Vege

[lord of the mark]

How about eating only meat that has been raised using humane procedures? Would you torture a dog for the fun of it? Then why raise animals in painful conditions so meat can be cheaper?


I havent gotten to this point, but it would seem to be the ethical approach. And it doesnt require that animal life be considered sacred.

[GePap]

Originally posted by General Ludd

Saying that you should hunt, farm, and even industrialise the process of meat eating because 100,000 year ago our ancestors scavanged some meat is pretty nonsensical. (And nevermind that if we use those same ancestors as a model we can justify all sorts of things.)

Anthropological evidence seems very clear that man was more than just a scavanger of meat back 100,000 years ago-but that we did hunt extensively. We not only had a hand in wipping out many large mammal species, but perhaps as well other members of the Genus Homo.

I don't think so. Morality is usually the crux of all my arguments. I'm not someone that's going to play semantics to justify things like rape, murder and war, or the motivations behind them. I feel that the notions of dominance, superiority and "might makes right" are unethical. I don't think this is an uncommon position, yet few people apply it to it's full extent. I try to, which is why I am vegetarian.

We eat animals not out of dominance, but becuase we can digest them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
How about eating only meat that has been raised using humane procedures? Would you torture a dog for the fun of it? Then why raise animals in painful conditions so meat can be cheaper?

Well, you just answered your question: rainsing the animals in cramped horrific conditions increases profits, and food production in large sections of the modern world is simply a business, they will do whatever leads to highest profits.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Anthropological evidence seems very clear that man was more than just a scavanger of meat back 100,000 years ago-but that we did hunt extensively. We not only had a hand in wipping out many large mammal species, but perhaps as well other members of the Genus Homo.



We eat animals not out of dominance, but becuase we can digest them.

1. IIUC there considerable controversy about the notion of a Clovis extinction in the New World. Which gets to precisely the issue of the notion of "man the hunter" its not by any means a settled issue.

2. We can digest lion. Lion isnt eaten very often. If you cant dominate your prey, being able to digest it isnt very meaningful.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, you just answered your question: rainsing the animals in cramped horrific conditions increases profits, and food production in large sections of the modern world is simply a business, they will do whatever leads to highest profits.

Im not asking the motivations of the producers. Raising termites for sale as food would be profitable, if there was a market for it. There isnt. Why cant we as CONSUMERS say we wont eat meat raised inhumanely?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. IIUC there considerable controversy about the notion of a Clovis extinction in the New World. Which gets to precisely the issue of the notion of "man the hunter" its not by any means a settled issue.

2. We can digest lion. Lion isnt eaten very often. If you cant dominate your prey, being able to digest it isnt very meaningful.

and of course we can also digest other humans. As is shown in numerous cultures where its a not uncommon practice, and in survival situtations as well.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. IIUC there considerable controversy about the notion of a Clovis extinction in the New World. Which gets to precisely the issue of the notion of "man the hunter" its not by any means a settled issue.

TMany species were wiped out on all mayor continents besides Africa at the end of the last ice age at the same time man spread out-this occured in Asia, Europe, Australia and so forth. So there is more than just the America's, thought the assault in the America's was even more dramatic.

2. We can digest lion. Lion isnt eaten very often. If you cant dominate your prey, being able to digest it isnt very meaningful.

Man dominates Lions- that we don;t eat them is based on going after them for food is not worth the time.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
How about eating only meat that has been raised using humane procedures?

Would you your raise a child only so that you can kill him... however well you treat him in life, or however painless his death is ? I don't think the practice of raising animals for slaughter can ever be considered truely 'humane'.

I suppose that a human equivelant (to establish what would be 'humane') would be sacrificial virgins that are raised for sacrifice in some cultures. They are treated well in life - better then most usually - but does that justify killing them?

But I suppose there's no denying that regardless of wether you want to believe it is unethical or not, it would certainly go some ways of easing people's conscious (which is no doubt why sacrificial virgins are often treated with such luxury in life) and if the animals we raised where all treated like kings, it is unlikely vegetarianism would be as big an issue.

We eat animals not out of dominance, but becuase we can digest them.

And we rape not out of dominance, but because we can impregnate them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


TMany species were wiped out on all mayor continents besides Africa at the end of the last ice age at the same time man spread out-this occured in Asia, Europe, Australia and so forth. So there is more than just the America's, thought the assault in the America's was even more dramatic.



Man dominates Lions- that we don;t eat them is based on going after them for food is not worth the time.

Hunting in general is not the worth the time today. In that period when hunting gathering dominated the human diet, human dominance of lions was incomplete, I would say.

[GePap]

Originally posted by General Ludd
And we rape not out of dominance, but because we can impregnate them.

No, rapists aren't looking for kids.

Care to invoke Goodwin at some point? I am sure you will at some point.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Hunting in general is not the worth the time today. In that period when hunting gathering dominated the human diet, human dominance of lions was incomplete, I would say.

A determined group of human hunters will beat a group of lions-might not be easy, but we have a huge leg up on them. Hunters would rather exterminate lions to then forster other animals.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Would you your raise a child only so that you can kill him... however well you treat him in life, or however painless his death is ? I don't think the practice of raising animals for slaughter can ever be considered truely 'humane'.

I suppose that a human equivelant (to establish what would be 'humane') would be sacrificial virgins that are raised for sacrifice in some cultures. They are treated well in life - better then most usually - but does that justify killing them?

Humans can visualize a future, and therefore depriving them of that future is, arguably, doing them harm. An animal can feel pain, but cant visualize a future. Ergo its unethical to inflict unnecessary pain on them, but not to kill them.

I realize this would allow the raising of humans for meat in certain circumstances. I of course would not do that for religous reasons relating to the sacredness of life - I also base my goal of vegetarianism on that, to some extent - however I dont expect to convince the atheists here on these grounds. Im trying to establish a basis for dietary change thats NOT based on an appeal to the sacredness of life.

[GePap]

Raising humans for meat by humans is crossing the cannibalism tabboo, which while some societies will do they generally do by hunting in some way, since I guess humand would catch on pretty quickly to the whole being cattle fact.

Now, raising of humans to be eaten by aliens, well, as we know, To Serve Man....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


A determined group of human hunters will beat a group of lions-might not be easy, but we have a huge leg up on them. Hunters would rather exterminate lions to then forster other animals.

at some point if Dominance requires resources that you as a general rule arent willing to exert, its not dominance.

All the slaves of Rome acting together could have won their freedom - but they decided it wasnt worth it. Ergo, they were NOT dominant,

Whats the quote ?
"the master is a master because hes willing to die to preserve the privilege of being a master, while the slave remains a slave because he is NOT willing to die to stop being a slave" ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Raising humans for meat by humans is crossing the cannibalism tabboo, which while some societies will do they generally do by hunting in some way, since I guess humand would catch on pretty quickly to the whole being cattle fact.

Now, raising of humans to be eaten by aliens, well, as we know, To Serve Man....

and your point is .....?