Animal food-Is it acceptable?

[sin_is_fun]

I cannot come to a decision on this.Humans have multiplied to a huge extent.We dominate the world.All other animal species have become our slaves.We use horses,dogs and guinea pigs as our slaves.We kill animals very cruelly.

We can survive without animal food.All nutrients like protein,vitamins can be got at from plant foods and supplements.So why is it that we still justify eating meat?

[ST88]

Adequate amounts of vitamin B12 cannot be acquired by the human body through an exclusively vegetarian diet (vegan), and there is certainly not enough for pregnant women in a plant-based diet. Before the age of chemical B12 supplements, vegans either suffered from anemia because of the lack of B12, or else were forced to consume dried up calf's liver in order to get enough.

I did not talk about vegan diet.We can get B12 from milk.I dont recommend a vegan diet.Lacto vegetarianism will give you all nutrients you need.In south East Asia buddhist,hindu and jains never touch meat.They dont suffer from any anemia.Their pregnant women dont suffer from any defienency.Their population growth is a proof

Well, since your argument is against servitude as well as slaughter, shouldn't we also eliminate dairy from our diets? After all, the milk doesn't belong to us any more than the meat does.

We are no more hunters.We lost that title when we came out of forest.After that we became farmers,industrialists and have transformed us so much.Meat eating is no more a necessity now.We have evolved.We dont need food habits of a past bygone era now.When we are nomore called as hunters we nomore need hunting.

This is wishful thinking on your part. The instinct to hunt is still there, but we don't have an outlet for it, so we must channel it into something else, like sports, video games, and the work ethic. We may have evolved as a civilization, but we have not evolved physically for many thousands of years. Again, you may argue that we have made meat irrelevant technologically, but what does it say about us that we can acquire nutrients from meat? I probably need to say that I don't advocate an all-meat diet, but I also don't think taking something away as a food source is a good idea. There are too many unknowns in the food supply to constrain anyone's diet on a philosophical level. For example, there is currently a soybean fungus epidemic that is threatening the world's soybean supply. Soy is one of the most important products for obtaining nutrients in a non-meat diet. The problem will probably be solved by genetically engineered fungus-resistant varieties, but I think this illustrates the problem. If there is a source for nutrients that we can use, why in the world would we want to cut it off?

There is also additional evidence that food satiety is related to the "feeling" of fat and meat in the mouth. Though similar effects can be got from cashews and mushrooms (for example), these were presumably not widely available during the time in which humanity evolved, but meat was. The Japanese call this feeling (or taste), "umami," and is the reason why MSG is used in many Asian foods.

You can get fat from many other sources.Peanuts,oily food etc.

YYYYessss.... as I said. These foods were not as widely available as meat when humans were evolving.

We came a long way from being hunter-gatherers.Now people will even be offended if they are called as hunters and gatherers.Maybe tribals living in jungle can be called like that.Is it fair to call somebody who has never seen a jungle as hunter?

Who would be offended by being called a hunter-gatherer? I'd be interested in knowing. Ranching animals is the domestication of hunting, and agriculture is the domestication of gathering. There is no difference if we pay someone to do it for us. We are hunter-gatherers by proxy.

[Curious]

If God didn't want us to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat?

[sin_is_fun]

Only if you don't buy into the concepts they believe in. For western civilisations, "man is the measure of all things", not pain and pleasure, and if we consider that a culture can be esteemed advanced or enlightened by judging to what extent they believe in this maxim, then yes, they can call their civilisation enlightened and advanced.

They can hold any view.But as we progress this 'man as the measure of all things' have to take a back stage.With institutions like feminism growing 'man' will be replaced by 'human' and later on 'human' will be replaced by 'living being'.But that stage is far far away.

Do you think the minority southern states had a right to force their views on slaves? Why are you talking about rights if you already admitted that you don't believe in them?

Who gave us the right to force our views on animals?I never claimed animals have the right not to be killed."Rights" are the concessions given by the strong to the weak.

India and Pakistan would be the only examples, as far as I am aware. The reason I questioned you about it is that historically eunuchs occupied important social positions. They were keepers of the harems in the orient, in which the Indian eunuchs probably have their tradition, and in the west, they were adorable little chorists.

But they always were secluded from the main society.The reason they were inducted into harems was that are physically strong like a male but cannot take advantage of the king's women. Acceptance into harem doesnt mean acceptance into society.India and pakistan have one fifth of worlds population.

I disagree. They may be treated horribly, but that does not mean they aren't considered real humans. I believe the only reason you are saying such is the case is in an attempt to blur the distinction between animals and humans that you very well know exists.

You and me share the same definition for humans.But 5 million witches were burnt in medieval Europe.Witch hunters did not share the same definition which you and me share.

And Hitler dreamt of a world without Jews.

Hitler also had 2 legs and 2 hands.He ate like us and slept like us.Something doesnt become bad because hitler did it.For example Hitler was a vegetarian.

[sin_is_fun]

Well, since your argument is against servitude as well as slaughter, shouldn't we also eliminate dairy from our diets? After all, the milk doesn't belong to us any more than the meat does.

since cows cannot survive on their own in jungles we can protect them and get milk in turn.If we raise them in organic farms cruelty will not arise.

This is wishful thinking on your part. The instinct to hunt is still there, but we don't have an outlet for it, so we must channel it into something else, like sports, video games, and the work ethic. We may have evolved as a civilization, but we have not evolved physically for many thousands of years.

I disagree.When we were hunting we had sharp teeth and nails.Now those teeth and nails have disappeared.We have physically become unsuitable for hunting.We cannot run like animals.cannot live in trees anymore-so hunting has to end.

For example, there is currently a soybean fungus epidemic that is threatening the world's soybean supply. Soy is one of the most important products for obtaining nutrients in a non-meat diet. The problem will probably be solved by genetically engineered fungus-resistant varieties, but I think this illustrates the problem. If there is a source for nutrients that we can use, why in the world would we want to cut it off?

If you dont get soy protein you can very well live with a protein supplement/multivitamin now.The reason we want to cut off a food source is the cruelty and pain it inflicts on animals.When we only had that option we were justified in eating meat.But now we have so many other options there is no more justification in killing them.



Y

YYYessss.... as I said. These foods were not as widely available as meat when humans were evolving.

I did not say eating meat when we were evolving was wrong.Now that we have evolved and since now we have wide options why still kill animals?

Who would be offended by being called a hunter-gatherer? I'd be interested in knowing. Ranching animals is the domestication of hunting, and agriculture is the domestication of gathering. There is no difference if we pay someone to do it for us. We are hunter-gatherers by proxy.

Many buddhists in East who never touch meat will certainly be offended.
They dont hunt or dont pay someone to hunt for them.Once we too stop paying for hunting animals we too will not be called as hunters.

[Corvus]

Only if you don't buy into the concepts they believe in. For western civilisations, "man is the measure of all things", not pain and pleasure, and if we consider that a culture can be esteemed advanced or enlightened by judging to what extent they believe in this maxim, then yes, they can call their civilisation enlightened and advanced.

They can hold any view.But as we progress this 'man as the measure of all things' have to take a back stage.With institutions like feminism growing 'man' will be replaced by 'human' and later on 'human'...

I'll think you find that the word "man", in contexts such as these, has normally referred to "mankind", or every human. If man being the measure of all things is replaced with humans being the measure of all things, that's progress for politically correct language, not ethics.

will be replaced by 'living being'.But that stage is far far away.

A very big leap, and yes, if it happens at all, it will be far, far, far, far into the future.

Do you think the minority southern states had a right to force their views on slaves? Why are you talking about rights if you already admitted that you don't believe in them?

Who gave us the right to force our views on animals?I never claimed animals have the right not to be killed."Rights" are the concessions given by the strong to the weak.

Then you answered your own question. The strong need no permission to force their views upon the weak.

I disagree. They may be treated horribly, but that does not mean they aren't considered real humans. I believe the only reason you are saying such is the case is in an attempt to blur the distinction between animals and humans that you very well know exists.

You and me share the same definition for humans.But 5 million witches were burnt in medieval Europe.Witch hunters did not share the same definition which you and me share.

How do you know? Being a bad human in someone's eyes doesn't necessarily equate to not being completely human.

Also, 5 million witches burnt in medieval Europe? As far as I know, estimates vary from 40,000 to, at most, 100,000.

[sin_is_fun]

They can hold any view.But as we progress this 'man as the measure of all things' have to take a back stage.With institutions like feminism growing 'man' will be replaced by 'human' and later on 'human'...

I'll think you find that the word "man", in contexts such as these, has normally referred to "mankind", or every human. If man being the measure of all things is replaced with humans being the measure of all things, that's progress for politically correct language, not ethics.[/quote]

We still are very much a male dominant society.We only have elected white caucasian males as our presidents till now.We just pay lip service to feminism,thats all.

A very big leap, and yes, if it happens at all, it will be far, far, far, far into the future.

Landing in moon was also a dream.It came true one day.

Then you answered your own question. The strong need no permission to force their views upon the weak.

will you accept if slavery still continues?Wont you say "Avoid it.Dont illtreat the weak".Whether they will listen or not is different.But will you say so or not?

How do you know? Being a bad human in someone's eyes doesn't necessarily equate to not being completely human.

Not if they are given the status of "devil,demon and witch".These titles dont denote bad humans.

Also, 5 million witches burnt in medieval Europe? As far as I know, estimates vary from 40,000 to, at most, 100,000.

Davinci code claims 5 million witches were burnt.

proof:http://www.powells.com/review/2005_02_18.html

[Corvus]

Then you answered your own question. The strong need no permission to force their views upon the weak.

will you accept if slavery still continues?Wont you say "Avoid it.Dont illtreat the weak".Whether they will listen or not is different.But will you say so or not?

I'll be honest and say I don't know. I am a product of my culture, and to use my current cultural values to question what I would do if I lived in a completely different culture would be unfair. Probably I'd have a great deal of sympathy for slaves, but whether that sympathy would translate into activism outside of lecturing my fellow slave-owners occasionally in drawing room gatherings, I doubt it.

How do you know? Being a bad human in someone's eyes doesn't necessarily equate to not being completely human.

Not if they are given the status of "devil,demon and witch".These titles dont denote bad humans.

You won't concede the point, will you? Witch does denote a bad human, or at least a human doing bad things. No one was burned at the stake for being a devil or a demon. Witches were burnt for what they did, not what they were.

Also, 5 million witches burnt in medieval Europe? As far as I know, estimates vary from 40,000 to, at most, 100,000.

Davinci code claims 5 million witches were burnt.

proof:http://www.powells.com/review/2005_02_18.html

John Smith's Complete Book of Fictional Nonsense states 20 billion witches were burnt. Your own source claims that the Da Vinci code was wrong.

[sin_is_fun]

I'll be honest and say I don't know. I am a product of my culture, and to use my current cultural values to question what I would do if I lived in a completely different culture would be unfair. Probably I'd have a great deal of sympathy for slaves, but whether that sympathy would translate into activism outside of lecturing my fellow slave-owners occasionally in drawing room gatherings, I doubt it.

If all the enlightenment and knolwedge a man has attained is not used to remove an evil like slavery what is the use of possesing them?Compassion and love should transcend all cultures and values.Empathaizing with a suffering being is the true sign of enlightenment.If I am called as lecturing for doing so,I dont mind.If I am accused of being a cultural fascist, let it be so.

You won't concede the point, will you? Witch does denote a bad human, or at least a human doing bad things. No one was burned at the stake for being a devil or a demon. Witches were burnt for what they did, not what they were.

I used the word 'pseduo humans'. Pseudo humans will be treated lower than humans.For that I gave the example of eunuchs and witches and gays.Witches were thought of as 'evil incarnates' and 'inhuman'-clear examples that they were treated as pseudo humans.

John Smith's Complete Book of Fictional Nonsense states 20 billion witches were burnt. Your own source claims that the Da Vinci code was wrong.[/quote]

I gave that source only to prove that davinci code claims 5 million witches were burnt.Maybe you are correct or maybe dan brown is correct,I dont know for sure.

[steen]

Witch does denote a bad human, or at least a human doing bad things.

Hmm, I thought it denoted a wiccan priestess?

[Corvus]

Witch does denote a bad human, or at least a human doing bad things.

Hmm, I thought it denoted a wiccan priestess?

Sure, in modern times. Since Wicca was only created 60 years ago, it certainly doesn't refer to what the people of the middle ages thought of as witches. From what I understand, the medieval europe conception of a witch was somone who practiced magic, usually making bargains with devils in order to do so. Since they possess powers, it's a great deal more frightening than other crimes. Typically, witches were used as scapegoats. Bad crops? Maybe it was that weird old lady next door.

I used the word 'pseduo humans'. Pseudo humans will be treated lower than humans.

And pseudo means fake, not sub, which means below.

For that I gave the example of eunuchs and witches and gays.Witches were thought of as 'evil incarnates' and 'inhuman'-clear examples that they were treated as pseudo humans.

Nonsense. You are providing your own spin on history. You are assuming what the thoughts of people are based on how they treated other people. This is a flawed assumption.

John Smith's Complete Book of Fictional Nonsense states 20 billion witches were burnt. Your own source claims that the Da Vinci code was wrong.

I gave that source only to prove that davinci code claims 5 million witches were burnt.Maybe you are correct or maybe dan brown is correct,I dont know for sure.

Dan Brown is definitely incorrect, and I have no interest in knowing what he writes in a work of fiction and am quite surprised to see you present it as evidence. Modern scholars who have research to back up their claims say the number is significantly lower.