diet. The panther has a very small stomach but eats continously, where as the hippo has a very large stomach in proportion to its size, because it tends to only graze at dusk.
Length of Small Intestine
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length
The human intestines are a measured minimum of 5.2 meters and maximum of 10.7 meters in length. Putting them firmly in line with those of a large dog like a great dane, at just 4 to 6 times our body length.
To fit 10 to 11 times our body length (aproximately 20 meters worth) we would require a waistband of around 60 inches, at the smallest. I have yet to see a vegan with a waisband that big.
Colon
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HUMAN: Long, sacculated
This is starting to get boring. Has anyone else noticed how every one of the omniovre and carnivore answers are the same? Its as if the originator of these points had never even looked at an omnivore before! If they had, they would know that omniovers share some traits with herbivores and not others, but the traits they do share, vary from species to species. So some omniovers do in fact have a saculated colon, whilst others do not.
Liver
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
What on earth are you on about here? Vitimin A is toxic to all animals, and the liver has nothing to do with this. Difrent animals can store difrent amounts of vitimin a in thier liver, the polar bear can store so much that a polar bear liver burger would kill you. But then the comon rabbit is also able to store vast quantities of vitimin a. Soring vitimin a in the liver dose not detoxify it, the only way to do that is to reak the vitimin down into another substance. Its basic chemisty.
Kidney
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine
Urine concentration has nothing to do with diet, its about the volume of water you drink. Tundra and desert animals have extremly concentrated urine, with some not producing any fluids at all. Animals that live in wetlands produce vast quantities of dilute urine. Elephants are a good example here, when walking through arid deserts they produce extreamly concentrate urine, when in swamplands they produce extreamly weak urine.
Nails
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HUMAN: Flattened nails
Chimps. Fingers almost identical to ours with a high meat diet.
Slow loris, a strict vegitarian with some of the most wicked claws on earth.
Nails are related to lifestyle, not diet.
I am fed up with these vegan lies about our biology that are patently absurd. Humans are omniovers, there is no question about that and ANYONE who has studied just a bit of anatomy would be able to identify this.
wether or not humans are omniovres dose not matter to the ethical debate we are having here though. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 5:58:35 PM | RE Msg: 247 by Wayward Willow:
Sorry Susan, but humans are far more adapted to a vegetarian diet. Humans are incredibly adaptable. Generally, carnivores will die if you don't feed them meat. Herbivores die if you only feed them meat. Omnivores can generally eat both. But nearly every species has only a range of foods that they can eat, and outside of that, they just won't be able to digest their food. Humans are the only species that I can think of, that can eat almost anything and survive. Many human tribes that live above the Arctic circle, eat nothing but meat and animal fat, all year round, and yet are in incredibly good health. Many humans are fruitarians, who eat nothing but fruit, and are perfectly healthy. Many humans are vegans and are healthy. Many humans are vegetarians and are healthy. Some humans have lived on literally nothing but pizza and Coca-cola for 20 years and put in a full day's work 5 days a week. You'd be surprised just how adaptable the human body is.
However, what has become more clear, are a few things about Western diets. Western foods that aren't sold in their raw state, are very often refined very highly, in ways that take out huge amounts of any natural vitamins, minerals, beneficial enzymes, and other super-chemicals found in them. They also tend to have lots of chemicals provided to them, for a number of reasons, that reduces their effective nutritional content much further, such as adding acids as preservatives, that make many of these nutritious vitamins indigestible, which makes them undesirable to insects, but often makes them almost pointless to eat for us as well. On top, biological enzymes heated above 40 degrees Centrigrade tend to denature. So when we cook food at extremely high temperatures, like 150 degrees Centigrade, we're often killing off most of the vitamins that are in it, because they are very often enzymes, or so close to them, that they denature under such high temperatures. We don't tend to think about it. But for an example: Consider toast. You might think that toast has some value in it. But the measure of determining Calories in bread is to heat it until it's burned, and that's what toast is, burned bread, or at least, very, very close to it. So ironically, when we eat toast, we're eating it for the taste, not the calories, and certainly not the vitamins and minerals. As a result of all that, our diets tend to be extremely unhealthily low in many vitamins, minerals, and other enzymes, that are all extremely important to our health.
This used to be a huge problem to the British Navy, because most of their food needed to survive for several months on ship without rotting, so they carried out only preserved food, and as a result, they were so lacking in Vitamin C, that many of the crew on British ships developed scurvy. When the British finally added a tot of lime juice to each sailor's daily ration, that tiny amount of Vitamin C made such a difference to their diet, that the fighting force of the British Navy literally doubled, almost overnight. That's how much of a difference a tiny amount of citrus fruits can make to someone who is eating mostly preserved and highly cooked foods.
In that respect, those who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, and have very few processed foods, are far more healthy than people on a typical Western diet, eating pizza, burgers, chips, processed meats, drinking beer, and especially drinking soft drinks, simply because they are getting far, far more vitamins, minerals, and other beneficial enzymes, than most other people.
But, there can be no question at all that there are lots of people who subsist on nothing but a carnivorous diet, like eskimos and those traditional groups in Northern Siberia, who live where almost no vegetation grows at all, who eat pretty much only land-animal or sea-animal meat and fat, such as reindeer, yak, seal, fish, and plenty of other such creatures, and yet that scientists have found are unbelievably healthy, in really great condition. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 6:04:24 PM |
I was not comparing inanimate objects to animals. I was disputing the assumption that artificial or unnatural equals bad, and that things that exists for convenience are somehow less legitimate than those that exist for 'necessity'. Factory farms were being condemned because they were unnatural and because they exist for convenience. While there are many valid criticisms of factory farms, these two particular criticisms are absurd when viewed in terms of how our species functions, or in relation to other systems or inventions that can also be similarly categorized as being unnatural or only exist for convenience.
While that may not have been your intent, that’s exactly what you did. I had a chuckle when I saw that you wrote “unnatural equals bad.” Karl Marx wrote most eloquently about the “commodity fetish,” where constantly changing economic, social, and demographic conditions have created insatiable appetites for more convenience.
Nowadays, we see that dining out, once thought to be a luxury, is now a necessity for many. Convenience comes at a high cost, especially for animals, and I believe that is one of Willow’s points. With convenience, you have inhumanity, health problems in the animals being produced for food and in humans who consume the meat produced. At the cost of convenience, humans tend to forget what is involved in ordering a steak, turkey sandwich, or hamburger. It is obvious that, for the sake of convenience, many people don’t want to be reminded that their dinner was once a living and breathing animal. If most people are forced to view the inhumane treatment of a factory farm, they would find it an unjust system. People think they’re higher on the food chain and have the right to eat what they want. But for convenience sake, one supposedly gains a lot by driving the store and picking up a package of chicken or beef. When animals are kept on factory farms, the treatment given to them is much less then humane. Animals are kept in warehouses without room to move around. After long periods of confinement in their small cages animals begin to show similar signs as humans suffering from sever mental illness. But WTF, it’s convenient ain’t it?
If you want to discuss how factory farms treat animals, whether factory farmed animals are more or less healthy to consume, or whether factory farms are damaging the environment.....feel free.
It’s been done ad nauseum on the forums, including this thread. But if you need more validation, there are also hunting threads were vegetarians have more than adequately demonstrated all of this and then some. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 6:14:06 PM |
Additionally, he makes no mention of vegetarianism in "Mein Kampf," which I have read.
So what are you saying? You either are a vegetarian or you are not, you can't decide to become one? He may have become on eafter writing "Mein Kampf", the fact he doesn't state he's a vegetarian in the book ( I could search the web to see if that's true, but I'll take your word for it) doesn't prove he didn't become one later in life. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 6:19:27 PM | My post was only borderline Godwin's law; I didn't compare anyone to Hitler ( which is the main thrust of the Law) I pointed out a fact ( he was a vegetarian) and suggested that anti smokers could be called out ( jokingly) for trying to make others more like Hitler.
There is no such thing as a "borderline" analogy, sorry.
Here's some more info on Godwin's Law:
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3]
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact
As the thread title is "Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?" I'd say the comparison/reference ( as mentioned in the last sentence of the info about Godwin's Law) is appropriate.
In any event, the whole title of the thread is flawed. as vegans & PETA are part of society, so can't be more moral and ethical than society. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 7:01:00 PM |
So what are you saying? You either are a vegetarian or you are not, you can't decide to become one? He may have become on eafter writing "Mein Kampf", the fact he doesn't state he's a vegetarian in the book ( I could search the web to see if that's true, but I'll take your word for it) doesn't prove he didn't become one later in life.
What I am saying is that you haven’t proven your assertion that Hitler was a vegetarian. You made a blanket statement which you assumed was a fact, and I refuted it. It’s as simple as that.
As the thread title is "Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?" I'd say the comparison/reference ( as mentioned in the last sentence of the info about Godwin's Law) is appropriate.
I agree, because, as the quote indicates, “overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact….” I’m guessing that you may have not been familiar with that particular fallacy prior to this posting, because when a Nazi analogy is made in any thread, it reduces the argument to a “reductio ad absurdium.” It other words, it indicates that the person making the Nazi analogy has only done so because they have nothing else to go on and no further valid arguments to assert……
In any event, the whole title of the thread is flawed. as vegans & PETA are part of society, so can't be more moral and ethical than society.
Why, because you say so? Morality is a set of beliefs, normalized internally and by society, by which individuals determines the rightness or wrongness of their actions. Certainly there are many examples of a person’s behaviour conflicting with societal morality, and the social response is often a negative one leading to stigmatization. Additionally, morals have varied greatly over time, and from culture to culture. Morality is know to be influenced by religion or theology, but also by secular and other ethical codes. Would you argue that certain fringe groups in society with unconventional views about sex, drugs, violence etc. are more or less moral? Criminals are part of society, so do they normalize their moral values with the rest of society?
Namaste......... | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 7:36:41 PM | Godwin's Law was invoked, that's clear. It doesn't seem to matter whether the argument is relevant, just that it is made.
In this case, however, the Hitler example was legitimate and appropriate and is not a reductio ad absurdum, because it was directly relevant to the topic. The topic, in a nutshell, is "vegetarianism" and "morality". Hitler was used as examples of both.
Although Godwin's Law doesn't specify whether the argument is valid, it IS normally invoked as a reductio ad absurdum. As in "Good people like children and puppies. Hitler liked children and puppies, therefore Hitler was a good person." That's not the nature of the argument here.
That said, the claim of Hitler being vegetarian has been refuted [so far] in this thread, so the flaw in the argument is mainly that it has been shown to be false.
Regardless, it's been adequately shown that there are a suitable number of amoral or immoral persons among PETA and among vegans in general, so the claim of superior morality is also disproven. SOME may have "superior" morality, but they do not represent the entire population. Nor are they demonstrably 'superior' to the shining examples among the rest of the populace. Even the question of what constitutes 'superior' morality is shady at best, being supported by subjective arguments and fallacies. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 7:57:25 PM |
Certainly there are many examples of a person’s behaviour conflicting with societal morality, and the social response is often a negative one leading to stigmatization....Would you argue that certain fringe groups in society with unconventional views about sex, drugs, violence etc. are more or less moral? Criminals are part of society, so do they normalize their moral values with the rest of society?
The point is that all the people you mentioned are still part of society. A part that most if not all of the rest of society may connsider illegal, immoral or unethical but they are still part of society.
Unless you believe that vegans and PETA are apart from the rest of socirty & are a society in & of themselves. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 8:10:46 PM | A subset can be compared to the entire set. One can generalize about Asians, Christians, or Americans and STILL be able to compare them to humanity as a whole. The means, medians, modes, and deviations of the subsets are often likely to differ from those of the subsuming set...which is part of what CREATES those values!
So yes, it is perfectly valid to compare the characteristics of vegans and PETA to those of "society" or humanity as a whole. It is also quite possible for individuals in these groups to score higher or lower on any trait, in comparison to either societal averages, or relative to all other humans. Being a subset does not preclude 'fringe' results, unless said results form part of the definition. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 8:50:59 PM |
That said, the claim of Hitler being vegetarian has been refuted [so far] in this thread, so the flaw in the argument is mainly that it has been shown to be false.
Shown to be false because some people can post infomation ( possibly gleaned off the internet?) that say it's false? Heck, I can do that too, to prove it's true.
"One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian."
- Adolf Hitler. November 11, 1941. Section 66, HITLER'S TABLE TALK
"If I offer a child the choice between a pear and a piece of meat, he'll quickly choose the pear. That's his atavistic instinct speaking."
- Adolf Hitler. December 28, 1941. Section 81, HITLER'S TABLE TALK
"The only thing of which I shall be incapable is to share the sheiks' mutton with them. I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat."
- Adolf Hitler. January 12, 1942. Section 105, HITLER'S TABLE TALK
"At the time when I ate meat, I used to sweat a lot. I used to drink four pots of beer and six bottles of water during a meeting. … When I became a vegetarian, a mouthful of water was enough."
- Adolf Hitler. January 22, 1942. Section 117, HITLER'S TABLE TALK
"When you offer a child the choice of a piece of meat, an apple, or a cake, it's never the meat that he chooses. There's an ancestral instinct there."
- Adolf Hitler. January 22, 1942. Section 117, HITLER'S TABLE TALK
"One has only to keep one's eyes open to notice what an extraordinary antipathy young children have to meat."
- Adolf Hitler. April 25, 1942. Section 198, HITLER'S TABLE TALK
"When I later gave up eating meat, I immediately began to perspire much less, and within a fortnight to perspire hardly at all. My thirst, too, decreased considerably, and an occasional sip of water was all I required. Vegetarian diet, therefore, has some obvious advantages."
- Adolf Hitler. July 8, 1942. Section 256, HITLER'S TABLE TALK
"I am no admirer of the poacher, particularly as I am a vegetarian."
- Adolf Hitler. August 20, 1942. Section 293, HITLER'S TABLE TALK
Source: HITLER'S TABLE TALK: 1941-1944. Enigma Books. Available at Amazon and at Barnes And Noble
| |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 9:23:41 PM | Point being, that you made a statement without supporting evidence. Your opposition presented evidence which contradicted your unsupported claims. It's not up to the audience to substantiate your position, it's up to you.
Now that you have, your opposition will evaluate your evidence to see if it's valid.
That, however, would no longer have anything to do with this thread.
With or without Hitler, the answer is still "no" since there are many to take his place. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 9:30:13 PM |
In this case, however, the Hitler example was legitimate and appropriate and is not a reductio ad absurdum, because it was directly relevant to the topic. The topic, in a nutshell, is "vegetarianism" and "morality". Hitler was used as examples of both.
I would disagree. It was an attempt to demonize vegetianism by linking it to unrelated consequences. It was not mentioned because there was some concern with Hitler’s diet. Furthermore, vegetarianism is not immoral or unethical.
Regardless, it's been adequately shown that there are a suitable number of amoral or immoral persons among PETA and among vegans in general, so the claim of superior morality is also disproven. SOME may have "superior" morality, but they do not represent the entire population. Nor are they demonstrably 'superior' to the shining examples among the rest of the populace. Even the question of what constitutes 'superior' morality is shady at best, being supported by subjective arguments and fallacies.
Similarly, I’m sure Hitler had many admirable traits. He was probably very organized, was opposed to communism, was a persuasive speaker with great skill in mobilizing his rank and file.
A subset can be compared to the entire set. One can generalize about Asians, Christians, or Americans and STILL be able to compare them to humanity as a whole. The means, medians, modes, and deviations of the subsets are often likely to differ from those of the subsuming set...which is part of what CREATES those values!
So yes, it is perfectly valid to compare the characteristics of vegans and PETA to those of "society" or humanity as a whole. It is also quite possible for individuals in these groups to score higher or lower on any trait, in comparison to either societal averages, or relative to all other humans. Being a subset does not preclude 'fringe' results, unless said results form part of the definition.
Humans by nature are moral, immoral, good, evil , altruistic, selfish, cooperative, combative, virtuous and nonvirtuous. Such moral traits vary within individuals as well as within and between groups. Some people and populations are more or less moral and immoral than other people and populations. The codification of moral principles evolved as a form of social control to ensure the survival of individuals within groups and the survival of humans themselves.
Religion is of course one group which canonized moral principles. Furthermore, moral principles are not absolute, and do not apply to all people in all cultures or groups under all circumstances all the time. While people are cooperative and altruistic, those drives are created and reinforced by the group in which the individual lives. How else would you explain such thought processes as anti-semitism? Depending on the circumstances, perhaps any one of us could become Nazis. Raised in a country like Canada, do any of us know how we might react in a totalitarian regime like Nazi Germany? So, I maintain that it is very appropriate to separate groups into subgroups and examine their morality, or lack thereof, individually, whether that group be vegetarians, PETA members, atheists, Christians, Gulf war veterans, satanic cults, or video game players. Perhaps Heinrich Himmler and Ingrid Newkirk would have taken different paths in life had they belonged to different moral subgroups.
Tootles..... | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 9:40:13 PM |
This number dose not mater though, as an ominover can eat 995% meat or 5% meat and still be an omnivore, so long as it still gets its nutrion from both meat and vegetables.
So then a lion who ocasionally eats grass is an omnivore? Almost all cats eat grass, except those kept in doors. Cows eat other cows, omnivore? Sheep eat other sheep, omnivore?
Firstly, you need to state what type of bear you are talking about.
My mistake, I was talking about black bears and grizzly bears, who are 60-70% vegetarian. That is less meat than the average western diet, so it should be a fairly good comparison of omnivore to omnivore. If you compare the anatomy of a grizzly bear to humans you will see a significant difference.
The fact is that humans have always been eaters of opportunity and necessity. We can eat both meat and vegetable matter. However it should be stressed that humans are much better adapted to vegetarian diet than a purely meat diet.
Humans and other herbivores have carbohydrate digestive enzymes in their saliva, meaning our bodies were created for fruits and vegetables. Animal products have no complex carbohydrates, which is why carnivores and omnivores lack carbohydrate digestive enzymes in their saliva.
Most medical experts will attest to the fact that humans are completely herbivorous, plant-eating creatures. Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and a professor at Baylor University, states, "Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh - which contains cholesterol and saturated fat - was never intended for human beings who are natural herbivores."
Dr. William Castelli, director of the Framingham Heart Study, supports the aforementioned findings with additional claims about human cancer rates dropping 60 percent if people stopped eating meat, cheese, milk and eggs. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 9:57:51 PM |
http://www.ivu.org/history/europe20a/hitler.html
“At various times Hitler reduced the amount of meat in his diet, primarily for medical reasons. Sometimes he reduced it a lot but the evidence shows that he never stopped eating meat completely for any significant length of time. Unfortunately many meat-eaters, including historians, use the term 'vegetarian' incorrectly to describe someone who simply reduced their meat consumption. The confusion was compounded by Goebbels, grossly exagerating Hitler's 'vegetarianism' for propaganda purposes.”
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Vegetarianism_of_Adolf_Hitler
“…some reports state that Hitler occasionally ate meat during the 1930s, which, if true, would mean that he was not vegetarian according to modern standards. While Hitler reduced his meat consumption, he may have not eliminated it entirely, with culinary accounts indicating a sporadic preference for sausage, squab, liver dumplings and ham. “
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Adolf_Hitler%27s_vegetarianism#2.
"Hitler was in no way an ethical vegetarian," Berry asserts. He believes that it is important to counter the assertions of scholars that the chief Nazi abstained from meat "because nonvegetarians tend to use the Nazi issue to discredit vegetarianism in general."
http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/revHitler.html
“However, Hitler's alleged vegetarianism is brought up so often that it invites a response. And we should be very thankful that Rynn Berry's thoughtful and carefully documented book convincingly proves that Hitler was neither a vegetarian nor an animal lover throughout most, if not all, of his life.”
http://books.google.ca/books?id=AwrwRKNavtAC&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=hitler+%2Bvegetarianism+%2B.edu&source=bl&ots=C8OqEarQPI&sig=Ug70AEPbcKsnVVMeCQicM51CiEg&hl=en&ei=LXmsSqfjNIjvlAejrOTpBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=hitler%20%2Bvegetarianism%20%2B.edu&f=false
“….Hitler was not a vegetarian. But many meat eaters need to believe that Hitler was a vegetarian to comfort themselves with the idea the vegetarianism does not necessarily make you a better person. “
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/27/74120/4182
“In his 2004 book, Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover, author Rynn Berry boldly dispenses with any protocol by getting his unconventional declaration out of the way right up front in the book's title: "neither vegetarian nor animal lover." There, he said it. Now what...and why does/should it matter?
Hitler's dietary choices may not be of vast historical importance...but instead they do hold polemical value. Belligerent meat-eaters often toss off the "But Hitler was a vegetarian" line as a method of allegedly discrediting a plant-based diet. After all, their "logic" goes, if the epitome of evil himself eschewed meat, what possible good could come from such a lifestyle? While this premise obviously lacks even a shred of intellectual validity, one cannot discount the emotional power invoked by associating Nazism with vegetarianism. Rynn Berry himself has dealt directly with this phenomenon. As the author of Famous Vegetarians and Their Recipes, he tells of facing "at every bookstore signing, at every lecture, on every phone-in talk show, at least one person (who) has asked...half-mockingly: 'Is Hitler in your book?'" Thus, in the name of setting the record straight, Berry has marshaled the evidence necessary to take on the Hitler-as-veggie dogma.
Most of what Berry has dug up displays an even more variable use of the label "vegetarian" than we endure today. Robert Payne, a Hitler biographer, explains that the German dictator "had no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages, and never ate fish, he enjoyed caviar." (Is sausage considered a vegetable in Germany?)”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mickey_z_070127_adolf_loved_his_live.htm
“Even the venerable New York Times fell prey to the amazing elasticity of the term "vegetarianism." In a May 30, 1937 article entitled, "At Home with the F�hrer," the newspaper of record found this passage fit to print: "It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables, and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar."
That revealing description-veggies are tedious, flesh is a delicacy-is pretty much how the Times portrays a plant-based diet to this day. It also helps illustrate why Nazis like Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels attempted to portray Hitler as a veggie lover. As the Times cleverly hinted at, the tedium of vegetarianism (even with the occasional slice of ham to relish) would require a man of remarkable discipline to adhere to it.”
http://query.nytimes.com
/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E0DF143FF936A25757C0A9619C8B63
“In my book ''Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover,'' I cite numerous primary sources attesting that Hitler indulged in sausages, stuffed squab, liver dumplings, ham and caviar -- hardly what most people today would consider vegetarian.
To be sure, Hitler professed vegetarianism, but he was not consistent in his practice of the diet. Hitler may have been a quasi-vegetarian, a would-be vegetarian or a flexitarian, but the truth is that not one top Nazi was a thoroughgoing vegetarian, not even Hitler himself. “ | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 10:19:10 PM |
Shown to be false because some people can post infomation ( possibly gleaned off the internet?) that say it's false? Heck, I can do that too, to prove it's true.
Clever, clever...a published book can be just as false, as information "gleaned" from the internet...I see your point.
But while Hitler may have called himself a vegetarian, and sincerely supported those views, doesn't mean he was one. And from what I have read, he wasn't. I didn't get this information from the internet, either...
But since I mostly eat a vegetarian diet (I rarely eat meat), and try to keep to the ideals of a vegetarian diet, by your own logic, I must have designs to take over the world and subjugate a "particular race" (just typing that is distasteful), whom I have not decided upon yet, with the eventual intentions of genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay...I am genuinely confused by this exchange:
FrogO said this:
A subset can be compared to the entire set. One can generalize about Asians, Christians, or Americans and STILL be able to compare them to humanity as a whole. The means, medians, modes, and deviations of the subsets are often likely to differ from those of the subsuming set...which is part of what CREATES those values!
So yes, it is perfectly valid to compare the characteristics of vegans and PETA to those of "society" or humanity as a whole. It is also quite possible for individuals in these groups to score higher or lower on any trait, in comparison to either societal averages, or relative to all other humans. Being a subset does not preclude 'fringe' results, unless said results form part of the definition.
And Cheshire said this:
Humans by nature are moral, immoral, good, evil , altruistic, selfish, cooperative, combative, virtuous and nonvirtuous. Such moral traits vary within individuals as well as within and between groups. Some people and populations are more or less moral and immoral than other people and populations. The codification of moral principles evolved as a form of social control to ensure the survival of individuals within groups and the survival of humans themselves.
I cannot tell, Cheshire, if you are refuting or reiterating...
The fact is that humans have always been eaters of opportunity and necessity.
This has been one of the truest statements I have read in this thread. | |
|
| |
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 10:33:08 PM | hi... there seems to be a very immature pattern on these threads where certain people who do not like someone elses position on a matter begins to slander that poster by calling them ~liars~ rather than to just give an opposing view... I thought name calling was not allowed in threads and that ideas are to be challenged vs the posters character...
mankind was created to eat raw vegetarian foods, later we were allowed to eat meat but biblical accounts show that mans life was significantly reduced as a result... many blessings for good health | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/13/2009 3:30:25 AM | So I take it that because Hitler was vegetarian, except for a few sausages here and there, that the vegetarian diet made him evil.
The ten most evil men:
Attila the Hun,
Maximilien Robespierre
Ayatollah Khomeini
Idi Amin
Leopold II of Belgium
Pol Pot
Vlad Tepes (Vlad the impaler)
Ivan the terrible
Josef Stalin
Emperor Hirohito
Adolph Hitler
If food choice can cause one to become evil, as seems to be the suggestion here, then it should be clear that the people mentioned above, who were the most evil men in the world, all have one dietary commonality. Meat.
Except maybe Hitler.
It must have been those dam sausages.   | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/13/2009 3:42:51 AM | Regarding the ten most evil men, I'd say the list is incorrect, but be that as it may, I note that Idi Amin was said to have killed and eaten some of his cabinet ministers. Is it possible that it wasn't the sausages, but meat in general that makes people evil? 
Forget the devil... "Da meat made me do it!" | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/13/2009 5:13:29 AM | wayward willow, please check out the thread "Can you get all the amino acids on a vegetarian diet?" as it is the apropriate place for discusion on the biology of vegitarianism.
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts10160629.aspx
This thread is for discusion on morality, not on biological difrences. The fact of the mater is that we are perfectly adapted to eating meat, but we now have the option to eat entirely vegitables, so the biological facts do not matter to the moraility of the topic at hand any more.
If you post in the corect forum, I will address the issues, untill then I will not derail the OP any further with discusion of biology.
This topic is for the discusion of morailty in referance to vegans/peta. Personaly, I have to agrea with the poster who pointed out that if Hitler was a vegitarian (a mater I do not know about) then the OP is uterly refuted. There is no doubt that Hitler was a cruel and sadistic man. If he was a vegitarian, then that proves that vegitarians are not inherinatly more moral than anyone else.
And Monalee1, I did not speciically attack willow, I called her statements lies, I did not say that she was a liar as I do not know if the statements were hers or originated withsomeon else. It is an important disinction and one I hope willow noted. It is okay to address the content of a post, but to address the poster. So claiming something sad is a racistis okay, but not claiming that someone is a racist. The difrence being that a poster can be unaware that what they are saying is racist, or offensive, or that the poster di not mean the remarek in the way it came across. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 11 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
