Vege

[Imran Siddiqui]

Reference, please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

Nociception, one of the physiological senses, is the term commonly used to refer to the perception of physiological pain. Pain in this context can be defined as a harmful stimulus which signals current (or impending) tissue damage. As a result and despite its unpleasantness, pain is nonetheless a critical component of the body's defence system...

...even plants can demonstrate the ability to retract from a noxious stimulus.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by GePap
Will eating meat actually kill them? I highly doubt it, unless they eat it in vast quantities-it should just pass trought the system relatively undigested. I am sure it would not be comfortable, but not deadly. After all, you can eat a bunch of grass and it won't kill you- you just won't digest any of it.

Nope, the enzymes present in meat are indigestible to cows and will kill them. Unless other measures are taken to avoid it, such as pumping them full of antibiotics. This is why the mass-produced cows are full of such antibiotics, as their feed contains enymes they cannot ordinarliy digest (albeit grain, not meat, but it's still something they can't handle, as they should only be eating grass).

If you were to feed meat to a cow, the effects would be quite unpleasant for it and lead to death if untreated. There was an article in the NYT Magazine last year about mass-produced cattle that rather graphically described what occurs sans antibiotics.

The rumen is always producing copious amounts of gas, which is normally expelled by belching during rumination. But on a non-grass diet, rumination all but stops, and a layer of foamy slime that can trap gas forms in the rumen. The rumen inflates like a balloon, pressing against the animal's lungs. Unless action is promptly taken to relieve the pressure (usually by forcing a hose down the animal's esophagus), the cow suffocates.

[GePap]

Okie dokie.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It wasn't long ago that africans where thought to possess no worthwhile intelligence.

Yes, that's nice, but brain-wave data and evidence of the ability to reason shows that believe to be false.

But, again, this is saying that humans are superior because they posses the means to impose dominance ( I have already brought this up in the debate) and is still the same logic used by all oppresors and tyrants - that might makes right.

Might does make right. It isn't some 'logic' which is used, but what actually occurs. It's the "jungle". In the wild might makes right. The lion kills the antelope because it is mightier. Why can't we do the same?

Our teeth aren't very well suited for eating animals, really. We can not easily tear flesh apart and we can't bite through bones and get at the marrow, ect..

We can tear flesh apart easily enough. We don't need to get at the marrow. Our cuspids can rip flesh from body.

Our weapons are tools . ie. we are not naturally hunters.

As GePap said...

[Combat Ingrid]

Imran, I mean a reference that supports your statement
But sure, if you want to define pain very loosely, you could of course claim that also bacteria experience pain, as they withdraw from harmful chemicals

Even machines can be trained to avoid heat sources, does that mean they feel pain?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


No, I don't know how you're using "natural." Define it. It is certainly not an absolute concept.

As you go on to say, I believe in evolution. I believe that it is absolute. And that's what natural means to me - the difference between the 'natural world' and that which we have created, outside of evolution.



We may be 'omnivores' (while leaning so far to vegetarianism our ancestors would probably be considered such by todays standards) but it is not our role in nature to hunt and kill. As I said, the most we would ever naturally be is scavengers and opportunists.

Cows can't eat meat because it will kill them. We can it meat without any such fear.

Just a technicality, but cows are often fed meat and such. Not that I'm saying it's healthy for them.

[General Ludd]

It isn't some 'logic' which is used, but what actually occurs. It's the "jungle". In the wild might makes right. The lion kills the antelope because it is mightier. Why can't we do the same?

You are, again, justifying your superiority by comparing your actions to what you consider lesser.

But a lion does not kill an antelope because it can, it kills the antelope because it has to.

As GePap said...

yes, he agreed with me aswell. We need tools to hunt.

Would anyone else like to say the same thing?

Might does make right.

As I said from the start, fascists are excluded and my argument here really only applies to people with somewhat liberals views. So, bye. *wave*

[GePap]

Originally posted by General Ludd

yes, he agreed with me aswell. We need tools to hunt.

Would anyone else like to say the same thing?

Yes, we need tools to hunt large game or fish..

But tool use is a natural human behavior-the genus Homo has been using tools for at least 1 million years, our species is onjly about 100,000 years old-we came into existance using tools.

Again, birds nests are made by birds-are you saying they are not natural?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by General Ludd
As you go on to say, I believe in evolution. I believe that it is absolute. And that's what natural means to me - the difference between the 'natural world' and that which we have created, outside of evolution.

Nothing is outside evolution, it is the mechanism by which we live. And nothing is absolute either. Please explain what sort of metaphysical, magical "absolute" exists that means humans shouldn't eat meat. Dear lord, you're talking like a Creationist...listen to yourself!

Our use of tools is just as much an evolutionary product as birds nest or beaver dams, as GePap points out. The very concept of "unnatural" is flawed. It's certainly a piss-poor rationale for condemning omnivorous activity, just as it is a piss-poor rationale for condemning homosexuality or whatever. "Natural" is not an ethical or moral concept, and you're misusing the word to apply it as such.

We may be 'omnivores' (while leaning so far to vegetarianism our ancestors would probably be considered such by todays standards) but it is not our role in nature to hunt and kill. As I said, the most we would ever naturally be is scavengers and opportunists.

Irrelevant. Our role in nature is based on the present, not the past. You're misusing the word nature to be something it isn't, some past "edenic" ideal that is absolute. This isn't true, as the role of species in the world is in constant flux. Evolution should have proven that to you.

We have evolved so that our natural role is as omnivores who eat a great deal of meat. So it's as natural as it gets for us.

Just a technicality, but cows are often fed meat and such. Not that I'm saying it's healthy for them.

No, it is very unhealthy for them. There is a reason the FDA banned having animal parts in livestock feed--madcow disease. There are plenty of other health concerns as well.

This is why, by the way, human cannibalism is a bad idea. It was probably an evolutionary mechanism that rendered eating one's own in some species a health hazard.

[Az]

As you go on to say, I believe in evolution. I believe that it is absolute. And that's what natural means to me - the difference between the 'natural world' and that which we have created, outside of evolution.

The developement of tools by humans is a part of evolution.

We may be 'omnivores' (while leaning so far to vegetarianism our ancestors would probably be considered such by todays standards) but it is not our role in nature to hunt and kill. As I said, the most we would ever naturally be is scavengers and opportunists.

Chimps do it. Why don't you think that humans couldn't do it back in the day, when actually better equipped?

I'd actually like to point out that the "superior" argument is false. If an alien uber race would land, and start enslaving us for food, would it be "right"? nope. If we'd manage to kill them all and eat them, would THAT be right? yes.

[GePap]

Bears obviously can kill large game and eat flesh-they also eat berries and nuts and scavange whatever-they are, like man, omnivores. eating other animals is not the same as being a carnivore- a carnivore subsist on hunting and can't live really on other sources.

Of course, creatures that eat oinly insects are not classified as ocarnivores, but an omnivore can eat insects. Do you think it immoral to eat insects?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Even machines can be trained to avoid heat sources, does that mean they feel pain?

It's not a natural reaction to the stimus. But yes, I'd say bacteria can feel pain.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But a lion does not kill an antelope because it can, it kills the antelope because it has to.

For food right? Humans kill animals for food as well. I guess that means you think bears should stop eating meat because it can also eat berries.

As I said from the start, fascists are excluded and my argument here really only applies to people with somewhat liberals views. So, bye. *wave*

You can start excluding people from debates when you get your head out of your ass and learn what fascism really is (ie, never)! Of course the main reason you want me out of the debate is because, in the words of Azazel... I PWNED you something rotten.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I PWNED you something rotten.

Hey, share the credit. We're all pwning him here.

[Last Conformist]

Some points:

All biological taxa are in the final instance arbitrary, but high level ones (like "animal") are more arbitrary than low-level ones (like "human"). There are operational tests for judging whether two individuals belong to the same species, but nothing like it for judging kingdom affiliation.

Chimps can and will break bones to get at the marrow. It should be perfectly possible for humans too, even sans tools, since we're bigger and at least as strong.

No-one's ever given me a consistent explanation of "natural" that has not amounted to "whatever happens".

Someone said all animals have central nervous systems. My biology textbook disagrees.

The ideas that humans are "outside of evolution" or engage in activities that are "unnatural" are pretty much mutually incompatible with the view that we're not apart from other animal species.


For Mr Ludd's benefit, I did not suggest equating humans and potatoes. I wondered why he found it more logical to equate humans and cows than humans and potatoes.