Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 transcend
Joined: 1/13/2007
Msg: 316
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...Page 38 of 43    (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
Isn't it great to have a choice.. to challenge yourself ..to take a stand and live with what it costs you..cows can't choose to graze or lions choose to eat kosher..we are such a fascinating mix of seekers and players with our food.. I guess whatever works to keep you going will always have a home somewhere.. even if its just in your fridge
 yna6
Joined: 1/21/2007
Msg: 317
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/3/2009 10:04:05 AM
Take a look at the case of Martin Hartwell. Faced with starvation or eating a corpse, he chose to live.
Many of us would highly likely choose that route rather than die ourselves. When put to the test, many fail that test....they just don't have the courage of their convictions, especially when their own lives are at stake, and they KNOW it.
Sorry...but I have to say that 99% of PETA members would not only eat animal flesh, but thank god for it IF it saved their lives, or that of their own children.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 318
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/3/2009 10:55:00 AM
>>>As I see it, the plants are not animate in the way that every animal is and this makes them objects to begin with in a way that animals simply are not.

My, it sure is lucky your morality grants you this broad distinction- especially considering plants are not inanimate(is that a double negative? Or does it work in this context?)- plants do not exist the same as objects- as rocks, or as a peice of plastic- they have the ability to reproduce and replicate- whether or not you wish to acknowledge it, plant life IS life- so your entire argument to do no harm to any living organism, but harming plants is A-OK because you don't acknowledge it as life, is subjective, and the facts contradict your claims.

And thats fine- because morals and ethics are not absolutes- they are to be discussed, debated, and challenged- But you wish us to believe that, if I choose to continue my life at the cost of another animals life, it is immoral, no if and or buts about it- but if you choose to continue your life at the cost of plant life, it is moral. Its hypocracy. You wish to condemn people for not accepting your moral will, but the only reason you are alive long enough to dicate peoples morality to them is because you act in, by your standard, immorally.

You condemn us for causing death. But the only way to reach morality by your standard is to worship and hope for death.

And you call us immoral....

>>>How can you possibly claim to be giving the animal a "safe and secure life" when you are planning to slaughter it for food?

Because its well fed, taken care of, received numerous medical treatments that wouldn't exist in the wild.....just because, some years down the line, yes, it is slated to be slaughtered, doesn't mean we mistreat the animals. They live longer, safer lives, often devoid of the suffering they could very likely endure in the wild.

>>>They are alive, so you still should show a certain measure of respect, but it is nothing like what one should show to an animal.

But thats the point!

If we are discussing respect, then yes, we are saying we should treat livestock with respect- no torture, no mistreatment, ect- but if we are discussing whether or not it is morally justifiable to take a life to continue your own, then whether or not the life is capible of thought or feelings is irrelivant- because, if we are to say life is sacred, and should never be harmed, we can't then turn around and claim that, no, only the life that thinks and acts like us is sacred- all others are our fodder- you are being a hypocrite.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 320
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/3/2009 3:24:10 PM
>>> I said that treating living beings, which I contrasted with living things, in certain ways is immoral.

Why the distinction? That, since we are a higher form of life, that their life doesn't matter-but creatures that represent some of our abilities deserve not only our respect, but our protection, and is immoral to cause them any harm in anyway.

>>> That, however, is a discussion for another thread.

Then it really does make sense that you leave the thread- you came in here, said something is an absolute moral truth and no difference in opinion changes that- then stated that it is inappropreiate to discuss and elaborate. Simply put, you believe your judgement is the absolute fact, and any disagreement is moot, because you refuse to acknowledge that your judgement of morals could be anything else but the absolute.

>>>Condemn is a very strong word, and doesn't really come close to what I've said.

Calling people immoral if they disagree with you- this isn't condemning them?

>>>When did I say anything about 'worship'?

You didn't. But you do expect others to accept your moral standards, simply because you dictate them- and I find this moral standard can only be acheived through death, and faith that it is the right thing to do. Hence, Worship.

>>>I also have said very little about my moral system, which is far more complex than you realize.

Zippity-Doo! That doesn't change the fact that morality isn't absolute, its subjective and debatable. And the fact that not everyone agrees with what is and is not morality proves this.

>>> People don't seem to want to listen to the argument though, so I'm not repeating it again.

No, its not lack of conprehension or lack of interest- its disagreement. I do not agree that raising an animal for slaughter is mistreatment.

Shit I hate people whose only interest in these debates is to stroke their ego- the fact that you keep coming back to how superior you feel you are to everyone else reveals this.

>>>First, treating the animal as a food source is an act of disrespect in and of itself.

Again, I disagree.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 321
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/3/2009 4:29:50 PM

Insects are exothermic, which means they get their heat from the surrounding environment.


So are crocodiles and other reptiles.


The gods want you to eat bugs ....................
In the Old Testament book of Leviticus, the writers did a nice job of outlining the foods
that are forbidden and permissible to consume.


"The gods"? I thought that the Bible outlined a monotheistic faith?


living on locusts and honeycomb.


So you eat honey?
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 322
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 11:46:13 AM
There is not a single plant on Earth that is sentient, and a little bit of science will demonstrate that. No plant possesses anything that looks like a nervous system, let alone a brain, and therefore could not possibly be sentient. Plants are objects. Period.


A dead cow is not a sapient or sentient being. Are you against eating meat if the animal dies of natural causes outside of human intent to consume?
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 323
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 12:22:50 PM

Yes, because the way I see it doing so would still be mistreating the animal after it has died. The cow was a sentient, and perhaps primitively sapient, being whilst it was alive, and I believe that has a bearing on how it should be treated after death.


Rotting into the ground feeds the ecosystem; how is that different than human consumption?

Do you eat honey?
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 324
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 12:39:21 PM


In the practical sense, it is essentially the same process. Morally speaking, it is very different. There is nothing unreasonable about leaving a body to be consumed by the earth, although I generally prefer cremation allowing a being to be returned to the earth is still potentially dignified. On the other hand, treating a being's body as food fundamentally denigrates them because it treats them like an object to simply be used. I guess I'm drawing on Kantian theory for inspiration here, except extending it to non-human animals as well.


The problem I see with this is that if you extend Kantian theory to include all living beings, excluding plants since they are not sapient, is that it is not universalizable. Contradictions lie in that all carnivorous beings consume other sapient beings. If you include them in Kantian theory, then technically, they are also being immoral.

Do you cremate your animals that pass?
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 325
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 1:11:54 PM

True, though I'm not applying Kant's theory as such, I'm just using his idea as the basis of my own. Still, it is worth my stating that I would say that the carniverous animals' actions are immoral, except for the fact that the animals seem to lack any capacity for understanding morality. It'd be like expecting a toddler, someone about age four or younger, to understand differences between right and wrong. On that basis I would argue that even though the action is immoral, the animal has no moral responsibility or blame/praiseworthiness.


I appreciate that you do not eat meat, before I say anything else. I do not want you to feel like you are defending your feelings about it.

To continue on the discussion for purely academic reasons, when we enter in whether or not a toddler knows the difference between right and wrong, we have to define right and wrong. Then it no longer is just a question of morality. It's either normative or descriptive, and depending on the individual they will choose to follow one or the other. A toddler has an inherent normative moral compass, they know that doing something that makes someone sad or mad makes them feel badly.

I follow universal normative morality. In this morality, the animals respect that they are a food source, just as I respect that I could be the food source for another carnivore, and one day will be a food source for the Earth.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 326
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 2:38:31 PM

I'm hesitant to make such a statement about a toddler's understanding of morality. Admittedly, they are typically aware of how their actions impact upon the moods of others but at the same time I'm unsure of whether they are able to extend that into a system of morals and ethics. For example, they may be aware that doing something will make someone mad but do it anyway because they find the reaction funny. Moral knowledge, as I see it, is largely the result of refining intuitions through the application of rational thought, a process which few if any children so young could manage.


I don't mean right from wrong like sticking a barbie in the toilet and laughing, I mean right and wrong as in... killing an animal for fun.

My 2 year old and I have an aquarium. One day when I was cleaning the tank, one of the fish jumped out of the temporary home and landed on the floor. My daughter looked at it and quickly picked it up as it was flopping so I could throw it back in the water.

I saw her looking at it, thinking something about stepping on it, and she didn't. Maybe I'm being biased, but based on my experience as a toddler and seeing a bunny get run over and being saddened because I felt the driver purposefully killed the rabbit, among other things.


An interesting way of looking at it, though may I ask what you mean by 'respect' in this sense?


Respect meaning; I cannot be angry with the animal that intends to eat me, I realize the animal needs to eat, and if he intends to harm me, it isn't the point of the animal's intention. (Assuming I hadn't done anything to make it protect itself against me.)
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 327
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 3:16:15 PM

That's what I thought. The only problem I see is that this is a rational reflection, and non-human animals don't seem to be capable of such reflections. So whilst you are able to make that judgement, it seems that a non-human could not do so and that this would result in an imbalance.


I don't agree. Have you ever been around a wild animal and made eye contact with them, and they walked away once they realized you were not a threat? While their thoughts couldn't possibly be what ours our, the wolf in my case evaluated me and did not attack me because he or she did not perceive me to be a threat.
 heterotic
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 328
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 8/4/2009 3:40:29 PM

I'll concede that, but I meant something more like when the animal is in the position you were in relative to a human. That is to say, I'm not sure how an animal can respect a human's desire/need to eat in the sense that you mean.


I believe that they do not need to think about it, it is likely programmed in their DNA. Some animals serve no purpose in the world other than being a food source of another animal. One would have to assume while they were struggling to fight for their life, at the point they gave up they would likely just accept that it was the circle of life in whatever form they could.

But even if we assume that they do not experience this feeling of respect and acceptance with nature, it puts them back in the same position as plants, in my opinion.
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 329
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 10/4/2009 2:53:42 PM
Post # 365:

"We just have no respect for the other species on the Planet. Even if I were on that island with a dog, I'm sure I couldn't eat it just to survive. (I might be tempted, though, if it were a small, yappy dog.)

This is such a burden for me. Many nights I lie awake, my mind tormented by thoughts of how evil humans are. Do you know about the smallpox genocide? It was speciesism at its most brutal. Humans set out deliberately to eradicate smallpox as a species, destroying its habitat and using toxic chemicals with no mercy. And after slaughtering billions upon billions of individual viruses, they succeeded.

And to flaunt our dominion over other life forms, we kept a few viruses alive as trophies. We locked them away in a couple labs, like tiny, lonely animals in zoos. If one day we become bored with even these few survivors, we can kill them, too. Yes, I know some will trot out the tired old fact that smallpox killed more humans than all the wars and diseases in history. My answer is this: So what? It is (or was) a species, just like humans. Who made us the judge of its right to live? That was for Gaia to decide!

p.s.: Do not buy honey, or any product (like some breads) that contains it! Working together, enlightened humans can one day put an end to the cruel and shameful enslavement of bees."


Post # 374:

"All the way down to the weakest of creatures , those wonderful bacteria & viruses kill each other.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a mixture of viruses as a food additive to protect people.
The additive can be used in processing plants for spraying onto ready-to-eat meat
and poultry products to protect consumers from the potentially
life-threatening bacterium Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes).

The viruses used in the additive are known as bacteriophages.
Bacteriophage means "bacteria eater."
A bacteriophage, also called a phage (pronounced fayj), is any virus that infects bacteria.

No one seems to wonder the sentience, suffering and pain of these creatures."


I hate to go so far back in this thread, but I recently came across this article about the life experience of bacteria. It sounds like an anthropology article.

I believe that all life forms have all aspects similar to our own. Many things about us that we think are exclusively human, like social behavior and altruism are present, and make the arguments of our specialness as a reason that we can eat meat without regard to how it was produced less compelling. As above, so below. I think the pattern of life is the same for all life, and this pattern reflects itself, like a hologram, in all living things.

Since we consider ourselves to be a social species, and one that can uniquely comprehend abstract concepts such as the meaning, purpose, and value of social behavior, then we humans *should* be more likely to consider the value and importance of social behavior than the lifeforms we are referring to, not less. Unfortunately, the reality is that most Americans are using our sophisticated abstract reasoning ability to discount and minimize the similarities and abilities of other species, and to rationalize their use and exposure to abuse for our convenience and taste preferences.

Is it possible that many of our uniquely human abilities are present at all levels of life, from amoeba on "upward?" I think that the only reason we are seeing such uniqueness in humans is by selective forgetting. Our society has become less agrarian, and we are forgetting the source of our food -- forgetting the intimate connection we have with other life forms that give us life. And so we can selectively choose to forget our immense control and influence on the quality of the lives that take other forms than our own.

In this vein, I offer the latest bacteria research, of which this is only one of many examples:

One-Celled Socialites
Bacteria mix and mingle with microscopic fervor
~Bruce Bower

Welcome to a vibrant social scene that has operated largely in secret until the past few years. Its participants don't seem to mind going unnoticed. They congregate in immense numbers to fend off enemies and the brute forces of nature, to obtain food, to reproduce, and to move to greener pastures. They're adept at forming bands to hunt prey, which are consumed on the spot. Vital messages repeatedly course through these assembled throngs. Under some circumstances, certain community members sacrifice their lives for the good of the rest. At other times, entire congregations cozy up to unsuspecting hosts before coalescing into stone-cold killers.

(Photo showing intricate patterns of bacterial growth.)
OUT ON A LIMB. Starvation conditions elicit a series of branching offshoots from a colony of Paenibacillus dendritiformis bacteria grown in a laboratory.

A. Shoob, Ben Jacob
All this high drama occurs in the microscopic world of bacteria. As the first form of life on Earth, one-celled organisms have lots of experience in getting together by the billions or even trillions to procure and process energy sources. Yet only in the past several years have scientists with a variety of academic backgrounds launched an intensive effort to explore the social lives of bacteria and other microorganisms.

Research on bacterial gatherings got a boost in 2001 from behavioral ecologist Bernard J. Crespi of Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia. Crespi reviewed findings from the past few decades on social behavior among microorganisms that "would be strangely familiar" to researchers who study the social ways of insects and vertebrates, he concluded.

Cooperation among individuals lies at the heart of social behavior in both microbes and animals visible to the naked eye, according to Crespi. For instance, just as bees build hives, many bacterial species create and inhabit sticky substances known as biofilms. Bacteria encased in biofilms thrive in moist settings, such as on ships' hulls, in sewage-treatment plants, on our teeth, and sometimes, with ill effects, in our lungs.

As in coalitions of creatures such as ants and naked mole rats, Crespi adds, bacterial colonies often feature a division of labor in which some members rarely or never reproduce but nonetheless provide other critical services to the community. Rhizobium bacteria, for example, form nodules that transfer nitrogen to plant roots and shuttle essential carbon to bacteria in and just outside the nodule. Bacteria in the nodule often refrain from reproducing, while their neighbors on the outside multiply fervently.

"The study of social behavior in bacteria has taken off in the last 3 or 4 years," says behavioral ecologist Ashleigh S. Griffin of the University of Edinburgh. "It's much easier to do experimental work on such behavior in microorganisms than in traditionally studied animals."

Scientists predict that understanding of bacterial cooperation and communication will yield medical breakthroughs. In particular, with such knowledge, researchers may devise new ways to undermine bacterial social bonds and thus neutralize virulent strains before they can kill a person."

Source:
Science News, Volume 166, No. 21, November 20, 2004, p. 330.
http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/one_celled_socialites.html
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 330
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 10/4/2009 8:15:45 PM
Interesting you should ask.

Are you considering switching over to bacterism?

Whatever yogurt, aged cheeses, miso, saurkraut, pickles, beer, wine, tempeh, and any other fermented product is, is the answer.

It's called pro-biotics. As opposed to anti-biotics. With pro-biotics, such as acidolphus bifidus, and bifo-bacteria, you eat the bacteria right in the food product. The bacteria then populate your intestines and actually help you to pre-digest your food for you, saving your digestive system from having to do it all. This allows you to eat things that humans can't really digest well, or particular people can't digest well, like beans. The bacteria also produce waste products that can be beneficial, like vitamin B12. This happens in animal digestive systems, also, which is why animal flesh is a source of vitamin B12.

With anti-biotics, you aren't getting the living agent (a fungus found in dirt) you are benefiting from its toxic secretions that help the particular life-form to compete in the cruel world of bacteria, mold and fungus war for dominance in a particular ecosystem.

(Note: When you take anti-biotics, you are ingesting the toxic secretions of fungi and bacteria that they use to kill each other with or slow each other's development. This can also kill off the beneficial "good" bacteria that your normal digestive system relies on to stay healthy, and so you should take a pro-biotic supplement along with the anti-biotic, or eat lots of live yogurt cultures. Otherwise, the yeasts in your system can "take over" and overpopulate your digestive tract. )

We have manufactured yeasts for breads and beer that are so strong and so virulent, that unchecked, they can take over your system and cause lots of damage because the yeast has a stage of development where it grows a mycelium, which is like tree roots, that grows into your intestines and can cause permeability, thus allowing undigested food to get directly into your bloodstream, and this can cause your immune system to react to your favorite foods as if they were a virus or forgein object. So sometimes a round of antibiotics can be the precursor to developing a food allergy or food sensitivity.)

So, I guess, the food you are eating, then, the dead part, like the milk the yogurt is made out of is a "meat" product, because it is produced by animals, but the bacteria that is in the yogurt (eating the milk as you are eating them) is not "meat" in the classic sense, but it is a living thing. If the fermented product is a vegetable or fruit, then it might still be classified as a vegan product, but with the interesting added component of living entities who are also eating the same food at the same time you are, but often end up passing right through you in the end. So I guess you could say that the various vegetarian life forms are sharing a living space for a while....

Wine and beer are made with yeast. Yeast is alive but can be stored for very long times because it can go into a sort of hibernation mode when there is no nutrient or water present. Usually, the yeast is dead when you eat it, from too much alcohol, or too much heat (as when it is used to raise dough in making breads.) But sometimes the cooking/fermenting process doesn't kill all the yeast off, and you get living yeast into your system, which then takes up residence and further digests some of the sugars and starches in your food as it passes through.

Mushrooms eat vegetables, but do not produce their own energy through photosynthesis, like plants do. Mushrooms are vegetarians, then. And people who eat mushrooms are really eating a fungi.

So what do you classify a fungi? It's alive, it eats dead and decaying vegetables. I guess you could call vegetarians fungi, then. If you want to.

If you do, however, I will then compare you with flies, and mosquitos. Who live off of animals -- the flies eat dead animals and the mosquitos eat off of the live ones, like vampire bats.

Here is a study on the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables. (Not supplements.)

"This latest study in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease confirms previous studies on vegetable intake and dementia. Here, healthy subjects between the ages of 45 and 102 underwent cognitive testing while their blood was checked for antioxidant micronutrients and biomarkers of oxidative stress. Their daily fruit and vegetable intake was also assessed.

The subjects in the high fruit and veggie intake group scored significantly higher on the cognitive tests, and they also had higher antioxidant levels and lower biomarkers for oxidative stress than those in the low intake group.

Cognitive test scores were positively correlated with blood levels of a-tocopherol and lycopene, and negatively correlated with F2a isoprostanes (potent vasoconstrictors) and protein carbonyls – a byproduct of oxidation that causes cell damage.

The results were independent of age, gender, body mass index, education, total cholesterol, LDL- and HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, and albumin.

The researchers concluded that “modification of nutritional habits aimed at increasing intake of fruits and vegetables should be encouraged to lower prevalence of cognitive impairment in later life.”

They focused their recommendation on fruits and vegetables as opposed to the antioxidants themselves, as previous studies have shown that while antioxidants from food have a beneficial impact on your brain and can prevent cognitive decline, supplements do not appear to offer the same benefits.

It seems your brain is too smart to settle for second best, and the key for brain health is FOOD based, and can likely not be duplicated by supplements alone."

~Source: Eurekalert September 8, 2009, Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease August 2009: 17(4); 921-927
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 331
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 10/5/2009 3:19:11 PM

..."let it sit around for about 20 days before eating ..."


Ahh, so that answers what has happened to you....

eating pre-digested meat, partially consumed by bacteria during the decay process.

Must be nice to not only have your vegetables digested for you by animals, now you also have the benefit of having the meat from those animals partially digested for you by decay. You big baby.....

:)
 CoeyCoey
Joined: 2/13/2006
Msg: 332
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 11/30/2009 10:00:47 AM

Here is a hypothetical situation for those who prescribe to the somewhat extreme
vegan and PETA philosophy concerning the use of animals.
If you were stranded on a desert island, that had nothing but water supply, inedible trees and nothing to to eat but fish and seals, would you eat the animals or
strave to death. The reason I ask is that I have some friends that are into the PETA
and vegan philosopy, and I have wondered how deep their conviction is.
From what I can understand it is based on the assertion that animals have the same
inherent rights as humans, and therefore it is immoral to eat or exploit them just as it
would be to do the same to a human. If I were in a situation where the only option for survival was to eat another human, I wouldnt do it. I would rather die than cross
that line. A civilized man I have lived, and I would prefer to die as one. So how about it PETAN's and vegans, honestly, what would you do?


Why do you preface this hypothetical scenario by calling a vegans philosophy extreme? What is extreme about having compassion and empathy for other living creatures? What is extreme about wanting to be healthy? What is extreme about not wanting out planet destroyed? If you look at the science behind a vegan lifestyle, you would see it is the only logical choice, and eating meat and other animals products merely for taste, despite the health effects, environmental damage, and suffering is the extreme.

And your scenario makes no sense. If there was nothing to eat, there would be no other animals. No vegetation, and no herbivore's. No herbivore's and no carnivore's. It doesn't take much digging to find the vegetation. I would eat what the fish are eating.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 333
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 12/3/2009 12:09:37 AM
>>> What is extreme about having compassion and empathy for other living creatures?

This can be accomplished without resorting to vegetarianism

>>> What is extreme about wanting to be healthy?

This can be accomplished without resorting to vegetarianism

>>>What is extreme about not wanting out planet destroyed?

Vegetarianism does not prevent this. There are numerous other circumstances that may and does cause harm to the planet- and you are supporting numerous of these circumstances by having a home hooked up to a computer.

>>> If you look at the science behind a vegan lifestyle, you would see it is the only logical choice

People do not live through the means of logic. If we did, we'd likely have alot more suffering in the world. People live through the means of individual judgement and choices. The fact that you've convinced yourself that you are right does not mean anyone has to agree with you.

>>>I would eat what the fish are eating.

Then lets elaborate this hypothetical to suit your critisims- the larger fish are eating the smaller fish, and the smaller fish are eating alege off the rocks. You were originally on the island with a friend who ate the alege, and died from its toxic effects(and then their body was washed away)- but the fish are editable, however.

Seriously, I hate losers who try to avoid the simple hypothectial by making up their own answer. The question is would you betray your intergrity if you were in a situation that did not allow you to have such morals and survive- would you die for your ethics. The situation is merely an example.
 CoeyCoey
Joined: 2/13/2006
Msg: 334
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 12/3/2009 8:47:19 AM
>>> What is extreme about having compassion and empathy for other living creatures?

This can be accomplished without resorting to vegetarianism

>>> What is extreme about wanting to be healthy?

This can be accomplished without resorting to vegetarianism

>>>What is extreme about not wanting out planet destroyed?

>>Vegetarianism does not prevent this. There are numerous other circumstances that may and does cause harm to the planet- and you are supporting numerous of these circumstances by having a home hooked up to a computer.

It would prevent the majority of our planets destruction. Educate yourself. And if I could own a piece of land and farm it without having to worry about taxes, politics, etc, I would do it in a heart beat.

>>> If you look at the science behind a vegan lifestyle, you would see it is the only logical choice

>> do not live through the means of logic. If we did, we'd likely have alot more suffering in the world. People live through the means of individual judgement and choices. The fact that you've convinced yourself that you are right does not mean anyone has to agree with you.

I am not expressing an opinion based on individual judgement and choices, I am expressing an opinion based in science and observation. You are the one trying to convince yourself you are right. Otherwise, why come to a board and attempt to justify your meat eating to a vegan? If you seriously thought you were justified in your actions, you wouldn't even be here.

>>>I would eat what the fish are eating.

>>Then lets elaborate this hypothetical to suit your critisims- the larger fish are eating the smaller fish, and the smaller fish are eating alege off the rocks. You were originally on the island with a friend who ate the alege, and died from its toxic effects(and then their body was washed away)- but the fish are editable, however.

Then I die. Simple as that. Big deal. Death is a part of life. I don't fear death like you. People who fear death find it necessary to force their will on other people and other creatures.

>>Seriously, I hate losers who try to avoid the simple hypothectial by making up their own answer. The question is would you betray your intergrity if you were in a situation that did not allow you to have such morals and survive- would you die for your ethics. The situation is merely an example.

You simply don't understand the purpose of a hypothetical question. The word hypothetical comes from hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for anything. If you have a hypothesis, you must then look at all available information. In the case of a hypothetical question, one must look at all available scenarios and weigh them as most likely to achieve the desired outcome. If you only want one of several answers chosen, you have presented a "multiple choice question", not a hypothetical one.

Maybe you should hate yourself for not knowing what the word "hypothetical" means.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 335
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 12/4/2009 11:43:52 PM
>>>It would prevent the majority of our planets destruction.

I disagree- the production of electricity creates a vast majority of the worlds pollution. One wonders why you condemn others for causing unnecessary destruction of the planet, yet you yourself are indeed causing destruction.

>>>And if I could own a piece of land and farm it without having to worry about taxes, politics, etc, I would do it in a heart beat.

Hmm? Care to elaborate?

>>> You are the one trying to convince yourself you are right.

I'm not trying to convince anyone anything. I'm simply asking questions.

>>>Otherwise, why come to a board and attempt to justify your meat eating to a vegan?

Why would you come to a thread that challenges your diet, if you feel there is nothing to justify?

>>>Then I die. Simple as that. Big deal. Death is a part of life.

Curious, isn't it? Someone who believes it is abhorrent anyone to end a life is so causal and nonchalant about the end of a life.

You believe that vegetarianism is the only moral choice- that all other debate is moot- but you then state that, if faced between life and death, you choose death, and continue to state its the only choice.

So to follow your morality, under a situation where you do not have access to resources we currently have, the only choice available to keep your morality is to die. Sounds like a morality that has alot of respect for life.

>>> I don't fear death like you.

That's a rather large presumption. I don't fear death- I value my life over that of fish.

>>> People who fear death find it necessary to force their will on other people and other creatures.

Which, again, this brings to question South America and their use of their land. Shouldn't the people of these countries determine how they manage their resources? Or do you believe, as you've hinted before in the past, that it is your place to force your will onto the people of another country?

>>>You simply don't understand the purpose of a hypothetical question.

The purpose of this hypothetical was to challenge your integrity, and ask if you would keep your morality if put in challenging circumstances.



The reason I ask is that I have some friends that are into the PETA
and vegan philosopy, and I have wondered how deep their conviction is.

~The Original Post

>>>If you have a hypothesis, you must then look at all available information. In the case of a hypothetical question, one must look at all available scenarios and weigh them as most likely to achieve the desired outcome.

Odd thing to say;



If you were stranded on a desert island, that had nothing but water supply, inedible trees and nothing to to eat but fish and seals, would you eat the animals or
strave to death.

~The Original Post

So yea. The information available clearly stated that there was no alternative food source- that you had to kill an animal to survive. And your answer is to eat plants.

Either you didn't read the question, or you simply wanted to be an ass and choose an option that clearly have been denied.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 336
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 12/4/2009 11:49:50 PM
Ha! Post #3 for the win!


Jiperly

To be a fair comparison, you wouldn't have to merely eat another human- you'd have to kill and eat them.


Hell ya! ...I'd go see that movie.
 CoeyCoey
Joined: 2/13/2006
Msg: 337
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 12/5/2009 10:41:45 AM
Jiperly,

If there are animals, there are plants. And go back and learn what hypothetical means.

I will halt this discussion until you educate yourself about the damaging effects of animal agriculture. Here are some references for you to start your education.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956

Try reading more and playing video games less.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 338
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 12/5/2009 2:48:00 PM
>>>If there are animals, there are plants.

Not in this hypothetical. Like you said, in order to develop an accurate hypothesis, you must then look at all available information. The available information clearly stated -there-is-no-plants-- maybe these fish are migrating to your dinky little island to breed- maybe they eat food in the deeper oceans- I don't know- the OP didn't elaborate- but they were certainly clear on the circumstances- no plants.

So to go into a thread that asks "what would you eat if there were no plants", its just hard-headed and juvenile to say that there must be edible plants available, and that you'd eat plants.

>>>I will halt this discussion until you educate yourself about the damaging effects of animal agriculture.

Regardless, I will continue to ask such questions- like why do you condemn others for causing unnessary harm to the enviroment, while you seem to think theres no harm in harming the enviroment so you can surf the net. It seems to be hypocritical to me for someone to cry out against the destruction of the enviroment, blaming others while refusing to take responsiblity for their own actions

Nonetheless;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow#Questions_about_methodology
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 339
view profile
History
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/17/2011 3:16:15 PM
As a pescatarian (a former vegetarian that does eat seafood but not red meat, pork or chicken,) if a vegan decides to try to survive by becoming a pescatarian temporarily while stranded on a desert island, here's the non-hypothetical information they might need:

How To Survive Being Stranded On A Desert Island

"While it's important to hope for the best in life, it's also important to plan for the worst.
While no one expects to land on a deserted island, the fact of the matter is that it can happen.
There are a handful of key skills and activities you should be aware of if you want to survive on a deserted island.

1. Decide that you are going to do whatever it takes to survive. You're going to have to set aside just about every custom and preference you have if you're going to live for more than a few days on a deserted island.

2. Identify a clean source of fresh water. Safe drinking water is your first priority. If you don't have clean, safe drinking water within 3 to 4 days, you'll die. The further inland you go, the more likely you are to find fresh water.

3. Prepare to eat some strange things. After water, food is your next priority. You can safely consume most animals and seafood, provided they are cooked and not diseased. Snakes, crabs and even insects can provide the vital nutrients you need.

4. Find or make shelter. Before too long, you'll need some protection from the elements. A cave can be an acceptable shelter, assuming there aren't any dangerous animals that already occupy the cave.

5. Make a fire. It is extremely difficult to make a fire without matches or a lighter. Still, there are several methods of natural firemaking, from the bow method to the stereotypical rubbing together of sticks. Creating a fire will provide you comfort, warmth and a way to cook your food.

6. Let other people know where you are. Whether that's with a satellite phone that happened to survive the wreck along with you, or whether it's by placing rocks in a large "HELP" pattern on the beach, figure out ways to let planes and ships know you're in distress.

Source: http://www.ehow.com


Obviously, the ocean can be a good source but you can never be certain that every living creature will be good for consumption, so here are few tips to keep in mind:

1. Avoid consuming fish that have the appearance of spikes on their body.

2. Avoid eating jellyfish.

3. If a fish puffs up for protection, do not consume it.

4. Fish that appear to have “beaks” on their faces are also not a food type that is safe.

Source: http://www.survivalskillsoutdoors.com
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 340
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 6/9/2011 2:40:24 AM
Havent read any of this thread , but am sure this will fit right in
a musical interlude
Just sayin Give peas a chance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Smpu_JFxis&feature=related
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 341
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 6/9/2011 7:51:40 AM
What I'd like to know is whether or not it's ok for vegans to swallow.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >