No more meat?

[Gauthier]

Other creatures eat meat because that's how they stay alive. Show me a creature that has to rape in order to stay alive and you might have a point.

Did you ignore everything I typed in the post you replied to? Here, I'll highlight the more important part.

Your argument was that other creatures do it, thus it's morally okay. Now you're changing the parameters to how important it is? Here we go again with you guys shifting the focus to avoid the fact your argument is laughable. But fine, I'll play your game. Eating is innate to a creature's survival, yes. But, we have the choice of whether to eat meat or not and live healthy lives.

Again, your argument was that one creature does it and isn't demonized, thus it is morally defensible for us to do it, lest we be hypocrites. I used this argument against you and applied it to rape. You then move the parameters to the importance of said action, making no mention of this in the beginning. Regardless, I already addressed your point in the first place. I NEVER said that species need rape to survive. NEVER. Yet you insist that I have even hinted at such a thing. Stop dodging my points.

The problem here is you're equivocating a biologically necessary function like eating to an absurd and not to mention biologically unnecessary activity like rape. Picking up tips on hyperbole from TMI suppose? Which is why I brought up you suggesting some creatures need rape to survive.

[Srboslavija]

Gotta think that most of the 9bil in 2050 will be muslim, and praise allah they don't eat pig meat. Hence not to worry, there will always be pork on my fork.

[Mavorpen]

The problem here is you're equivocating a biologically necessary function like eating to an absurd and not to mention biologically unnecessary activity like rape. Picking up tips on hyperbole from TMI suppose? Which is why I brought up you suggesting some creatures need rape to survive.

No, I didn't. At all. Importance or necessity had nothing to do with my argument. I didn't equate rape to eating at all. I took your logic and applied it to another scenario. YOU never said anything about importance in the first place, which is why I used rape as another example that your logic doesn't follow suit.

ONCE again, address my refutation of this though. Eating is a necessity, but eating meat is not for humans. So your equivalence comparing us to lions eating meat was off the mark anyway.

[Englonia]

Maybe we should colonize space for moar meat.

[Gauthier]

The problem here is you're equivocating a biologically necessary function like eating to an absurd and not to mention biologically unnecessary activity like rape. Picking up tips on hyperbole from TMI suppose? Which is why I brought up you suggesting some creatures need rape to survive.

No, I didn't. At all. Importance or necessity had nothing to do with my argument. I didn't equate rape to eating at all. I took your logic and applied it to another scenario. YOU never said anything about importance in the first place, which is why I used rape as another example that your logic doesn't follow suit.

ONCE again, address my refutation of this though. Eating is a necessity, but eating meat is not for humans. So your equivalence comparing us to lions eating meat was off the mark anyway.

Human dentristry has a combination of teeth made for both tearing through meat and grinding up vegetable matter. That's evidence of omnivorous disposition. Yes, humans can survive on mostly meat or mostly vegetable diet, but declaring human beings herbivorous is just propaganda.

[Mavorpen]

Human dentristry has a combination of teeth made for both tearing through meat and grinding up vegetable matter. That's evidence of omnivorous disposition. Yes, humans can survive on mostly meat or mostly vegetable diet, but declaring human beings herbivorous is just propaganda.

How are our teeth omnivorous? They are in fact, herbivorous. I get the feeling you were talking about canines, and if so, I'll save you the reading. Our canine teeth are not built for tearing through meat, at all. They are pathetic excuses for canines compared to the canines of many herbivorous species such as hippos, gorillas, and orangutans.

Even ignoring all of this, what does this have to do with morals? Absolutely nothing. If we can survive without meat, why eat it and kill other beings in the process?

[Stroznia]

Show me a creature that has to rape in order to stay alive and you might have a point.

Actually a lot of animals reproduce EXCLUSIVELY with rape.
It's called "forced copulation" and it's especially common in insects and birds.

Articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sex ... ercive_sex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiolo ... ercive_sex

[Stroznia]

How are our teeth omnivorous? They are in fact, herbivorous.

Yeah.... NO.

You don't want to dispute the "humans are omnivores" thing.
This is an article from a vegetarian website by a vegetarian primatologist and even HE concedes that we are omnivores:
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

quotes:

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores:
Archeological Record
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.

Cell Types
Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.

Fermenting Vats
Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.

Jaws
Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.
The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.

Salivary Glands
These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.
Intestines
Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.

Conclusion
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

[Mavorpen]

Yeah.... NO.

You don't want to dispute the "humans are omnivores" thing.
This is an article from a vegetarian website by a vegetarian primatologist and even HE concedes that we are omnivores:
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

quotes:

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores:
Archeological Record
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.

Cell Types
Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.

Fermenting Vats
Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.

Jaws
Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.
The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.

Salivary Glands
These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.
Intestines
Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.

Conclusion
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

Too bad I did. Our sources disagree with each other. I already said this isn't even the core of the debate.

[The Mongrel Republic]

Already ahead of the curve. And I'm not eating meat that was cultured in a vat in some Soylent factory. The question now is, WTF do we all do now?

THIS: viewtopic.php?p=10806843#p10806843

So, what you're saying is:

"fuck them brown people, amirite?"

[The Realm of God]

I still think insect farming is the way to go.

[The Mongrel Republic]

How are our teeth omnivorous? They are in fact, herbivorous.

Yeah.... NO.

You don't want to dispute the "humans are omnivores" thing.
This is an article from a vegetarian website by a vegetarian primatologist and even HE concedes that we are omnivores:
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

quotes:

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores:
Archeological Record
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.

Cell Types
Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.

Fermenting Vats
Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.

Jaws
Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.
The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.

Salivary Glands
These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.
Intestines
Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.

Conclusion
Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

This is part of the reason that I still eat some meat, besides the fact I enjoy steak and bacon once in a while.

[The Mongrel Republic]

I still think insect farming is the way to go.

Maybe this just a rumor, but I heard that the meat in a McDonald's burger is mostly ground up mealworms.

[Apurture Labs]

What we need is for healthy individuals die, we grind them up into foodstuff. With a near infinite supply of humans killing over this would be a great way to harvest meat. Also those whom are suicidal could donate there body for the masses. Killing two birds with one soylant burger.

[Norsklow]

Anyone who can choose which food to eat is rich.
Anyone who can afford to worry about the moral consequences of his choices on a full belly is both rich and decadent.

I side with the Barbarians. Granted - I have the luxury to think about it with a full belly.

[Wisconsin9]

Anyone who can choose which food to eat is rich.
Anyone who can afford to worry about the moral consequences of his choices on a full belly is both rich and decadent.

I side with the Barbarians. Granted - I have the luxury to think about it with a full belly.

We're not all worried about the moral consequences. Some of us are just worried about the consequences on our health and the environment.

[Mavorpen]

Anyone who can choose which food to eat is rich.
Anyone who can afford to worry about the moral consequences of his choices on a full belly is both rich and decadent.

I side with the Barbarians. Granted - I have the luxury to think about it with a full belly.

We're not all worried about the moral consequences. Some of us are just worried about the consequences on our health and the environment.

Psh! Obviously we're all just human hating psychopaths.

[The Mongrel Republic]

We're not all worried about the moral consequences. Some of us are just worried about the consequences on our health and the environment.

Psh! Obviously we're all just human hating psychopaths.

No, some of us are misanthropes. Most of my best friends are misanthropes.

[Sokyevka]

Although i am an extreme meat lover, I guess I could live with being a vegetarian.....as long as I don't have to eat any tofu.

[Norsklow]

Anyone who can choose which food to eat is rich.
Anyone who can afford to worry about the moral consequences of his choices on a full belly is both rich and decadent.

I side with the Barbarians. Granted - I have the luxury to think about it with a full belly.

We're not all worried about the moral consequences. Some of us are just worried about the consequences on our health and the environment.

Well,mate, if you spent a couple of years in a real 3rd world country experiencing real starvation ( them, not me) you might think that a total irrelevancy. There is nothing so effective in getting a very tight focus on the REAL matters at hand as watching a bunch of folks starve to death. I am by no means imploring you to go and have a look. I wish I had never seen it.

But I have learned one basic principle. Always finish your plate,even if you think Polenta is totally le-suck. I do not presume to hold a higher moral level than that on food-'issues'.

Because there is always someone who would have lived if only there had been a way to magically transport the food you didn't want to his or her part of the global woods.

I side with the Barbarians.

[Mavorpen]

Well,mate, if you spent a couple of years in a real 3rd world country experiencing real starvation ( them, not me) you might think that a total irrelevancy. There is nothing so effective in getting a very tight focus on the REAL matters at hand as watching a bunch of folks starve to death. I am by no means imploring you to go and have a look. I wish I had never seen it.

But I have learned one basic principle. Always finish your plate,even if you think Polenta is totally le-suck. I do not presume to hold a higher moral level than that on food-'issues'.

Because there is always someone who would have lived if only there had been a way to magically transport the food you didn't want to his or her part of the global woods.

You do know that meat consumption is one of the biggest reasons for starvation in third world countries, right?

[Trollgaard]

Human dentristry has a combination of teeth made for both tearing through meat and grinding up vegetable matter. That's evidence of omnivorous disposition. Yes, humans can survive on mostly meat or mostly vegetable diet, but declaring human beings herbivorous is just propaganda.

How are our teeth omnivorous? They are in fact, herbivorous. I get the feeling you were talking about canines, and if so, I'll save you the reading. Our canine teeth are not built for tearing through meat, at all. They are pathetic excuses for canines compared to the canines of many herbivorous species such as hippos, gorillas, and orangutans.

Even ignoring all of this, what does this have to do with morals? Absolutely nothing. If we can survive without meat, why eat it and kill other beings in the process?

Because it tastes good, is healthy if eaten in proper amounts, and is highly regarded in most societies past and present.

And yes, humans are, and always have been omnivores. To pretend otherwise is willful ignorance and foolish.

[Mavorpen]

Because it tastes good, is healthy if eaten in proper amounts, and is highly regarded in most societies past and present.

None of this has anything to do with morality.

And yes, humans are, and always have been omnivores. To pretend otherwise is willful ignorance and foolish.

This has nothing to do with morality.

[Trollgaard]

Well,mate, if you spent a couple of years in a real 3rd world country experiencing real starvation ( them, not me) you might think that a total irrelevancy. There is nothing so effective in getting a very tight focus on the REAL matters at hand as watching a bunch of folks starve to death. I am by no means imploring you to go and have a look. I wish I had never seen it.

But I have learned one basic principle. Always finish your plate,even if you think Polenta is totally le-suck. I do not presume to hold a higher moral level than that on food-'issues'.

Because there is always someone who would have lived if only there had been a way to magically transport the food you didn't want to his or her part of the global woods.

You do know that meat consumption is one of the biggest reasons for starvation in third world countries, right?

Sounds like bullshit to me. Why don't you explain why.

I'll guess though. Its because we could use the resources used to raise cattle, pigs, etc to grow more vegetables, fruit, wheat, etc and ship it to other countries.

Possibly, but can they pay for it? Why should we lower are standards for them? Why don't they keep their own populations in check? Why are we obligated to help? all that type of jazz.

Their not having food is their own problem. They should keep their population at a level their own country can support through domestic agriculture and imports.

[Trollgaard]

Because it tastes good, is healthy if eaten in proper amounts, and is highly regarded in most societies past and present.

None of this has anything to do with morality.

And yes, humans are, and always have been omnivores. To pretend otherwise is willful ignorance and foolish.

This has nothing to do with morality.

Morality has nothing to do with food. Get over yourself.

Eating meat is not immoral. Is a lion eating a gazelle immoral? No. Again, kindly get off you high horse and step into the real world.